For example, I have a small office where I want 10 people to access a Mac Pro server on my network. Why would I need to have a 27" monitor or a second iMac simply because it's powerful enough to do all the processing I need?
Why would anyone do that? The first pricy GPU is made to drive a 4K display and the second GPU only does graphics processing, such as video in FCPX , neither of which is used at all for a server.
The ideal machine for your example would be the previous Mac Pro. Of course you wouldn't have TB2. But you could use an internal RAID as a compromise.
Why would anyone do that? The first pricy GPU is made to drive a 4K display and the second GPU only does graphics processing, such as video in FCPX , neither of which is used at all for a server.
The ideal machine for your example would be the previous Mac Pro. Of course you wouldn't have TB2. But you could use an internal RAID as a compromise.
And what if I need the best CPU performance on a Mac? An iMac, Mac mini, or some Mac Pro that was released years ago isn't going to cut it.
Here's a refurbsihed Mac Pro from 2 years ago that is over $2k.
Am I really going to tank the productivity of my business for a measly $800 simply because I don't care about a GPU that support a 4K display? If that's the threshold and the best I need for the initial set up is VGA then no Mac would be good fit.
Am I really going to tank the productivity of my business for a measly $800 simply because I don't care about a GPU that support a 4K display? If that's the threshold and the best I need for the initial set up is VGA then no Mac would be good fit.
Whatever, Its your money.
There is a reason the older Mac Pro is still so expensive, and, there is no way a 10 person office is going to bog down a well outfitted 2012 Mac Pro. The new Mac Pro was certainly not designed as a server. Sure, it could run OS X server tools, but that is not the reason this machine exists. Apple got out of the server hardware business several years ago, probably because almost no one uses OS X in a heavy duty server role. That's also the reason that they no longer have a separate server version, just some added administration tools in the same OS X version. In my opinion even those tools only exist for small installations such as a home server.
A dual processor (24 core) linux system that's twice as fast can be built for less.
1. No, it can’t.
2. Enjoy your crap OS with no support anywhere.
There are very few reasonable case scenarios where one would be comparing a Mac to a Linux machine in making a purchasing decision.
He never said what he was planning to use the machine for, but Linux is far from crap, and you can also purchase some very high quality 24/7 support from IBM and Red Hat should your corporation need that to run, say, Oracle with server virtualizations, etc. But you are right, you probably wouldn't be buying a 24 core machine for that purpose if you were short on money.
Shortage of TB2 chips is very plausible, as Sonnet has only been shipping the more expensive Echo Express III units and won't be shipping the less expensive Echo 15 units until August.
From AI's story on the TB2 announcement...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Intel on Tuesday finally put a name to its next-generation Thunderbolt protocol as "Thunderbolt 2," with the newly dubbed standard doubling the throughput of its predecessor while remaining backward compatible...
The chip maker has yet to nail down a specific date on Thunderbolt 2's release, but said it should be in production by the end of 2013, with a ramp into 2014.
So even though every Mac Pro availability story has ignored this fact, TB2 chip availability is almost surely partly responsible for the shipping delays. I wish someone would simply ask Intel about TB2 chip supply. I guess it is more fun to baselessly speculate on the Mac Pro's demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
I'll never let up on pointing out how limiting the design decision was behind the new Mac Pro. A lot of legacy Mac Pro users could care less about those "monster" GPUs but cared a lot about the dual processors, PCI slots, memory expansion, etc.
I keep hoping that at some point Apple makes a build-to-order option on the Mac Pro that would allow for a single, consumer grade GPU along with standard desktop i5 or i7 processors. If they did that, it would make for a fantastic high end desktop machine. Of course, I know that will never happen.
The Mac Pro is the first "Assmembled in the USA" product from Apple in more than a decade as the company looks to bring more of its manufacturing back to the U.S.
"It's way to expensive, you can get a custom PC for half that price, no one will buy it"
6 months later it's just now shipping on time, apparently a lot more bought it.
That's not remotely accurate. The Mac Pro offers CPU options and RAM configurations even the top end iMac doesn't come close to matching and when you do you get a price that is just under the Mac Pro while being slower and taking up more room and having less capacity for peripherals.
For example, I have a small office where I want 10 people to access a Mac Pro server on my network. Why would I need to have a 27" monitor or a second iMac simply because it's powerful enough to do all the processing I need?
I'm curious Solips. What type of network services are you requiring in order to use such a high-horspower box for a 10-person shop? Are you running several virtual machines on it?
If it's basic network services, I would think even a BTO mac mini (or two) would suffice.
Gosh I want a reason to buy one soooooooo badly, I just can't find any reason to justify the cost to my husband. Especially when I've cost our family a small fortune in medical bills. Maybe in a year or so if and when I can finally get out of bed and actually start being a productive human being again. I sure do want one though, drrrooooolllll.
I'm curious Solips. What type of network services are you requiring in order to use such a high-horspower box for a 10-person shop? Are you running several virtual machines on it?
If it's basic network services, I would think even a BTO mac mini (or two) would suffice.
My bad. I shouldn't have used "I have" without being more clear that it's just a hypothetical.
Any hypothetical where you need to process a lot of data as quickly as possible. I do know a developer that wants the compiler to be as fast as possible so he does but the latest Mac Pro because even a few percent aster is worth what is a minor cost, but I could see how one could run various VMs where they are also building and testing apps for other OSes and don't want to buy multiple machines.
The bottom line is the new Mac Pro has the highest performing CPU and boot drive in a Mac so there are benefits to that need thpae qualities in a Mac even if graphics aren't their primary concern.
1. No, it can’t.
2. Enjoy your crap OS with no support anywhere.
Well if you really wanted too you actually can, using a Supermicro SuperWorkstation 7047A-T Barebone System, 2 Intel E5-2697, 64GB DDR3 1600 ECC, 256GB PCI SSD, 4 x 15,0000 RPM SAS Cheetah drives, will set you back 8,200.00 and includes a year of onsite support. However, it doesn't contain those friggen awesome video cards, ugly as all hell, no OSX, you need to put it together yourself and it's not an Apple. Either you want to use an Apple and all of it's wonderfullness it comes with or you don't, stating that you can make a cheaper Linux machines in an Apple board is not going to change anyones mind so why bother trying.
But if you don't need/want those "monster" GPUs, because let's say you're not a videographer, the Mac Pro is far too expensive.
I'd rephrase that by calling it "overkill." It's not that it's too expensive, it's that you pay for capabilities you don't need.
Part of the problem is a hole in the product line. For those of us whose display requirements make an iMac impractical, the choices are a mini with it's anemic, low-end integrated graphics or a Mac Pro with its expensive monster graphics power. There's nothing in-between.
I have no idea how much demand there would be for a single-GPU Mac Pro or if anyone would buy a "Mac mini Plus" with a Quad-i7 and Iris Pro, but I'd be more likely to buy one or the other than either of the current offerings.
Haha. I'd call videographers an extreme minority, too.
Apple BLEW IT with the new Mac Pro. Get over it. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Yet they’re just now catching up with demand. At least we have exposed your true nature and motives. Now you can be blocked with confidence since your own comments have sealed your fate here.
I keep hoping that at some point Apple makes a build-to-order option on the Mac Pro that would allow for a single, consumer grade GPU along with standard desktop i5 or i7 processors. If they did that, it would make for a fantastic high end desktop machine. Of course, I know that will never happen.
-kpluck
Exactly. So why keep bitching about something you know won’t happen?
I'd rephrase that by calling it "overkill." It's not that it's too expensive, it's that you pay for capabilities you don't need.
Part of the problem is a hole in the product line. For those of us whose display requirements make an iMac impractical, the choices are a mini with it's anemic, low-end integrated graphics or a Mac Pro with its expensive monster graphics power. There's nothing in-between.
I have no idea how much demand there would be for a single-GPU Mac Pro or if anyone would buy a "Mac mini Plus" with a Quad-i7 and Iris Pro, but I'd be more likely to buy one or the other than either of the current offerings.
1) I'd say rarely are all features used. How many people use an external display with their notebook? I bet the percentage is very low.
2) Isn't one of the GPUs used for increasing the central processing with OpenCL or something like that?
1) I'd say rarely are all features used. How many people use an external display with their notebook? I bet the percentage is very low.
Good point. It's still probably fair to consider the Mac Pro as somewhat unique though, since I don't think most other lesser-used features add as much to the overall cost of the computer as a second, heavy-duty graphics card does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
2) Isn't one of the GPUs used for increasing the central processing with OpenCL or something like that?
Beats me. The noise I hear is that it enhances the speed of apps that have the code to exploit it. Here's the list of apps:
- Final Cut Pro X
The End. I have no idea whether or not that's true, though.
My bad. I shouldn't have used "I have" without being more clear that it's just a hypothetical.
Any hypothetical where you need to process a lot of data as quickly as possible. I do know a developer that wants the compiler to be as fast as possible so he does but the latest Mac Pro because even a few percent aster is worth what is a minor cost, but I could see how one could run various VMs where they are also building and testing apps for other OSes and don't want to buy multiple machines.
The bottom line is the new Mac Pro has the highest performing CPU and boot drive in a Mac so there are benefits to that need thpae qualities in a Mac even if graphics aren't their primary concern.
Ah... better. I'm totally up on using a Mac Pro as a renderer/compiler, but more as an individual workstation, or maybe on the bigger side of say a science center where they link up a bunch of Mac Pros to do some serious modeling.
I think it would make a great VM server, running a bunch of Windows Server Instances, or whatever else. Sure, one can build a linux box, or whatever else, but one cannot beat Apple's hardware quality and support.
For general OSX server needs though, I think a Mac Mini would suffice just fine for the basics. I'd love to get a Mac Pro, but I just can't justify the expense for all that extreme horsepower. However, unlike other posters here, I'm okay with it and I don't expect Apple to cater to my unique needs when 99.9% of their market couldn't care any less about it. Some people here just don't give up.
Then LEAVE the platform. Don’t hang around here lamenting Apple not kowtowing to your extreme minority desires. Take your sour grapes with you and build your little dream machine. You’ll even be able to author Blu-ray discs, another dying technology Apple refused to get onboard with. Just go away and get on with your life in the past tense of technology because the Mac Pro you want isn’t going to happen, just like the headless mini-tower Mac the techie wannabes have been yammering about for years.
You forgot the iMac fan who keeps complaining about Apple's "unhealthy obsession with thinness" and lack of front facing USB ports and SD card slots.
Comments
For example, I have a small office where I want 10 people to access a Mac Pro server on my network. Why would I need to have a 27" monitor or a second iMac simply because it's powerful enough to do all the processing I need?
Why would anyone do that? The first pricy GPU is made to drive a 4K display and the second GPU only does graphics processing, such as video in FCPX , neither of which is used at all for a server.
The ideal machine for your example would be the previous Mac Pro. Of course you wouldn't have TB2. But you could use an internal RAID as a compromise.
And what if I need the best CPU performance on a Mac? An iMac, Mac mini, or some Mac Pro that was released years ago isn't going to cut it.
Here's a refurbsihed Mac Pro from 2 years ago that is over $2k.
Am I really going to tank the productivity of my business for a measly $800 simply because I don't care about a GPU that support a 4K display? If that's the threshold and the best I need for the initial set up is VGA then no Mac would be good fit.
And what if I need the best CPU performance on a Mac? An iMac, Mac mini, or some Mac Pro that was released years ago isn't going to cut it.
Here's a refurbsihed Mac Pro from 2 years ago that is over $2k.
Am I really going to tank the productivity of my business for a measly $800 simply because I don't care about a GPU that support a 4K display? If that's the threshold and the best I need for the initial set up is VGA then no Mac would be good fit.
Whatever, Its your money.
There is a reason the older Mac Pro is still so expensive, and, there is no way a 10 person office is going to bog down a well outfitted 2012 Mac Pro. The new Mac Pro was certainly not designed as a server. Sure, it could run OS X server tools, but that is not the reason this machine exists. Apple got out of the server hardware business several years ago, probably because almost no one uses OS X in a heavy duty server role. That's also the reason that they no longer have a separate server version, just some added administration tools in the same OS X version. In my opinion even those tools only exist for small installations such as a home server.
BTW there is an adapter for $29 to VGA.
1. No, it can’t.
2. Enjoy your crap OS with no support anywhere.
1. No, it can’t.
2. Enjoy your crap OS with no support anywhere.
There are very few reasonable case scenarios where one would be comparing a Mac to a Linux machine in making a purchasing decision.
He never said what he was planning to use the machine for, but Linux is far from crap, and you can also purchase some very high quality 24/7 support from IBM and Red Hat should your corporation need that to run, say, Oracle with server virtualizations, etc. But you are right, you probably wouldn't be buying a 24 core machine for that purpose if you were short on money.
Shortage of TB2 chips is very plausible, as Sonnet has only been shipping the more expensive Echo Express III units and won't be shipping the less expensive Echo 15 units until August.
From AI's story on the TB2 announcement...
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Intel on Tuesday finally put a name to its next-generation Thunderbolt protocol as "Thunderbolt 2," with the newly dubbed standard doubling the throughput of its predecessor while remaining backward compatible...
The chip maker has yet to nail down a specific date on Thunderbolt 2's release, but said it should be in production by the end of 2013, with a ramp into 2014.
So even though every Mac Pro availability story has ignored this fact, TB2 chip availability is almost surely partly responsible for the shipping delays. I wish someone would simply ask Intel about TB2 chip supply. I guess it is more fun to baselessly speculate on the Mac Pro's demand.
Quote:
I'll never let up on pointing out how limiting the design decision was behind the new Mac Pro. A lot of legacy Mac Pro users could care less about those "monster" GPUs but cared a lot about the dual processors, PCI slots, memory expansion, etc.
I keep hoping that at some point Apple makes a build-to-order option on the Mac Pro that would allow for a single, consumer grade GPU along with standard desktop i5 or i7 processors. If they did that, it would make for a fantastic high end desktop machine. Of course, I know that will never happen.
-kpluck
Haha. I'd call videographers an extreme minority, too.
Apple BLEW IT with the new Mac Pro. Get over it.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Yeah, they "BLEW IT"....That's why they are just catching up to demand now...
The Mac Pro is the first "Assmembled in the USA" product from Apple in more than a decade as the company looks to bring more of its manufacturing back to the U.S.
Eh?? I hope it comes with a disinfectant wipe....
Spellcheck AI???
You forgot the /s tag ...
That's not remotely accurate. The Mac Pro offers CPU options and RAM configurations even the top end iMac doesn't come close to matching and when you do you get a price that is just under the Mac Pro while being slower and taking up more room and having less capacity for peripherals.
For example, I have a small office where I want 10 people to access a Mac Pro server on my network. Why would I need to have a 27" monitor or a second iMac simply because it's powerful enough to do all the processing I need?
I'm curious Solips. What type of network services are you requiring in order to use such a high-horspower box for a 10-person shop? Are you running several virtual machines on it?
If it's basic network services, I would think even a BTO mac mini (or two) would suffice.
My bad. I shouldn't have used "I have" without being more clear that it's just a hypothetical.
Any hypothetical where you need to process a lot of data as quickly as possible. I do know a developer that wants the compiler to be as fast as possible so he does but the latest Mac Pro because even a few percent aster is worth what is a minor cost, but I could see how one could run various VMs where they are also building and testing apps for other OSes and don't want to buy multiple machines.
The bottom line is the new Mac Pro has the highest performing CPU and boot drive in a Mac so there are benefits to that need thpae qualities in a Mac even if graphics aren't their primary concern.
Well if you really wanted too you actually can, using a Supermicro SuperWorkstation 7047A-T Barebone System, 2 Intel E5-2697, 64GB DDR3 1600 ECC, 256GB PCI SSD, 4 x 15,0000 RPM SAS Cheetah drives, will set you back 8,200.00 and includes a year of onsite support. However, it doesn't contain those friggen awesome video cards, ugly as all hell, no OSX, you need to put it together yourself and it's not an Apple. Either you want to use an Apple and all of it's wonderfullness it comes with or you don't, stating that you can make a cheaper Linux machines in an Apple board is not going to change anyones mind so why bother trying.
But if you don't need/want those "monster" GPUs, because let's say you're not a videographer, the Mac Pro is far too expensive.
I'd rephrase that by calling it "overkill." It's not that it's too expensive, it's that you pay for capabilities you don't need.
Part of the problem is a hole in the product line. For those of us whose display requirements make an iMac impractical, the choices are a mini with it's anemic, low-end integrated graphics or a Mac Pro with its expensive monster graphics power. There's nothing in-between.
I have no idea how much demand there would be for a single-GPU Mac Pro or if anyone would buy a "Mac mini Plus" with a Quad-i7 and Iris Pro, but I'd be more likely to buy one or the other than either of the current offerings.
Haha. I'd call videographers an extreme minority, too.
Apple BLEW IT with the new Mac Pro. Get over it.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Yet they’re just now catching up with demand. At least we have exposed your true nature and motives. Now you can be blocked with confidence since your own comments have sealed your fate here.
I keep hoping that at some point Apple makes a build-to-order option on the Mac Pro that would allow for a single, consumer grade GPU along with standard desktop i5 or i7 processors. If they did that, it would make for a fantastic high end desktop machine. Of course, I know that will never happen.
-kpluck
Exactly. So why keep bitching about something you know won’t happen?
1) I'd say rarely are all features used. How many people use an external display with their notebook? I bet the percentage is very low.
2) Isn't one of the GPUs used for increasing the central processing with OpenCL or something like that?
1) I'd say rarely are all features used. How many people use an external display with their notebook? I bet the percentage is very low.
Good point. It's still probably fair to consider the Mac Pro as somewhat unique though, since I don't think most other lesser-used features add as much to the overall cost of the computer as a second, heavy-duty graphics card does.
2) Isn't one of the GPUs used for increasing the central processing with OpenCL or something like that?
Beats me. The noise I hear is that it enhances the speed of apps that have the code to exploit it. Here's the list of apps:
- Final Cut Pro X
The End. I have no idea whether or not that's true, though.
My bad. I shouldn't have used "I have" without being more clear that it's just a hypothetical.
Any hypothetical where you need to process a lot of data as quickly as possible. I do know a developer that wants the compiler to be as fast as possible so he does but the latest Mac Pro because even a few percent aster is worth what is a minor cost, but I could see how one could run various VMs where they are also building and testing apps for other OSes and don't want to buy multiple machines.
The bottom line is the new Mac Pro has the highest performing CPU and boot drive in a Mac so there are benefits to that need thpae qualities in a Mac even if graphics aren't their primary concern.
Ah... better. I'm totally up on using a Mac Pro as a renderer/compiler, but more as an individual workstation, or maybe on the bigger side of say a science center where they link up a bunch of Mac Pros to do some serious modeling.
I think it would make a great VM server, running a bunch of Windows Server Instances, or whatever else. Sure, one can build a linux box, or whatever else, but one cannot beat Apple's hardware quality and support.
For general OSX server needs though, I think a Mac Mini would suffice just fine for the basics. I'd love to get a Mac Pro, but I just can't justify the expense for all that extreme horsepower. However, unlike other posters here, I'm okay with it and I don't expect Apple to cater to my unique needs when 99.9% of their market couldn't care any less about it. Some people here just don't give up.
You forgot the iMac fan who keeps complaining about Apple's "unhealthy obsession with thinness" and lack of front facing USB ports and SD card slots.