You really have no idea what you are talking about. The current Mac Pro already exists as an 8 or 12 core CPU. Build to order and choose either 8 or 12 cores.
Who peed in your wheaties? Calm down and take a few deep breaths then you will notice that I clarified what I meant shortly below my first post.
Then click this link because I think it might be of value.
"meager demand"? And what's that based on? do you know how many units they've shipped, how many are on order? They obviously have more orders than they can fulfill, which is all we know.
Duh.
Yes, I've priced the processors Apple uses (actually more expensive ones that are dual-processor-capable, which the ones in the Mac Pro are not). A dual 12-core system with a decent graphics card (for graphics only) costs less than Apple's top of the line Mac Pro and smokes it performance-wise.
Yes, I've priced the processors Apple uses (actually more expensive ones that are dual-processor-capable, which the ones in the Mac Pro are not). A dual 12-core system with a decent graphics card (for graphics only) costs less than Apple's top of the line Mac Pro and smokes it performance-wise.
Performance is relative to the application you are using. Let's say for sake of example that we are rendering movies. Me, on a 12 core Mac Pro using FCP X and you on a dual 12-core PC using Avid or Premiere on Windows 8. What do you think the difference would be rendering a 15 second TV commercial, or a 1 hour 4K documentary? Right, you can't answer that question because you don't own a dual 12-core machine or a Mac Pro. Unless you have some laboratory controlled application specific comparisons you are just speculating. Mac Pro is super fast and runs OS X which is preferable to running Windows on any hardware to many media and graphics professionals, so you can take your higher spec'ed machine and go play a video game, we professionals really don't care about raw specs.
I'm using two of the Sharp 4k monitors right now on my new 12-core Mac Pro... anyone that is complaining about them doesn't know what they're talking about. Great color. Great viewing angles. 4k at 60hz. And of course: TONS OF PIXELS!
I think people just don't know how to configure them. You have to go into the menu on the monitor and turn on MultiStreamTransport (MST) to get 60hz. As usual... people don't even read the documentation before complaining.
My older 12-core Mac Pro has 3x30" Dell monitors on it... and they look ancient when I switch over to that machine. 4k is definitely the future.
I also just ordered 2x28" Samsung 4k monitors to try those out on my other new 12-core Mac Pro which should be showing up any day now (hopefully this story means it will show up faster!). I'll be able to compare the cheap ($700!) Samsung's against the expensive (over $3000) Sharps... we'll see how that goes.
Oh - and if you think that no one uses these things I'm currently running a simulation that is using 30GB of RAM and is destroying all 12 cores. If they would have made a 24-core Mac Pro I definitely would have bought that.
Oh - and I have done the pricing on dual 12-core Linux workstations. To get one similarly configured from a reputable builder (like Boxx) it's about $12k to $13k. Now - that's not THAT far above the ~$8k I pay for the Mac Workstations... but it's not for free either.
I did price out a "build my own" and I could build a dual 12-core system myself with good parts for about $9k to $10k (yes, you can do it cheaper if you cheap out on a few components - but when we're talking about a machine that I rely on for work I would never try to shave $1k off to get inferior parts).
Ultimately, being able to use OSX and have all the Thunderbolt goodness... and being able to jack in multiple 4k monitors (and have them actually work out of the box) swayed me to go Mac again...
In a few years I'll do that math again and see where I end up....
Yes, I've priced the processors Apple uses (actually more expensive ones that are dual-processor-capable, which the ones in the Mac Pro are not). A dual 12-core system with a decent graphics card (for graphics only) costs less than Apple's top of the line Mac Pro and smokes it performance-wise.
It's not just the price of the processors, it's the rest of it that goes along with the box. They'd need a bigger case, more expensive cooling and at the end, it may not really yield that much better performance for the amount they would have to charge, and the amount of units they'd actually sell, wouldn't be desirable enough at this time. They are obviously going after a targeted market and that targeted market doesn't need as much CPU power as they do GPU power. What apps that are commonly used on OS X that would take advantage of dual processing vs GPU processing? Sure, there is an advantage of dual processing, but it's not twice as fast, but with everything involved, it would be almost 2x as much to make. (bigger case, more expensive cooling system, processors, and processor boards, and power supply). Would the added cost and performance be worthwhile is the question. Just looking at just the processor isn't enough to look at when costing these out. There's a lot more involved than that. And how many additional units would they actually sell? From the articles and reviews i've read and having talked to some people that do video production, the units they have out now are perfectly fine for up to 4K video production without too much trouble. Adding a second CPU might not be that advantageous. The Top end audio production people generally use Pro Tools HD cards, which do the processing, OR the top end system that's out is perfectly capable of doing the most processor intensive recording I can think of. It can handle lots of tracks/plug-ins that even the most demanding project could handle without the ProTools cards. so, I would have to look at what apps would greatly benefit from dual processing that would be done on a MacPro. My understanding is that Apple still has a ways to go to make OS X more friendly with dual processing as its not where it could be as far as efficiency. But since I'm not a programmer, I have to rely on those that are, so this is what I've been told by programmers that I've talked to.
Now that they finally have a truly new Mac Pro I expect we will likely start seeing upgrades far more often than in the past.
I would hope so but they won't come any faster than Intel and AMD can deliver the updates. At best you will get a major update about every two years. It is a simple fact of life that this caliber of hardware does not get revved the way consumer grade components do.
It is likely an 8 or possibly even a 12 core version will appear.
Actually the newest Intel XEONs come with processor complexes grouped in units of five cores so I would imagine next years Macs would have 5, 10, 15 & possibly 20 cores.
Looks like all those people that said no one uses a desktop Mac anymore were dead wrong if they can't even meet demand.
You have no idea what demand is, Apple could just as well be bottlenecked somewhere else.
I realize the MP sells in tiny numbers compared to a Macbook Air but still a good sign.
Well we can hope that it is a good sign. Honestly though I like to think of this machine as proof of concept, when Apple has access to the next process shrinks this machine should really come into its own.
I really doubt that you will ever see a dual socket machine. I fully expect that the next round or two of XEONs will keep people happy for a long while. A 20 core chip shouldn't be far away.
Cost and need come to mind. Have you priced those processors? And everyone I know that is buying a Mac Pro isn't seeing any benefit from buying anything more than a quad-core.
Honestly if they can't leverage the cores then they didn't need a Mac Pro in the first place.
Actually the newest Intel XEONs come with processor complexes grouped in units of five cores so I would imagine next years Macs would have 5, 10, 15 & possibly 20 cores.
Will the chipsets get smaller and more power efficient as they reduce the nodes or will they just add more features to keep them around the same size? I ask because I wonder if Apple's longterm plan with this Mac Pro is to place two chips next to each other on the CPU board.
Where are all the MacPro haters that were infesting this forum a few months ago? They are conveniently nowhere to be seen? Looks like this machine is more popular that these basement-dwellers were expecting... Again!! Where are the crybabies screaming on how they can build a franken-PC with desktop (not workstation) class chips, with more RAM (not ECC-RAM), and more capacity (not SSD) than Apple and at 1/4 the price??
Once again, they're eating humble-pie at the diner down the road from mommy's house.
Most recent Mac revenue was $5.519b on units of 4.136m and driven by laptop sales.
Laptops have been above 75% and at that level it's around 3.1m laptops. The iMac would be around 750k going by Q1 2013 figures so that leaves 284k between the Mini and Pro. That's a bit low so the laptops might have dropped below 75% this quarter and/or iMacs could have dropped.
The Mac Pro isn't selling in huge volumes relatively because the revenue would be much higher if that was the case. However, if it had been selling 50k units/qtr in the past, they may have designed the supply chain for that amount. The problem with such low volumes is you can't fill retail channels like you can with laptops so peak demand would cause a backlog.
The entire workstation market is ~900k units per quarter and the asp is down at ~$1500 so for Apple to take ~15% of the market (100-150k units) with a minimum price of $3k is good enough and it's what they always do - go after the premium portion of the market.
As for dual processors, it doesn't help all that much. Intel has quite a high price on the 12-core chip so dual 8-core would offer better performance per dollar but it's not that big of a deal and it helps cut Apple's inventory as they can use a single motherboard. They are competitive in price with the companies they compete with at this level.
Now that Apple has the factory all setup and delivering units and they have an idea of how the orders are going, the next update should be much easier. If Intel targets Q3 2014, the next MP update can happen in September-November. It would be good if they had better SSD prices too.
Most recent Mac revenue was $5.519b on units of 4.136m and driven by laptop sales.
Laptops have been above 75% and at that level it's around 3.1m laptops. The iMac would be around 750k going by Q1 2013 figures so that leaves 284k between the Mini and Pro. That's a bit low so the laptops might have dropped below 75% this quarter and/or iMacs could have dropped.
The Mac Pro isn't selling in huge volumes relatively because the revenue would be much higher if that was the case. However, if it had been selling 50k units/qtr in the past, they may have designed the supply chain for that amount. The problem with such low volumes is you can't fill retail channels like you can with laptops so peak demand would cause a backlog.
The entire workstation market is ~900k units per quarter and the asp is down at ~$1500 so for Apple to take ~15% of the market (100-150k units) with a minimum price of $3k is good enough and it's what they always do - go after the premium portion of the market.
As for dual processors, it doesn't help all that much. Intel has quite a high price on the 12-core chip so dual 8-core would offer better performance per dollar but it's not that big of a deal and it helps cut Apple's inventory as they can use a single motherboard. They are competitive in price with the companies they compete with at this level.
Now that Apple has the factory all setup and delivering units and they have an idea of how the orders are going, the next update should be much easier. If Intel targets Q3 2014, the next MP update can happen in September-November. It would be good if they had better SSD prices too.
Thanks Marvin. I suppose I just have my old mentality from years and years of buying and using the dual CPU Mac Pro's. My current one is still serving me well so I will not be in the market for the new type Mac Pro for another year or two. I tend to buy the next to fastest one as this tends to give me the best bang for the buck since I hold on to them for so long. I don't game as much on my Mac Pro as I used to so video cards that can't be upgraded easily or cheaply like the older Mac Pro's might not be as big of a deal as it was in the past. All my gaming has now pretty much shifted to my PS4, iPad, and iPhone.
Oh - and if you think that no one uses these things I'm currently running a simulation that is using 30GB of RAM and is destroying all 12 cores. If they would have made a 24-core Mac Pro I definitely would have bought that.
Oh - and I have done the pricing on dual 12-core Linux workstations. To get one similarly configured from a reputable builder (like Boxx) it's about $12k to $13k. Now - that's not THAT far above the ~$8k I pay for the Mac Workstations... but it's not for free either.
I did price out a "build my own" and I could build a dual 12-core system myself with good parts for about $9k to $10k (yes, you can do it cheaper if you cheap out on a few components - but when we're talking about a machine that I rely on for work I would never try to shave $1k off to get inferior parts).
Ultimately, being able to use OSX and have all the Thunderbolt goodness... and being able to jack in multiple 4k monitors (and have them actually work out of the box) swayed me to go Mac again...
In a few years I'll do that math again and see where I end up....
Great story! What are you modeling, if you don't mind me asking?
Great story! What are you modeling, if you don't mind me asking?
Scientific and engineering multiphysics simulations that are mainly centered around energy generation (like nuclear, geothermal, wind, etc.). You can see our software here: http://mooseframework.org
There are a few movies on there at the bottom of the page that explain some of what the software can do (I'm the one doing the voice overs on the video)... and it's all free and open source so if you're interested in that sort of thing give it a try ;-)
Comments
You really have no idea what you are talking about. The current Mac Pro already exists as an 8 or 12 core CPU. Build to order and choose either 8 or 12 cores.
Who peed in your wheaties? Calm down and take a few deep breaths then you will notice that I clarified what I meant shortly below my first post.
Then click this link because I think it might be of value.
"meager demand"? And what's that based on? do you know how many units they've shipped, how many are on order? They obviously have more orders than they can fulfill, which is all we know.
Duh.
Yes, I've priced the processors Apple uses (actually more expensive ones that are dual-processor-capable, which the ones in the Mac Pro are not). A dual 12-core system with a decent graphics card (for graphics only) costs less than Apple's top of the line Mac Pro and smokes it performance-wise.
Yes, I've priced the processors Apple uses (actually more expensive ones that are dual-processor-capable, which the ones in the Mac Pro are not). A dual 12-core system with a decent graphics card (for graphics only) costs less than Apple's top of the line Mac Pro and smokes it performance-wise.
Performance is relative to the application you are using. Let's say for sake of example that we are rendering movies. Me, on a 12 core Mac Pro using FCP X and you on a dual 12-core PC using Avid or Premiere on Windows 8. What do you think the difference would be rendering a 15 second TV commercial, or a 1 hour 4K documentary? Right, you can't answer that question because you don't own a dual 12-core machine or a Mac Pro. Unless you have some laboratory controlled application specific comparisons you are just speculating. Mac Pro is super fast and runs OS X which is preferable to running Windows on any hardware to many media and graphics professionals, so you can take your higher spec'ed machine and go play a video game, we professionals really don't care about raw specs.
That is more like rewording things rather then improvement.
Instead of buying dual processors, why not just configure a MacPro with more cores? Do you really need more than 12 cores?
I'd like to think the next revision will use the Intel Xeon E7 which can be configured with 15 cores (30 threads).
http://ark.intel.com/products/75258
I'm using two of the Sharp 4k monitors right now on my new 12-core Mac Pro... anyone that is complaining about them doesn't know what they're talking about. Great color. Great viewing angles. 4k at 60hz. And of course: TONS OF PIXELS!
I think people just don't know how to configure them. You have to go into the menu on the monitor and turn on MultiStreamTransport (MST) to get 60hz. As usual... people don't even read the documentation before complaining.
My older 12-core Mac Pro has 3x30" Dell monitors on it... and they look ancient when I switch over to that machine. 4k is definitely the future.
I also just ordered 2x28" Samsung 4k monitors to try those out on my other new 12-core Mac Pro which should be showing up any day now (hopefully this story means it will show up faster!). I'll be able to compare the cheap ($700!) Samsung's against the expensive (over $3000) Sharps... we'll see how that goes.
Oh - and if you think that no one uses these things I'm currently running a simulation that is using 30GB of RAM and is destroying all 12 cores. If they would have made a 24-core Mac Pro I definitely would have bought that.
Oh - and I have done the pricing on dual 12-core Linux workstations. To get one similarly configured from a reputable builder (like Boxx) it's about $12k to $13k. Now - that's not THAT far above the ~$8k I pay for the Mac Workstations... but it's not for free either.
I did price out a "build my own" and I could build a dual 12-core system myself with good parts for about $9k to $10k (yes, you can do it cheaper if you cheap out on a few components - but when we're talking about a machine that I rely on for work I would never try to shave $1k off to get inferior parts).
Ultimately, being able to use OSX and have all the Thunderbolt goodness... and being able to jack in multiple 4k monitors (and have them actually work out of the box) swayed me to go Mac again...
In a few years I'll do that math again and see where I end up....
Duh.
Yes, I've priced the processors Apple uses (actually more expensive ones that are dual-processor-capable, which the ones in the Mac Pro are not). A dual 12-core system with a decent graphics card (for graphics only) costs less than Apple's top of the line Mac Pro and smokes it performance-wise.
It's not just the price of the processors, it's the rest of it that goes along with the box. They'd need a bigger case, more expensive cooling and at the end, it may not really yield that much better performance for the amount they would have to charge, and the amount of units they'd actually sell, wouldn't be desirable enough at this time. They are obviously going after a targeted market and that targeted market doesn't need as much CPU power as they do GPU power. What apps that are commonly used on OS X that would take advantage of dual processing vs GPU processing? Sure, there is an advantage of dual processing, but it's not twice as fast, but with everything involved, it would be almost 2x as much to make. (bigger case, more expensive cooling system, processors, and processor boards, and power supply). Would the added cost and performance be worthwhile is the question. Just looking at just the processor isn't enough to look at when costing these out. There's a lot more involved than that. And how many additional units would they actually sell? From the articles and reviews i've read and having talked to some people that do video production, the units they have out now are perfectly fine for up to 4K video production without too much trouble. Adding a second CPU might not be that advantageous. The Top end audio production people generally use Pro Tools HD cards, which do the processing, OR the top end system that's out is perfectly capable of doing the most processor intensive recording I can think of. It can handle lots of tracks/plug-ins that even the most demanding project could handle without the ProTools cards. so, I would have to look at what apps would greatly benefit from dual processing that would be done on a MacPro. My understanding is that Apple still has a ways to go to make OS X more friendly with dual processing as its not where it could be as far as efficiency. But since I'm not a programmer, I have to rely on those that are, so this is what I've been told by programmers that I've talked to.
Well we can hope that it is a good sign. Honestly though I like to think of this machine as proof of concept, when Apple has access to the next process shrinks this machine should really come into its own.
I really doubt that you will ever see a dual socket machine. I fully expect that the next round or two of XEONs will keep people happy for a long while. A 20 core chip shouldn't be far away.
Honestly if they can't leverage the cores then they didn't need a Mac Pro in the first place.
Will the chipsets get smaller and more power efficient as they reduce the nodes or will they just add more features to keep them around the same size? I ask because I wonder if Apple's longterm plan with this Mac Pro is to place two chips next to each other on the CPU board.
Where are all the MacPro haters that were infesting this forum a few months ago? They are conveniently nowhere to be seen? Looks like this machine is more popular that these basement-dwellers were expecting... Again!! Where are the crybabies screaming on how they can build a franken-PC with desktop (not workstation) class chips, with more RAM (not ECC-RAM), and more capacity (not SSD) than Apple and at 1/4 the price??
Once again, they're eating humble-pie at the diner down the road from mommy's house.
No; it's reducing the high estimate by a week, which is an improvement.
Big deal as long as you get it and it works fine.
Laptops have been above 75% and at that level it's around 3.1m laptops. The iMac would be around 750k going by Q1 2013 figures so that leaves 284k between the Mini and Pro. That's a bit low so the laptops might have dropped below 75% this quarter and/or iMacs could have dropped.
The Mac Pro isn't selling in huge volumes relatively because the revenue would be much higher if that was the case. However, if it had been selling 50k units/qtr in the past, they may have designed the supply chain for that amount. The problem with such low volumes is you can't fill retail channels like you can with laptops so peak demand would cause a backlog.
The entire workstation market is ~900k units per quarter and the asp is down at ~$1500 so for Apple to take ~15% of the market (100-150k units) with a minimum price of $3k is good enough and it's what they always do - go after the premium portion of the market.
As for dual processors, it doesn't help all that much. Intel has quite a high price on the 12-core chip so dual 8-core would offer better performance per dollar but it's not that big of a deal and it helps cut Apple's inventory as they can use a single motherboard. They are competitive in price with the companies they compete with at this level.
Haswell-EP goes to 14-core and Broadwell 18-core:
http://vr-zone.com/articles/broadwell-ep-xeon-e5-v4-focus-cores-reliability-per-core-performance/66845.html
Haswell-EP is in the wild and supports DDR4:
http://wccftech.com/intel-haswellep-xeon-e5-2600-v3-sample-spotted-wild-sold-650-ebay-r3-motherboard/
They might use updated FirePros too:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7927/amd-launches-firepro-w9100
Now that Apple has the factory all setup and delivering units and they have an idea of how the orders are going, the next update should be much easier. If Intel targets Q3 2014, the next MP update can happen in September-November. It would be good if they had better SSD prices too.
Most recent Mac revenue was $5.519b on units of 4.136m and driven by laptop sales.
Laptops have been above 75% and at that level it's around 3.1m laptops. The iMac would be around 750k going by Q1 2013 figures so that leaves 284k between the Mini and Pro. That's a bit low so the laptops might have dropped below 75% this quarter and/or iMacs could have dropped.
The Mac Pro isn't selling in huge volumes relatively because the revenue would be much higher if that was the case. However, if it had been selling 50k units/qtr in the past, they may have designed the supply chain for that amount. The problem with such low volumes is you can't fill retail channels like you can with laptops so peak demand would cause a backlog.
The entire workstation market is ~900k units per quarter and the asp is down at ~$1500 so for Apple to take ~15% of the market (100-150k units) with a minimum price of $3k is good enough and it's what they always do - go after the premium portion of the market.
As for dual processors, it doesn't help all that much. Intel has quite a high price on the 12-core chip so dual 8-core would offer better performance per dollar but it's not that big of a deal and it helps cut Apple's inventory as they can use a single motherboard. They are competitive in price with the companies they compete with at this level.
Haswell-EP goes to 14-core and Broadwell 18-core:
http://vr-zone.com/articles/broadwell-ep-xeon-e5-v4-focus-cores-reliability-per-core-performance/66845.html
Haswell-EP is in the wild and supports DDR4:
http://wccftech.com/intel-haswellep-xeon-e5-2600-v3-sample-spotted-wild-sold-650-ebay-r3-motherboard/
They might use updated FirePros too:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7927/amd-launches-firepro-w9100
Now that Apple has the factory all setup and delivering units and they have an idea of how the orders are going, the next update should be much easier. If Intel targets Q3 2014, the next MP update can happen in September-November. It would be good if they had better SSD prices too.
Thanks Marvin. I suppose I just have my old mentality from years and years of buying and using the dual CPU Mac Pro's. My current one is still serving me well so I will not be in the market for the new type Mac Pro for another year or two. I tend to buy the next to fastest one as this tends to give me the best bang for the buck since I hold on to them for so long. I don't game as much on my Mac Pro as I used to so video cards that can't be upgraded easily or cheaply like the older Mac Pro's might not be as big of a deal as it was in the past. All my gaming has now pretty much shifted to my PS4, iPad, and iPhone.
Great story! What are you modeling, if you don't mind me asking?
Any answer that doesn't include the words Kate Upton will make me very disappointed.
(Possibly not safe for work)
Great story! What are you modeling, if you don't mind me asking?
Scientific and engineering multiphysics simulations that are mainly centered around energy generation (like nuclear, geothermal, wind, etc.). You can see our software here: http://mooseframework.org
There are a few movies on there at the bottom of the page that explain some of what the software can do (I'm the one doing the voice overs on the video)... and it's all free and open source so if you're interested in that sort of thing give it a try ;-)