I have that 32 core threadripper, and I would not advise anyone to get it. Half of the cores lack a direct path to memory, and that really hurts performance. In some cases, you’re better off getting two 16 core systems. In other cases, you’re better off getting Intel.
Another reason Intel might be better for MacPro workloads is AVX512, which is a modern day AltiVec.
The Zen 2 architecture overcomes many of the limitations of previous generation of Threadripper and comes with massive core increases and IPC gains.
I've lost count of the number of colleagues in the 3D community who have bought 1st and 2nd Threadrippers and have anything other than deep praise for them. We're all looking forward to the next Threadripper release and anyone who'd rather have a 28 core Xeon that will have to have its multithreading turned off for security over a 48 core or 64 Threadripper is nuts.
Apple's own advice to mitigate against ZombieLoad is to turn off multithreading. AMD processor unaffected!
My understanding was that the next threadripper would use the same socket as the previous threadripper. That means it’s still limited to 4 memory channels while the Mac Pro has 6. Regarding the new 16 core Ryzen, that’s limited to 2 memory channels. If you are sure that your workloads have small memory bandwidth requirements then maybe that’s ok for you. Otherwise, you would want Epyc from AMD or a Xeon system from intel.
more generally, if the only thing that matters to you is the number of cores, then no high end Xeon or Epyc workstation is right for you, not just the Mac Pro.
When I begin in 3D it was on the Amiga with Lightwave and quickly went from there to PC and a DEC Alpha. Early on the big budget guys has SGIs the rest of us were building custom PCs. I dropped out of 3D and went into compositing which where I bought my first Mac. The first Intel based MBP as Apple were offering a really good deal for Shake and everyone in high end compositing was using Shake (on Linux PCs not Macs) and I needed to learn it. All the VFX studios were PC based by then save for the finishing departments who were use turnkey Autodesk systems and Davincis. No Macs anywhere other than audio post production.
I started my own company and then bought an 8 core MP then a couple of years later bought a second 2010 model. While slightly more expensive than a PC the costs were not crazy and for the build quality they were excellent value for money, the best desktops ever built. I got back into 3D again with motion graphic work and with Cinema 4D where at the time was a 50/50 split between Mac/PC users. But in my professional circle literally everyone was Mac based and running C4D AE FCS etc etc. As I said everyone now is PC based.
I have noticed a change happening in Audio Postproduction studios. At one time it was absolutely guaranteed that Macs would be in every studio across the land in the UK. I never saw anything else. But the more I get out and visit studios I'm seeing PCs take their place. This would be absolutely unheard of a decade ago. I've also seen a move to the PC in editing suites too, the bungled release of FCPX has had a profound effect on Mac usage in TV editing bays gone is Final Cut and replaced by Premiere Pro and PCs. Amazingly Prem Pro is more popular than Avid now.
This is only anecdotal evidence of what I'm seeing in the places I go but in my own bubble there has been a huge move away from Macs in parts of the industry that were once, if not dominated, very well represented with Macs. The clowns at Cupertino who thought innovation was the Trashcan with zero upgrades for nearly 7 years have a lot to answer for.
I'm completely in agreement with you regarding the Trashcan comment. Not only did Apple look really stupid by saying "can't innovate my ass" and then releasing a machine that was as much use to many pros as an actual trash can, it took them 7 years to fix it. Perhaps that was so whatever exec pushed the trashcan design wasn't offended. Unfortunately this is all down to Apple's obsession with controlling everything from the hardware to the software to the workflows themselves. If Apple has decided that one way of doing something is best, that's it, you have no other option. The Trashcan is a perfect example of this, it was Apple's way or the highway. It was several years before decent TB -> PCIe boxes appeared, by which time pros who needed PCIe cards had switched. Apple essentially said if you don't use the machine how we think you should, you can f-off. Also, the uncertainty of updates for pro machines - or indeed whether that line will continue at all, is another reason pros are leaving Apple. Pros often need the newest hardware, they aren't going to sit around for 7 years while Apple sits on their hands deciding whether another MP is worth it.
Similarly for FCP/FCPX, Apple released a half-assed version of FCPX with half the features from FCP missing. They seem to forget that pros use these machines for work, and all the time they're messing around trying to make something work that's not part of Apple's designated workflow they're losing money. Several updates over the space of 2 years brought back most of the features, but again it was too late. People don't have years to sit around and wait for fixes when Apple decides on a new way of doing things.
There are a few people here notorious for supporting this ridiculous ideology, StrangeDays and Lkrupp for example. They haven't a clue how pros use their machines but seem to think they are THE encyclopaedia on it, and anyone that doesn't agree is a "hater". It's quite tiring really. It's also a shame that Apple has shunned the core supporters - the pros - that were loyal throughout the '90's when Apple was in dire straits.
When I begin in 3D it was on the Amiga with Lightwave and quickly went from there to PC and a DEC Alpha. Early on the big budget guys has SGIs the rest of us were building custom PCs. I dropped out of 3D and went into compositing which where I bought my first Mac. The first Intel based MBP as Apple were offering a really good deal for Shake and everyone in high end compositing was using Shake (on Linux PCs not Macs) and I needed to learn it. All the VFX studios were PC based by then save for the finishing departments who were use turnkey Autodesk systems and Davincis. No Macs anywhere other than audio post production.
I started my own company and then bought an 8 core MP then a couple of years later bought a second 2010 model. While slightly more expensive than a PC the costs were not crazy and for the build quality they were excellent value for money, the best desktops ever built. I got back into 3D again with motion graphic work and with Cinema 4D where at the time was a 50/50 split between Mac/PC users. But in my professional circle literally everyone was Mac based and running C4D AE FCS etc etc. As I said everyone now is PC based.
I have noticed a change happening in Audio Postproduction studios. At one time it was absolutely guaranteed that Macs would be in every studio across the land in the UK. I never saw anything else. But the more I get out and visit studios I'm seeing PCs take their place. This would be absolutely unheard of a decade ago. I've also seen a move to the PC in editing suites too, the bungled release of FCPX has had a profound effect on Mac usage in TV editing bays gone is Final Cut and replaced by Premiere Pro and PCs. Amazingly Prem Pro is more popular than Avid now.
This is only anecdotal evidence of what I'm seeing in the places I go but in my own bubble there has been a huge move away from Macs in parts of the industry that were once, if not dominated, very well represented with Macs. The clowns at Cupertino who thought innovation was the Trashcan with zero upgrades for nearly 7 years have a lot to answer for.
I don't think the iPad Pro is the replacement for desktops/laptops at all despite what Cook says. Although I like the portability of it for using Procreate and other apps and export to the desktop to see the big picture and flesh it out. It needs to do a LOT more than an OS update to prove its ability to replace a PC and have a larger screen which I think 11 x 17 tabloid size makes sense, considering one wouldn't have to keep pinch/zooming to 'push pixels' and just illustrate images at 100 % actual scale with expressive line or paint strokes. Especially for comic book illustrators who work at 11 x 17 dimensions which is the professional standard. 12.9 inches is NOT it.
I'm completely in agreement, the iPads are great for some things, but the OS is too restrictive and will never replace a keyboard and mouse UI. It concerns me that Cook seems to think everyone can do everything on an iPad. It's completely incapable of many things, and even with the pencil lacks accuracy, other things are so awkward it's 5x slower than using a Mac. Cook's statement is quite revealing of his disdain for the Mac, that he hasn't a clue what people really use Macs for, and doesn't value them as he should. Just another contribution to why I think he's a pretty awful CEO.
And I don't think the iPad Pro is the replacement for desktops/laptops at all despite what Cook says
Don't conflate Cook stating that the traditional PC being overklll for "many, many people" as being the same as saying no one needs a traditional PC.
Unfortunately, this has been the mindset from Cook and his executives that the iPad Pro would replace a laptop or desktop. The funny thing is that he changed his narrative if I recall correctly. The first time he promoted that idea, around the time the 'What's a computer' marketing campaign was in full steam, and in one interview based on that campaign, he said that he uses his iPad Pro all the time for his work. Then, about one or two years later, he stated that he uses his iMac all the time in another interview. This made me question his line of thinking and vision, or lack of it.
I don't think a traditional PC is overkill because one would need it to back up the iPhone or iOS devices. I prefer doing this the traditional manner rather than just the Cloud which I don't trust. Everything I have on my iPhone is backed up on my computer, except for a few things that gets synced to a new device every few years to maintain consistency.
And I personally love looking at a large screen so I can view everything at once without the cramped 'screen estate'. The iPad Pro is nice but it's got a long ways to go.
And I don't think the iPad Pro is the replacement for desktops/laptops at all despite what Cook says
Don't conflate Cook stating that the traditional PC being overklll for "many, many people" as being the same as saying no one needs a traditional PC.
Unfortunately, this has been the mindset from Cook and his executives that the iPad Pro would replace a laptop or desktop.
1) Here's a direct quote from Tim: “Yes, the iPad Pro is a replacement for a notebook or a desktop for many, many people. They will start using it and conclude they no longer need to use anything else, other than their phones.” For you to conclude that he means that no one will ever need a traditional PC is a lack of comprehension.
2) You're on a discussion thread about an amazing Mac Pro announcement which clearly means Cook doesn't believe the Mac, a traditional PC, of which a desktop, the lower volume type over the notebook, will not sell to customers… or do you think Apple likes investing in products that offer no return?
Gary-G said: A claim at modularity in a market where modularity is defined by third party options. Big tech is being reviewed actively in terms of anti-trust. Modularity was promised but special connections limit off the shelf additions of memory, storage, graphics.
You do realize that the Mac Pro can utilize off-the-shelf 3rd party options for memory, storage, and graphics.... right?
UrbaneLegend said: I rather doubt you have the necessary chops for the level of condescension that was flowing through every paragraph of your reply. I have over 20 years working in animation at all budget levels and have the temerity to run my own motion graphics studio. I speak from experience.
Well, then I'll come right out and say that I don't (at least in regard to CG). I do have over 30 years of IT/Apple experience though, and worked in 3D/CAD for several years, hanging in forums with people like Alex Lindsay and John Knoll. (so I'm not exactly ignorant of it, either)
I'm not sure how that matters, but I suppose we'll see...
UrbaneLegend said: You are justifying that Apple's brand new not even released yet top of the Mac range should ship with a 3 year old GPU and 256GB SSD. I am embarrassed for you. Apple requires people like you to maintain their reality distortion and repeat their cliched marketing talking points.
I suppose I have to forgive you, only having 7 posts here under your belt... but I've been taking incredible flack here as a 'troll' because I've not exactly been onboard with most of what Apple has been doing in recent years. Now I'm a fan-boy? I just can't win, lol.
My point was that they didn't build this machine just for 3D people like you (and sometimes me). People in other industries who might buy one, don't need top of the line GPUs. They might also not need a ton of expensive storage (which can easily be added). The base config is such that it doesn't make any of these people pay for a bunch of stuff they don't need. In other words, the base config is just that, a jumping off point from which to add what you do need!
UrbaneLegend said: I love the fact that you quoted Dave McGavran marketing quote, because the Redshift developers themselves are altogether far more circumspect about Redshift and Metal. They make no promises about performance and only 'hope' to be as fully featured as the current CUDA version. I've been a Redshift user for nearly 2 years and I'm well up to speed on what the actual developers themselves have said constantly about Metal support but that wouldn't make great copy for Apple marketing quotes.
I guess you got me there. I don't use Redshift, so I fell victim to Maxon's marketing fluff? I don't use that software either, so I guess I'll be more careful trusting anything they say from now on.
But, what I have seen, is people starting to talk more about Metal. I've also run across benchmarks (both using benchmark tools and timing real software runs) showing CUDA doesn't have the advantage it used to have. So, I think that is starting to shift. Maybe I'll end up being wrong... we'll see. (BTW, there was an article here on AI about Apple dropping OpenGL, etc.... maybe go read that to see how critical I was at the time.) My views are beginning to be shifted a bit.
UrbaneLegend said: I rather think the sour grapes are all yours pal, I get that you've bought into the Apple bubble and it must be tough to find out that actuality is vastly different, every single one of my close work colleagues has ditched the Mac over the last 5 years, yeah every single one of us were Mac Pro users.
Or, are you guys justifying your leap? I've been with Apple for over 30 years now. My whole workflow is tied up with them. If I were just talking about using a single app, or a few apps, then yeah, it would be easy to make the jump. I actually (working in IT) spend more of my time on Windows, to be honest. I'm currently using Autodesk Revit, as well, on Windows.
The problem is that as much as Windows has advanced, it still pretty much sucks. I won't change my overall platform until I need to. But, to say the new Mac Pro isn't impressive, as I said, is either sour-grapes, or a lack of understanding of what it really is (which your initial post seemed to show... and why I reacted like I did).
Note: 'It wasn't what I was wanting,' is different from, 'it isn't impressive.'
UrbaneLegend said: The people who will care about ZombieLoad and the rest of the Intel microcode security issues are the people you claim won't need a half decent GPU because they're running a 'high-performance database' your words.. In the real world Hyperthreading is being turned off in exactly these workloads. Get a clue.
Well, I used to work at a near Fortune 50 with databases. We didn't need high-end GPUs in any of our servers. If you know otherwise, maybe enlighten me. (BTW, a RX580 isn't a half-way decent GPU... when, if I recall correctly, it's over half the speed of your decent GPUs?)
My point is that ZombieLoad requires physical access (to the machine and OS). Most people aren't in a situation where someone trying to attack them has physical access. I'm not saying it isn't an issue, just that it doesn't really impact most people.
Sanctum1972 said: ... It was very enlightening and especially on his reasons why he used a PC for this line of work.
That's why I knew what you said was true. For his work, he would rely on a PC for that but I don't know if he would use the new Mac Pro, however he might just to build out an experiment to test out AR/VR service offerings. He had been a bit vocal about Apple's AR offerings and was hoping to see more traction in the glasses department but that's another story .
Great story (thanks for sharing). I've had the fortune of knowing a bunch of cool people over the years as well. I should probably write them all down one day.
But, here's the thing. Your story was just as valid in the 90s, the 2000s, as it is today. What I mean, is that even in the hey-day of Apple's Mac Pros a lot of people went Windows. And, I remember arguing with people back when the G5 was actually faster than their PCs, because they thought Apple was going to Intel to catch up on speed.
It's mostly software and workflows that drive these things, from what I've seen, not the hardware. Or, most often, just the culture at whatever company that uses them happens to be. I worked for a number of users at a near Fortune 50 company, in a 'start up' department that was mostly Mac, where we were despised by the formal IT department because we used Macs. You wouldn't believe some of the things those 'IT pros' would say about Macs that was simply ignorant. A lot of the decisions over this stuff aren't really made on facts.
UrbaneLegend said: This is only anecdotal evidence of what I'm seeing in the places I go but in my own bubble there has been a huge move away from Macs in parts of the industry that were once, if not dominated, very well represented with Macs. The clowns at Cupertino who thought innovation was the Trashcan with zero upgrades for nearly 7 years have a lot to answer for.
I don't disagree with you here. Though, from what I've heard, the transition also isn't w/o pain, especially in the audio arena. Apple had perfected a number of core technologies around audio/video, which combined with consistent hardware was pretty important. I think there has been slip, especially on the software side in recent years.
I also know a pretty famous podcaster who has recently made the switch, and it has been interesting following along with his struggles. (Though, he seems to have made the change more on principal.) That has been my own experience as well, in that the grass isn't necessarily greener, aside from lower hardware costs and customizability.
Sanctum1972 said: ... Macs used to be dominant in the creative space, although it's still there and being used, otherwise for the most serious heavy lifting, it's done on the PC end of things.
... And I don't think the iPad Pro is the replacement for desktops/laptops at all despite what Cook says.
To some extent, but I think it has always been that way depending on company and software/workflow. The advance of the tech industry also changes things, like cloud computing. For example, if I were heavily into 3D anymore, I'd probably be using a Mac with a bit better GPU than I currently have, and then pushing all the rendering off into Amazon or Google's cloud-computing. That way, I could scale my output as needed, without a huge local investment in hardware.
re: iPad - No, but I'm hopeful about iOS 13/iPad OS. The big problem I've faced has been more OS/software related. I'll try to get stuff done on my iPad (and love things about it for travel), but whenever I have a 'real computer' at my disposal, it isn't even a close choice. The iPad always requires lots of pain and tech-gymnastics, which is often an issue around the file-system or how apps interact with files. That combined with the inefficiency of a touch-interface for a lot of things. (The latter still needs solved.)
IreneW said: Like it or not, some of these actually make _a_lot_ of money out of their "craft". Which, by definition, makes them "pro".
Which furthers the point that 'pro' should refer to a characteristic(s) of the equipment, not who is using it. As I've said before, a lawyer could be using a Chromebook to make $millions, but that doesn't make it a 'professional' product.
elijahg said: I'm completely in agreement with you regarding the Trashcan comment. Not only did Apple look really stupid by saying "can't innovate my ass" and then releasing a machine that was as much use to many pros as an actual trash can, it took them 7 years to fix it. Perhaps that was so whatever exec pushed the trashcan design wasn't offended. Unfortunately this is all down to Apple's obsession with controlling everything from the hardware to the software to the workflows themselves. If Apple has decided that one way of doing something is best, that's it, you have no other option.
I think with the Trashcan, they had optimized it for a particular video-production workflow, and were also a bit too optimistic about the future of what Thunderbolt is just beginning to become. It was both ahead of its time (in a limiting way), and too focused on one particular thing. But otherwise I agree that this is the downside to Apple. It can also be a blessing in areas that they have particularly studied, though. Bringing back the real pros to consult on the new Mac Pro is a step back in the right direction.
elijahg said: Similarly for FCP/FCPX, Apple released a half-assed version of FCPX with half the features from FCP missing. They seem to forget that pros use these machines for work, and all the time they're messing around trying to make something work that's not part of Apple's designated workflow they're losing money. Several updates over the space of 2 years brought back most of the features, but again it was too late. People don't have years to sit around and wait for fixes when Apple decides on a new way of doing things.
Software is another big example of the above. I think that often the people (person) working on many of the Apple software apps just has no real-world experience to understand how their changes are impacting the users. One can see that in changes to the iWork suite, or even simple stuff like Calendar. There are obvious features missing and odd ways of doing things. That shouldn't be the case, especially in core workflow functionality of a product used by hundreds of millions.
elijahg said: I'm completely in agreement, the iPads are great for some things, but the OS is too restrictive and will never replace a keyboard and mouse UI. It concerns me that Cook seems to think everyone can do everything on an iPad.
It depends on who 'everyone' means, and probably is relatively accurate as to Apple's new target audience.
But you're right, it absolutely can indicate a huge problem. A great analogy is more recent BMW. They also seem to think that 'everyone' doesn't need things like manual transmission anymore, or have been focusing on SUVs instead of the products that made them great. Are they going out of business any day soon? Probably not. But it does seem to be having a (negative) impact on their product lines, causing them to lose core influencers, etc. That stuff will have an eventual impact on the whole company.
Sanctum1972 said: I don't think a traditional PC is overkill because one would need it to back up the iPhone or iOS devices. I prefer doing this the traditional manner rather than just the Cloud which I don't trust.
It isn't even that I don't trust the Cloud (which I don't... I was successful as a Sr. Ops. Eng. at a nearly Fortune 50, precisely because I tend not to trust technology and automation!). It is that Apple's incarnation of the cloud doesn't allow enough control on what is going on. I have to just adapt my use to their workflow concepts and trust that everything is handled properly (especially, on the heels of MobileMe, which was a disaster).
Soli said: 2) You're on a discussion thread about an amazing Mac Pro announcement which clearly means Cook doesn't believe the Mac, a traditional PC, of which a desktop, the lower volume type over the notebook, will not sell to customers… or do you think Apple likes investing in products that offer no return?
But, how new of a realization is that at Apple? I still wonder if at one point they didn't think iOS was going to replace the Mac, and then figure out it wasn't going to happen, or happen nearly as quickly as they thought it could.
After almost a decade - and a bunch of course-corrections - this is easy to say, now.
We deal with PHI data that can't go on AWS or any outside servers. Some of our machines are 768GB RAM, the previous workstation limit, as virtualized instances as mentioned will take a heck of a lot of memory relative to their need for CPU. That bit seems to be throwing off a lot of people online who can't imagine needing 1.5TB in a single workstation. We were already maxing out older platforms.
AWS is HIPPA compliant and will sign a BAA. There’s no reason you can’t put PHI in the Amazon Cloud. You’re incorrectly limiting your organization’s IT options if you aren’t evaluating cloud options. There may be other reasons not to use AWS, but HIPPA and PHI is not one of them.
That's the leaking DoD for you. I worked for a long time at a DOE facility and or classified data was never allowed on external-managed servers. If DOE along with DoD is allowing classified data (secret to DOE is not the same as secret to DoD so I'm lumping everything that's non-unclassified into classified) on non-government servers in non-government-secured computing facilities then I have to wonder who's taking liability for loss of data. This was never allowed when I was working. The use of term "cloud" is something we were using ever since we had out first servers in operation.
Internal/External managed is the same...all done by contractors. Whether it’s Booz Allen or Amazon the folks are cleared.
Soli said: 2) You're on a discussion thread about an amazing Mac Pro announcement which clearly means Cook doesn't believe the Mac, a traditional PC, of which a desktop, the lower volume type over the notebook, will not sell to customers… or do you think Apple likes investing in products that offer no return?
But, how new of a realization is that at Apple? I still wonder if at one point they didn't think iOS was going to replace the Mac, and then figure out it wasn't going to happen, or happen nearly as quickly as they thought it could.
After almost a decade - and a bunch of course-corrections - this is easy to say, now.
Can you explain to me how you perceived iOS apps being made on an iPhone or iPad using Xcode because Macs don't exist because I can't envision such a future.
@elijahg@Sanctum1972 You've both hit the nail on the head and pointed out the real issue, Tim 'Pipeline' Cook and what an inordinately awful CEO he is.
Cook is a bean counter with absolutely no feel for products and appears to have zero ability to see through the sort of BS that lead to the release of the Trashcan. Cook can only see as far as the incredible profits that the iOS devices are making with the Apple SoCs and can only see the Mac line up on ARM to unleash yet more shareholder value. Nothing else really matters as long as the majority of the company's products shift to ARM ASAP.
It's likely that the iMac Pro and Mac Pro will be the only Intel based Macs by the end of 2021 and if they don't sell they'll be EOLed. The EOL of OpenGL and OpenCL last year and now the iPadOS experiment all point to the convergence of Mac and iOS devices getting closer to the pointy end. Think of the efficiencies of scale combined with Apple's performance advantage on ARM and they could rule the new hyper mobile device future. You might be looking at not a return to being a Trillion dollar company but a 2 Trillion dollar company with every bit of hardware made in house.
Combine the above backdrop with the hyper competitive PC hardware market that the Mac Pro is going to be released into and would anyone really spend $15k on a Mac Pro that Apple may only support for a few short years? How long will Apple keep the BTO selection of GPU modules up to date and competitive with the mass produced PC market? What if the Mac Pro only sells in the low thousands what motivation would there be for Apple to keep the hardware of the Mac Pro current? Hear professionals talk about Apple and you'll hear them say after the FCP/FCPX debacle and the Mac Pro no show that they've lost confidence in Apple as a partner as they can no longer be trusted to not go missing in action. What if you sink $15k into the Mac Pro and it's Apple's last Mac Pro?
Most of us have lived through the PPC to Intel move and when Apple moves to a new chip architecture that becomes the focus. Any ambitious Apple engineers won't want to be left behind supporting the old Intel architecture they'll be heading for ARM product development. All the Apple marketing will be about ARM and the bright new future of ridiculous profit levels. I loved Jobs' ability to go from telling everyone PPC was faster than Intel until the day he announced Intel Macs which was a 'screamer' and we never heard of PPC ever again.
The Mac Pro is clearly a forum success, the people who will never need or use one seem absolutely sold on it but is there a single professional creative user on this forum that is going to go all in on the new Mac Pro and order one as soon as it hits the Apple store? If there is I'd love for you to explain why it makes sense from a financial and hardware perspective. Anyone?
The Mac Pro is clearly a forum success, the people who will never need or use one seem absolutely sold on it but is there a single professional creative user on this forum that is going to go all in on the new Mac Pro and order one as soon as it hits the Apple store? If there is I'd love for you to explain why it makes sense from a financial and hardware perspective. Anyone?
I work in scripted television as an editor, and always work with rental companies for our equipment. One of the rental companies I work with a ton are buying them out the gate to start testing in typical workflows.
I, for one, can't wait to use them. Codec conversions and exports are a lifeblood in post, and any extra speed is money and time saved. I'll take it.
I can understand how some might think the MacPro isn't worth it, but there are many (on this forum and off) that most definitely think it's worth it. Not all life is black and white. Worthless or not.
After reading this article a couple of times, my BS radar has been set off. This article is similar to the Apple press release about how excited "pros" were for this. I do have to hand it to apple though, they have managed to stoke plenty of arguments of what a "pro" is! Its almost to the audiophile level of arguments
Lets break down the sample of people though:
1. A video editor that AppleInsider has known for 30 years - "I have to cut, render and output HD and 4K video very quickly. The video files can be very large and sometimes I'm running multiple programs. I need as much horsepower as I can get."
2. Blake Garner, an Automation Architect at Adobe - "The rack mount option is huge for Adobe," Garner said, "as we host a lot of Macs in server rooms doing Xcode builds and automated testing..... "the memory capacity is going to be a very noticeable improvement. Running large RAM virtual machines or sets of virtual machines for homelab work will eat all the RAM you can afford, let alone the large Xcode builds." I mean this is kind of like cherrypicking your audience. Without a doubt Adobe will be buying plenty of these as they develop for these! Kind of funny that the buying point he mentions is that its rack mountable and that currently they have these things on baker racks, like some sort of bitcoin mining farm. At first I thought it was BS that he would buy one of these for a homelab, but I guess since the Mac mini tops out at 64 GB with zero expandability and you need a mac to (legally) virtualize OS X, this might sadly be his only choice.
3. An anonymous photographer who is working on sensitive projects - He said that the new Mac Pro was appealing because of "raw horsepower" in his workflow. "Not having to wait while rendering [is key]," he said, "especially since Adobe makes minimal use of GPU processing in Lightroom and Photoshop." Is this guy working for the CIA or something? Or is he in the witness protection program? And wait a minute, since he says he doesn't need high end GPUs, is he really buying this thing for a modern Xeon processor and more RAM? If so this seems to perpetuate the claim that there are Pros who don't need quad GPUs and a 1000 watt PSU.
4. Michael Trauffer, senior video editor for a large post production facility -"The Keynote mentioned that Adobe is one of the software providers that is on board with the new Mac Pro," he says. "I'm hoping that their software will finally be able to take advantage of all of that horsepower that is being made available. Premiere Pro doesn't [currently] utilize multiple GPU when playing/editing..... We are planning on getting one of the new Mac Pros to test it as a possible upgrade/replacement for our 2013 Mac Pros." Finally someone who says what he is currently using. That said, considering the last Mac Pro could be configured with dual GPUs, I don't really see why this new computer would relate to Adobe's software features. The fact that they are buying one for testing to see if its even a viable replacement shows his company isn't sold.
5. Keith R. Sbiral, Photographer and owner (or IT Manager, can't really tell) of a career-development consultancy business. - "Our office is an all-Mac one," he said, "and that alone makes my work and my life easier. There is something to be said for the dependability and expandability of a Mac Pro that simply make it a great machine... "For a vast majority of Mac users, admittedly including myself," he continued, "the specs are likely far beyond what I really need to do my job. But I love to work on a blazing fast machine, particularly when I'm working on photography projects." - So is he buying one or not? He thinks its overkill but likes it because its expandable and fast. This doesn't sound like something you would find at career development consultancy.
6. Jules Ryckebusch, product development for medical visualization - "I work in product development for medical visualization," Jules Ryckebusch told us, "specifically in the minimally-invasive surgery space. I am also a long-time hobby photographer and a video guy." LOL thanks for the insight Jules.
7. High-ranking members of the Department of Defense - "Without divulging specifics, use cases cited include real-time image processing, and time-sensitive audio classification and identification." Beep Beep Beep, BS detected. What exactly is a high ranking member of the DoD? No one is going to use a Mac workstation for this type of stuff.
So what is the verdict about purchasing and what they think of the price?
1. The anonymous Video Editor - Not Buying "I won't buy it right away," he says. "My current Mac Pro is still getting the job done. I [also] want to take it for a test drive and see how well (or poorly) it performs with Adobe Premiere." This guy seems the most grounded. If you are doing fine with a 6 year old machine, buying one of these things would be a luxury purpose. Considering he isn't getting one though, I wonder if he is truly a "Pro."
2.Blake Garner - Buying for work"Personally, cost is a factor. I'll likely go with the bottom-end and enjoy using third party storage and RAM. Adding upgrades over time is a great way to get value from a high-end system like this. In the work context, teams will pick configurations that are optimized to save time, and high-end configurations will be worth the cost." No surprise Adobe will be buying these in droves. I thought he was buying one for his house too, but then the article said this: As certain as he is that he and Adobe will be buying Mac Pro machines, Garner is also waiting for more details. "Thoughts will evolve once the third-party MPX modules and pricing is posted to the Apple Store," he said. Translation: Not a pro
3. The Anonymous Photographer - Buying"Price is not too much of a concern," said the photographer. "I'm expecting to spend around $9,000-$10,000" Well I was wrong about this guy. When he dismissed the use of high spec GPUs I figured he wasn't a true pro. Throwing $10k at a computer like someone driving through the toll lane though speaks otherwise. He also said he expects it to last a decade, which makes me question if he is a true pro after all.
4. Michael Trauffer - Buying
5. Keith R. Sbiral - Buying "I've had most every pro-level Mac since the 840AV, and I think the one fantastic part about the product is the longevity of use. I had a 2008 Mac Pro and a 2013 Mac Pro and now I'm ready for the 2019 version. I'm really excited about the power, graphics, and upgradability." Apple has to love customers like this
6. Jules Ryckebusch - Not Buying "I expect it will be in the $10,000 - $20,000 range when I purchase," he says. "The other thing to take into account here is where the rest of it is going. We will need a 10gig LAN to really take advantage of the whole ecosystem... All of that also will need to catch up" Sounds like this guy might be too Pro for this machine!
The article glosses over and cherry coats a lot of the quotes that should really be considered criticisms. One of them says he plans to add in a RAID card along with NVME PCI cards. Others cite the lack of 10 GB ethernet. Another plans on populating the memory and GPU with 3rd party options. All of this makes me wonder, why not just build your own computer?! You pay a premium to Dell, HP, Apple, etc because they support what they build. If you are forced to add your own cards to make up for the shortcomings it seems a little counterproductive.
You're welcome to believe what you want. But, you really don't know what you're talking about. In regards to #7, The DOD has been using Macs for literally decades for this kind of use, and in all kinds of other ways. And, speaking about arguments about what a "true pro" is -- you don't seem to have any problems declaring who is and who isn't, based on your own arbitrary definition.
Interviewees 1 and 6 said straight-up that they were buying the machines, so I'm not sure where you get "not buying." It may not be first day, but it will be quickly after release. And the criticisms? What is the point of PCI-E if you don't put in things like a GPU or NVME cards that you want to put in?
Source on number 7, by the way: been there, done that, supported it over three decades. Still doing so to this date.
My declarations of "true pros" were done tongue in cheek; I just find it funny that anyone who balks at the price or doesn't like part of the setup is immediately told that the computer is not for them, somehow insinuating that they aren't a professional.
As for the DOD, I have no doubts that Macs are in use there. What I dispute is that they are currently using 5 year old Mac Pros with single xeon processors and AMD Firepros for "real-time image processing, and time-sensitive audio classification and identification" Interviewees 1 and 6 are tire kickers and the author himself even said they weren't buying one right away. Either way, what does that say about the sample size? The point of PCIE when buying from a system builder is that they will support what they put in it! If I order a Dell with RAID, I know it will work, and if it doesn't I call Dell and they figure it out or send someone to replace the card. Same with any extra NICs. When you start putting your own hardware into these machines, good luck figuring it out when there is a problem! This isn't a big deal if you are just using a machine for home, but when you have a computer that cannot go down, you need this type of stuff. For this reason its alarming that Apple has so few options.
After reading this article a couple of times, my BS radar has been set off. This article is similar to the Apple press release about how excited "pros" were for this. I do have to hand it to apple though, they have managed to stoke plenty of arguments of what a "pro" is! Its almost to the audiophile level of arguments
Lets break down the sample of people though:
1. A video editor that AppleInsider has known for 30 years - "I have to cut, render and output HD and 4K video very quickly. The video files can be very large and sometimes I'm running multiple programs. I need as much horsepower as I can get."
2. Blake Garner, an Automation Architect at Adobe - "The rack mount option is huge for Adobe," Garner said, "as we host a lot of Macs in server rooms doing Xcode builds and automated testing..... "the memory capacity is going to be a very noticeable improvement. Running large RAM virtual machines or sets of virtual machines for homelab work will eat all the RAM you can afford, let alone the large Xcode builds." I mean this is kind of like cherrypicking your audience. Without a doubt Adobe will be buying plenty of these as they develop for these! Kind of funny that the buying point he mentions is that its rack mountable and that currently they have these things on baker racks, like some sort of bitcoin mining farm. At first I thought it was BS that he would buy one of these for a homelab, but I guess since the Mac mini tops out at 64 GB with zero expandability and you need a mac to (legally) virtualize OS X, this might sadly be his only choice.
3. An anonymous photographer who is working on sensitive projects - He said that the new Mac Pro was appealing because of "raw horsepower" in his workflow. "Not having to wait while rendering [is key]," he said, "especially since Adobe makes minimal use of GPU processing in Lightroom and Photoshop." Is this guy working for the CIA or something? Or is he in the witness protection program? And wait a minute, since he says he doesn't need high end GPUs, is he really buying this thing for a modern Xeon processor and more RAM? If so this seems to perpetuate the claim that there are Pros who don't need quad GPUs and a 1000 watt PSU.
4. Michael Trauffer, senior video editor for a large post production facility -"The Keynote mentioned that Adobe is one of the software providers that is on board with the new Mac Pro," he says. "I'm hoping that their software will finally be able to take advantage of all of that horsepower that is being made available. Premiere Pro doesn't [currently] utilize multiple GPU when playing/editing..... We are planning on getting one of the new Mac Pros to test it as a possible upgrade/replacement for our 2013 Mac Pros." Finally someone who says what he is currently using. That said, considering the last Mac Pro could be configured with dual GPUs, I don't really see why this new computer would relate to Adobe's software features. The fact that they are buying one for testing to see if its even a viable replacement shows his company isn't sold.
5. Keith R. Sbiral, Photographer and owner (or IT Manager, can't really tell) of a career-development consultancy business. - "Our office is an all-Mac one," he said, "and that alone makes my work and my life easier. There is something to be said for the dependability and expandability of a Mac Pro that simply make it a great machine... "For a vast majority of Mac users, admittedly including myself," he continued, "the specs are likely far beyond what I really need to do my job. But I love to work on a blazing fast machine, particularly when I'm working on photography projects." - So is he buying one or not? He thinks its overkill but likes it because its expandable and fast. This doesn't sound like something you would find at career development consultancy.
6. Jules Ryckebusch, product development for medical visualization - "I work in product development for medical visualization," Jules Ryckebusch told us, "specifically in the minimally-invasive surgery space. I am also a long-time hobby photographer and a video guy." LOL thanks for the insight Jules.
7. High-ranking members of the Department of Defense - "Without divulging specifics, use cases cited include real-time image processing, and time-sensitive audio classification and identification." Beep Beep Beep, BS detected. What exactly is a high ranking member of the DoD? No one is going to use a Mac workstation for this type of stuff.
So what is the verdict about purchasing and what they think of the price?
1. The anonymous Video Editor - Not Buying "I won't buy it right away," he says. "My current Mac Pro is still getting the job done. I [also] want to take it for a test drive and see how well (or poorly) it performs with Adobe Premiere." This guy seems the most grounded. If you are doing fine with a 6 year old machine, buying one of these things would be a luxury purpose. Considering he isn't getting one though, I wonder if he is truly a "Pro."
2.Blake Garner - Buying for work"Personally, cost is a factor. I'll likely go with the bottom-end and enjoy using third party storage and RAM. Adding upgrades over time is a great way to get value from a high-end system like this. In the work context, teams will pick configurations that are optimized to save time, and high-end configurations will be worth the cost." No surprise Adobe will be buying these in droves. I thought he was buying one for his house too, but then the article said this: As certain as he is that he and Adobe will be buying Mac Pro machines, Garner is also waiting for more details. "Thoughts will evolve once the third-party MPX modules and pricing is posted to the Apple Store," he said. Translation: Not a pro
3. The Anonymous Photographer - Buying"Price is not too much of a concern," said the photographer. "I'm expecting to spend around $9,000-$10,000" Well I was wrong about this guy. When he dismissed the use of high spec GPUs I figured he wasn't a true pro. Throwing $10k at a computer like someone driving through the toll lane though speaks otherwise. He also said he expects it to last a decade, which makes me question if he is a true pro after all.
4. Michael Trauffer - Buying
5. Keith R. Sbiral - Buying "I've had most every pro-level Mac since the 840AV, and I think the one fantastic part about the product is the longevity of use. I had a 2008 Mac Pro and a 2013 Mac Pro and now I'm ready for the 2019 version. I'm really excited about the power, graphics, and upgradability." Apple has to love customers like this
6. Jules Ryckebusch - Not Buying "I expect it will be in the $10,000 - $20,000 range when I purchase," he says. "The other thing to take into account here is where the rest of it is going. We will need a 10gig LAN to really take advantage of the whole ecosystem... All of that also will need to catch up" Sounds like this guy might be too Pro for this machine!
The article glosses over and cherry coats a lot of the quotes that should really be considered criticisms. One of them says he plans to add in a RAID card along with NVME PCI cards. Others cite the lack of 10 GB ethernet. Another plans on populating the memory and GPU with 3rd party options. All of this makes me wonder, why not just build your own computer?! You pay a premium to Dell, HP, Apple, etc because they support what they build. If you are forced to add your own cards to make up for the shortcomings it seems a little counterproductive.
You're welcome to believe what you want. But, you really don't know what you're talking about. In regards to #7, The DOD has been using Macs for literally decades for this kind of use, and in all kinds of other ways. And, speaking about arguments about what a "true pro" is -- you don't seem to have any problems declaring who is and who isn't, based on your own arbitrary definition.
Interviewees 1 and 6 said straight-up that they were buying the machines, so I'm not sure where you get "not buying." It may not be first day, but it will be quickly after release. And the criticisms? What is the point of PCI-E if you don't put in things like a GPU or NVME cards that you want to put in?
Source on number 7, by the way: been there, done that, supported it over three decades. Still doing so to this date.
My declarations of "true pros" were done tongue in cheek; I just find it funny that anyone who balks at the price or doesn't like part of the setup is immediately told that the computer is not for them, somehow insinuating that they aren't a professional.
As for the DOD, I have no doubts that Macs are in use there. What I dispute is that they are currently using 5 year old Mac Pros with single xeon processors and AMD Firepros for "real-time image processing, and time-sensitive audio classification and identification" Interviewees 1 and 6 are tire kickers and the author himself even said they weren't buying one right away. Either way, what does that say about the sample size? The point of PCIE when buying from a system builder is that they will support what they put in it! If I order a Dell with RAID, I know it will work, and if it doesn't I call Dell and they figure it out or send someone to replace the card. Same with any extra NICs. When you start putting your own hardware into these machines, good luck figuring it out when there is a problem! This isn't a big deal if you are just using a machine for home, but when you have a computer that cannot go down, you need this type of stuff. For this reason its alarming that Apple has so few options.
Apologies for missing the tongue in cheek. We've spoken about the "true pro" thing in the past, repeatedly, and hate it. And, in regards to "sample size" this isn't some kind of survey. We didn't have to look hard to find these folks, who are going to buy the machine, and all with valid use-cases.
However, I can absolutely confirm that the DOD is using the 6,1 Mac Pro rack-mounted for that purpose on a variety of platforms. Hell, even a few rack-mounted 5,1 transplanted into an enclosure that some German company used to make for it.
Let’s be honest for a second, the new Mac Pro and XDR Display is not a good value if someone isn’t working at a Marvel Studio.
ten years ago to the month I bought my current Mac Pro. This summer I am hoping to upgrade it to the 2012 chips and get a few more years out of it. After which time I will be getting a (maybe used/refurbed) nnMP. It breaks down to $400yr plus the couple hundred I've put into upgrades so far, and the couple hundred I plan on putting into it this year. Not a terrible deal.
The nnMP is an order of magnitude more powerful than the '09/'12 machine and upgadable to the point it's very likely the last desktop I'll ever have to buy. For only 2K more? Why wouldn't I?
The new Mac Pro was an important move for Apple. Hopefully it hasn’t come too late. It still baffles me why they never bothered to update the previous Mac Pro to Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C, which a form-factor like that desperately needed, considering its reliance (by design) on external expansion. Perhaps they knew it had failed and already given up on it by the time TB3 rolled around. But that doesn’t explain why they kept the price on it so high for so long despite its significantly outdated hardware either, so go figure.
My only concern about the new Mac Pro (apart from its price, or more specifically: that I’ll never be able to afford one) is, like the previous version, its limitation to a single CPU socket. Granted they’re up to 28 cores now, but my understanding is there are still many applications (particularly in science) for which traditional CPU power is used and required as opposed to graphics architectures. Wouldn’t 2 x 28 cores be even better for this segment of pros? You could do some crazily advanced fluid dynamics modelling and research with that kind of horsepower sitting on your desk.
So I feel like Apple mainly liaised and targeted graphics and media professionals (like studios) with this update. Granted there are plenty of scientists using GPU compute, but many of those have CUDA code, so Apple is still shutting the gate on them (for now) also.
In the end I think it was too difficult to find the space for another CPU with all that PCI and RAM expansion. I still think it’s an awesome looking machine, and that XDR screen is even more impressive.
The new Mac Pro was an important move for Apple. Hopefully it hasn’t come too late. It still baffles me why they never bothered to update the previous Mac Pro to Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C, which a form-factor like that desperately needed, considering its reliance (by design) on external expansion. Perhaps they knew it had failed and already given up on it by the time TB3 rolled around. But that doesn’t explain why they kept the price on it so high for so long despite its significantly outdated hardware either, so go figure.
My only concern about the new Mac Pro (apart from its price, or more specifically: that I’ll never be able to afford one) is, like the previous version, its limitation to a single CPU socket. Granted they’re up to 28 cores now, but my understanding is there are still many applications (particularly in science) for which traditional CPU power is used and required as opposed to graphics architectures. Wouldn’t 2 x 28 cores be even better for this segment of pros? You could do some crazily advanced fluid dynamics modelling and research with that kind of horsepower sitting on your desk.
So I feel like Apple mainly liaised and targeted graphics and media professionals (like studios) with this update. Granted there are plenty of scientists using GPU compute, but many of those have CUDA code, so Apple is still shutting the gate on them (for now) also.
In the end I think it was too difficult to find the space for another CPU with all that PCI and RAM expansion. I still think it’s an awesome looking machine, and that XDR screen is even more impressive.
It's not that simple, and it's not that cheap. You can't simply take two of the CPUs Apple's using and slap them into a motherboard. You need a different product line (the Xeon SP), where each CPU costs nearly twice the price of the Xeon W CPUs (~14k vs. ~7.5k for the 28-core unit). The motherboard is also very different.
That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a dual-core next year. Though what I would really rather see is an EPYC dual-core next year.
It's pretty funny watching the haters clap each other on the back here. Lots of ignorance throughout (along with some reasonable points).
To correct some of that: The memory busses on Ryzens and Threadrippers are generally NOT limiting factors. The issue with the TR 32-core lacking direct access to memory from half its cores is greatly overblown, and turns out to be mostly irrelevant. The big performance issues noted when it first came out were due to Windows scheduler issues. They've been corrected since, and never existed in the first place on Linux.
Almost nobody is actually memory bus bandwidth-limited. Such workloads do exist but they're quite rare.
The new Mac Pro was an important move for Apple. Hopefully it hasn’t come too late. It still baffles me why they never bothered to update the previous Mac Pro to Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C, which a form-factor like that desperately needed, considering its reliance (by design) on external expansion. Perhaps they knew it had failed and already given up on it by the time TB3 rolled around. But that doesn’t explain why they kept the price on it so high for so long despite its significantly outdated hardware either, so go figure.
My only concern about the new Mac Pro (apart from its price, or more specifically: that I’ll never be able to afford one) is, like the previous version, its limitation to a single CPU socket. Granted they’re up to 28 cores now, but my understanding is there are still many applications (particularly in science) for which traditional CPU power is used and required as opposed to graphics architectures. Wouldn’t 2 x 28 cores be even better for this segment of pros? You could do some crazily advanced fluid dynamics modelling and research with that kind of horsepower sitting on your desk.
So I feel like Apple mainly liaised and targeted graphics and media professionals (like studios) with this update. Granted there are plenty of scientists using GPU compute, but many of those have CUDA code, so Apple is still shutting the gate on them (for now) also.
In the end I think it was too difficult to find the space for another CPU with all that PCI and RAM expansion. I still think it’s an awesome looking machine, and that XDR screen is even more impressive.
They didn't update the previous Mac Pro because internally they had EOLed the Mac Pro and believed the iMac Pro was the Mac Pro that everyone wanted. They got heaps of 'feedback' and did their grovelling apology, the rest is history. Apple designed themselves into a corner with the trashcan which meant a fundamental redesigned would be necessary to update it, they obviously looked at the sales figures and didn't think it made commercial sense. It the Trashcan has been a roaring success they'd would've updated it, no question.
Think about who the target user is for a Mac Pro ask yourself whether they'd have deep enough pockets for dual processors up to $19k each. (Figure taken from HP Z8 configurator). There's obviously a market for these processor but it'll be small even for the Win/Linux market and nil for MacOS.
So the Single socket Xeon is a reasonable choice. Crazy advanced fluid sims (hollywood vfx and weather) are done on render farms or super computers not 56 core or 28 core workstations. The sort of fluid sim or physics sim I'd do in Houdini will be most likely be able to be done on the GPU so only when your sim gets so large not to fit on the GPU you'd fall back to CPU. Many of my compatriots on ODForce Houdini forum use 32 core Threadrippers with a good chunk of RAM. Anything bigger then you're in the ILM bracket and that's a completely different game of render farms, cloud (e.g. gridmarkets) or super computing.
Maybe studios were liaised with but where the Mac Pro fits into a Studio I do not know. As far as 3D rendering is concerned Redshift and Octane have announced Metal support by the end of year but the success will be absolutely dependent on performance. If the VEGA II GPUs prove to be on par with nVidia in 3D rendering then the huge 32 GB VRAM will be a huge positive (if they don't cost silly money) but if the performance is, as I fear it will be, way lower than the current CUDA performance then absolutely no one will care. It's obvious Apple is throwing money and resources at Redshift and Octane because for years both companies have been researching how to get their renderer compatible with the MacOS. Neither company got very far to date for want of trying. Maybe Apple has some secret sauce, it'll be interesting to see what the real story is later in the year.
After reading this article a couple of times, my BS radar has been set off. This article is similar to the Apple press release about how excited "pros" were for this. I do have to hand it to apple though, they have managed to stoke plenty of arguments of what a "pro" is! Its almost to the audiophile level of arguments
Lets break down the sample of people though:
1. A video editor that AppleInsider has known for 30 years - "I have to cut, render and output HD and 4K video very quickly. The video files can be very large and sometimes I'm running multiple programs. I need as much horsepower as I can get."
2. Blake Garner, an Automation Architect at Adobe - "The rack mount option is huge for Adobe," Garner said, "as we host a lot of Macs in server rooms doing Xcode builds and automated testing..... "the memory capacity is going to be a very noticeable improvement. Running large RAM virtual machines or sets of virtual machines for homelab work will eat all the RAM you can afford, let alone the large Xcode builds." I mean this is kind of like cherrypicking your audience. Without a doubt Adobe will be buying plenty of these as they develop for these! Kind of funny that the buying point he mentions is that its rack mountable and that currently they have these things on baker racks, like some sort of bitcoin mining farm. At first I thought it was BS that he would buy one of these for a homelab, but I guess since the Mac mini tops out at 64 GB with zero expandability and you need a mac to (legally) virtualize OS X, this might sadly be his only choice.
3. An anonymous photographer who is working on sensitive projects - He said that the new Mac Pro was appealing because of "raw horsepower" in his workflow. "Not having to wait while rendering [is key]," he said, "especially since Adobe makes minimal use of GPU processing in Lightroom and Photoshop." Is this guy working for the CIA or something? Or is he in the witness protection program? And wait a minute, since he says he doesn't need high end GPUs, is he really buying this thing for a modern Xeon processor and more RAM? If so this seems to perpetuate the claim that there are Pros who don't need quad GPUs and a 1000 watt PSU.
4. Michael Trauffer, senior video editor for a large post production facility -"The Keynote mentioned that Adobe is one of the software providers that is on board with the new Mac Pro," he says. "I'm hoping that their software will finally be able to take advantage of all of that horsepower that is being made available. Premiere Pro doesn't [currently] utilize multiple GPU when playing/editing..... We are planning on getting one of the new Mac Pros to test it as a possible upgrade/replacement for our 2013 Mac Pros." Finally someone who says what he is currently using. That said, considering the last Mac Pro could be configured with dual GPUs, I don't really see why this new computer would relate to Adobe's software features. The fact that they are buying one for testing to see if its even a viable replacement shows his company isn't sold.
5. Keith R. Sbiral, Photographer and owner (or IT Manager, can't really tell) of a career-development consultancy business. - "Our office is an all-Mac one," he said, "and that alone makes my work and my life easier. There is something to be said for the dependability and expandability of a Mac Pro that simply make it a great machine... "For a vast majority of Mac users, admittedly including myself," he continued, "the specs are likely far beyond what I really need to do my job. But I love to work on a blazing fast machine, particularly when I'm working on photography projects." - So is he buying one or not? He thinks its overkill but likes it because its expandable and fast. This doesn't sound like something you would find at career development consultancy.
6. Jules Ryckebusch, product development for medical visualization - "I work in product development for medical visualization," Jules Ryckebusch told us, "specifically in the minimally-invasive surgery space. I am also a long-time hobby photographer and a video guy." LOL thanks for the insight Jules.
7. High-ranking members of the Department of Defense - "Without divulging specifics, use cases cited include real-time image processing, and time-sensitive audio classification and identification." Beep Beep Beep, BS detected. What exactly is a high ranking member of the DoD? No one is going to use a Mac workstation for this type of stuff.
So what is the verdict about purchasing and what they think of the price?
1. The anonymous Video Editor - Not Buying "I won't buy it right away," he says. "My current Mac Pro is still getting the job done. I [also] want to take it for a test drive and see how well (or poorly) it performs with Adobe Premiere." This guy seems the most grounded. If you are doing fine with a 6 year old machine, buying one of these things would be a luxury purpose. Considering he isn't getting one though, I wonder if he is truly a "Pro."
2.Blake Garner - Buying for work"Personally, cost is a factor. I'll likely go with the bottom-end and enjoy using third party storage and RAM. Adding upgrades over time is a great way to get value from a high-end system like this. In the work context, teams will pick configurations that are optimized to save time, and high-end configurations will be worth the cost." No surprise Adobe will be buying these in droves. I thought he was buying one for his house too, but then the article said this: As certain as he is that he and Adobe will be buying Mac Pro machines, Garner is also waiting for more details. "Thoughts will evolve once the third-party MPX modules and pricing is posted to the Apple Store," he said. Translation: Not a pro
3. The Anonymous Photographer - Buying"Price is not too much of a concern," said the photographer. "I'm expecting to spend around $9,000-$10,000" Well I was wrong about this guy. When he dismissed the use of high spec GPUs I figured he wasn't a true pro. Throwing $10k at a computer like someone driving through the toll lane though speaks otherwise. He also said he expects it to last a decade, which makes me question if he is a true pro after all.
4. Michael Trauffer - Buying
5. Keith R. Sbiral - Buying "I've had most every pro-level Mac since the 840AV, and I think the one fantastic part about the product is the longevity of use. I had a 2008 Mac Pro and a 2013 Mac Pro and now I'm ready for the 2019 version. I'm really excited about the power, graphics, and upgradability." Apple has to love customers like this
6. Jules Ryckebusch - Not Buying "I expect it will be in the $10,000 - $20,000 range when I purchase," he says. "The other thing to take into account here is where the rest of it is going. We will need a 10gig LAN to really take advantage of the whole ecosystem... All of that also will need to catch up" Sounds like this guy might be too Pro for this machine!
The article glosses over and cherry coats a lot of the quotes that should really be considered criticisms. One of them says he plans to add in a RAID card along with NVME PCI cards. Others cite the lack of 10 GB ethernet. Another plans on populating the memory and GPU with 3rd party options. All of this makes me wonder, why not just build your own computer?! You pay a premium to Dell, HP, Apple, etc because they support what they build. If you are forced to add your own cards to make up for the shortcomings it seems a little counterproductive.
You're welcome to believe what you want. But, you really don't know what you're talking about. In regards to #7, The DOD has been using Macs for literally decades for this kind of use, and in all kinds of other ways. And, speaking about arguments about what a "true pro" is -- you don't seem to have any problems declaring who is and who isn't, based on your own arbitrary definition.
Interviewees 1 and 6 said straight-up that they were buying the machines, so I'm not sure where you get "not buying." It may not be first day, but it will be quickly after release. And the criticisms? What is the point of PCI-E if you don't put in things like a GPU or NVME cards that you want to put in?
Source on number 7, by the way: been there, done that, supported it over three decades. Still doing so to this date.
My declarations of "true pros" were done tongue in cheek; I just find it funny that anyone who balks at the price or doesn't like part of the setup is immediately told that the computer is not for them, somehow insinuating that they aren't a professional.
As for the DOD, I have no doubts that Macs are in use there. What I dispute is that they are currently using 5 year old Mac Pros with single xeon processors and AMD Firepros for "real-time image processing, and time-sensitive audio classification and identification" Interviewees 1 and 6 are tire kickers and the author himself even said they weren't buying one right away. Either way, what does that say about the sample size? The point of PCIE when buying from a system builder is that they will support what they put in it! If I order a Dell with RAID, I know it will work, and if it doesn't I call Dell and they figure it out or send someone to replace the card. Same with any extra NICs. When you start putting your own hardware into these machines, good luck figuring it out when there is a problem! This isn't a big deal if you are just using a machine for home, but when you have a computer that cannot go down, you need this type of stuff. For this reason its alarming that Apple has so few options.
Apologies for missing the tongue in cheek. We've spoken about the "true pro" thing in the past, repeatedly, and hate it. And, in regards to "sample size" this isn't some kind of survey. We didn't have to look hard to find these folks, who are going to buy the machine, and all with valid use-cases.
However, I can absolutely confirm that the DOD is using the 6,1 Mac Pro rack-mounted for that purpose on a variety of platforms. Hell, even a few rack-mounted 5,1 transplanted into an enclosure that some German company used to make for it.
That is interesting. Are they using some sort of legacy software or what exactly is the purpose of using the macs? With the advancements in machine learning in the past few years I think it would be insane to use something so outdated
Comments
more generally, if the only thing that matters to you is the number of cores, then no high end Xeon or Epyc workstation is right for you, not just the Mac Pro.
Similarly for FCP/FCPX, Apple released a half-assed version of FCPX with half the features from FCP missing. They seem to forget that pros use these machines for work, and all the time they're messing around trying to make something work that's not part of Apple's designated workflow they're losing money. Several updates over the space of 2 years brought back most of the features, but again it was too late. People don't have years to sit around and wait for fixes when Apple decides on a new way of doing things.
There are a few people here notorious for supporting this ridiculous ideology, StrangeDays and Lkrupp for example. They haven't a clue how pros use their machines but seem to think they are THE encyclopaedia on it, and anyone that doesn't agree is a "hater". It's quite tiring really. It's also a shame that Apple has shunned the core supporters - the pros - that were loyal throughout the '90's when Apple was in dire straits.
I'm completely in agreement, the iPads are great for some things, but the OS is too restrictive and will never replace a keyboard and mouse UI. It concerns me that Cook seems to think everyone can do everything on an iPad. It's completely incapable of many things, and even with the pencil lacks accuracy, other things are so awkward it's 5x slower than using a Mac. Cook's statement is quite revealing of his disdain for the Mac, that he hasn't a clue what people really use Macs for, and doesn't value them as he should. Just another contribution to why I think he's a pretty awful CEO.
I don't think a traditional PC is overkill because one would need it to back up the iPhone or iOS devices. I prefer doing this the traditional manner rather than just the Cloud which I don't trust. Everything I have on my iPhone is backed up on my computer, except for a few things that gets synced to a new device every few years to maintain consistency.
And I personally love looking at a large screen so I can view everything at once without the cramped 'screen estate'. The iPad Pro is nice but it's got a long ways to go.
2) You're on a discussion thread about an amazing Mac Pro announcement which clearly means Cook doesn't believe the Mac, a traditional PC, of which a desktop, the lower volume type over the notebook, will not sell to customers… or do you think Apple likes investing in products that offer no return?
Well, then I'll come right out and say that I don't (at least in regard to CG). I do have over 30 years of IT/Apple experience though, and worked in 3D/CAD for several years, hanging in forums with people like Alex Lindsay and John Knoll. (so I'm not exactly ignorant of it, either)
I'm not sure how that matters, but I suppose we'll see...
I suppose I have to forgive you, only having 7 posts here under your belt... but I've been taking incredible flack here as a 'troll' because I've not exactly been onboard with most of what Apple has been doing in recent years. Now I'm a fan-boy? I just can't win, lol.
My point was that they didn't build this machine just for 3D people like you (and sometimes me). People in other industries who might buy one, don't need top of the line GPUs. They might also not need a ton of expensive storage (which can easily be added). The base config is such that it doesn't make any of these people pay for a bunch of stuff they don't need. In other words, the base config is just that, a jumping off point from which to add what you do need!
I guess you got me there. I don't use Redshift, so I fell victim to Maxon's marketing fluff? I don't use that software either, so I guess I'll be more careful trusting anything they say from now on.
But, what I have seen, is people starting to talk more about Metal. I've also run across benchmarks (both using benchmark tools and timing real software runs) showing CUDA doesn't have the advantage it used to have. So, I think that is starting to shift. Maybe I'll end up being wrong... we'll see. (BTW, there was an article here on AI about Apple dropping OpenGL, etc.... maybe go read that to see how critical I was at the time.) My views are beginning to be shifted a bit.
Or, are you guys justifying your leap? I've been with Apple for over 30 years now. My whole workflow is tied up with them. If I were just talking about using a single app, or a few apps, then yeah, it would be easy to make the jump. I actually (working in IT) spend more of my time on Windows, to be honest. I'm currently using Autodesk Revit, as well, on Windows.
The problem is that as much as Windows has advanced, it still pretty much sucks. I won't change my overall platform until I need to. But, to say the new Mac Pro isn't impressive, as I said, is either sour-grapes, or a lack of understanding of what it really is (which your initial post seemed to show... and why I reacted like I did).
Note: 'It wasn't what I was wanting,' is different from, 'it isn't impressive.'
Well, I used to work at a near Fortune 50 with databases. We didn't need high-end GPUs in any of our servers. If you know otherwise, maybe enlighten me. (BTW, a RX580 isn't a half-way decent GPU... when, if I recall correctly, it's over half the speed of your decent GPUs?)
My point is that ZombieLoad requires physical access (to the machine and OS). Most people aren't in a situation where someone trying to attack them has physical access. I'm not saying it isn't an issue, just that it doesn't really impact most people.
Great story (thanks for sharing). I've had the fortune of knowing a bunch of cool people over the years as well. I should probably write them all down one day.
But, here's the thing. Your story was just as valid in the 90s, the 2000s, as it is today. What I mean, is that even in the hey-day of Apple's Mac Pros a lot of people went Windows. And, I remember arguing with people back when the G5 was actually faster than their PCs, because they thought Apple was going to Intel to catch up on speed.
It's mostly software and workflows that drive these things, from what I've seen, not the hardware. Or, most often, just the culture at whatever company that uses them happens to be. I worked for a number of users at a near Fortune 50 company, in a 'start up' department that was mostly Mac, where we were despised by the formal IT department because we used Macs. You wouldn't believe some of the things those 'IT pros' would say about Macs that was simply ignorant. A lot of the decisions over this stuff aren't really made on facts.
I don't disagree with you here. Though, from what I've heard, the transition also isn't w/o pain, especially in the audio arena. Apple had perfected a number of core technologies around audio/video, which combined with consistent hardware was pretty important. I think there has been slip, especially on the software side in recent years.
I also know a pretty famous podcaster who has recently made the switch, and it has been interesting following along with his struggles. (Though, he seems to have made the change more on principal.) That has been my own experience as well, in that the grass isn't necessarily greener, aside from lower hardware costs and customizability.
re: iPad - No, but I'm hopeful about iOS 13/iPad OS. The big problem I've faced has been more OS/software related. I'll try to get stuff done on my iPad (and love things about it for travel), but whenever I have a 'real computer' at my disposal, it isn't even a close choice. The iPad always requires lots of pain and tech-gymnastics, which is often an issue around the file-system or how apps interact with files. That combined with the inefficiency of a touch-interface for a lot of things. (The latter still needs solved.)
I think with the Trashcan, they had optimized it for a particular video-production workflow, and were also a bit too optimistic about the future of what Thunderbolt is just beginning to become. It was both ahead of its time (in a limiting way), and too focused on one particular thing. But otherwise I agree that this is the downside to Apple. It can also be a blessing in areas that they have particularly studied, though. Bringing back the real pros to consult on the new Mac Pro is a step back in the right direction.
Software is another big example of the above. I think that often the people (person) working on many of the Apple software apps just has no real-world experience to understand how their changes are impacting the users. One can see that in changes to the iWork suite, or even simple stuff like Calendar. There are obvious features missing and odd ways of doing things. That shouldn't be the case, especially in core workflow functionality of a product used by hundreds of millions.
It depends on who 'everyone' means, and probably is relatively accurate as to Apple's new target audience.
But you're right, it absolutely can indicate a huge problem. A great analogy is more recent BMW. They also seem to think that 'everyone' doesn't need things like manual transmission anymore, or have been focusing on SUVs instead of the products that made them great. Are they going out of business any day soon? Probably not. But it does seem to be having a (negative) impact on their product lines, causing them to lose core influencers, etc. That stuff will have an eventual impact on the whole company.
It isn't even that I don't trust the Cloud (which I don't... I was successful as a Sr. Ops. Eng. at a nearly Fortune 50, precisely because I tend not to trust technology and automation!). It is that Apple's incarnation of the cloud doesn't allow enough control on what is going on. I have to just adapt my use to their workflow concepts and trust that everything is handled properly (especially, on the heels of MobileMe, which was a disaster).
But, how new of a realization is that at Apple? I still wonder if at one point they didn't think iOS was going to replace the Mac, and then figure out it wasn't going to happen, or happen nearly as quickly as they thought it could.
After almost a decade - and a bunch of course-corrections - this is easy to say, now.
Cook is a bean counter with absolutely no feel for products and appears to have zero ability to see through the sort of BS that lead to the release of the Trashcan. Cook can only see as far as the incredible profits that the iOS devices are making with the Apple SoCs and can only see the Mac line up on ARM to unleash yet more shareholder value. Nothing else really matters as long as the majority of the company's products shift to ARM ASAP.
It's likely that the iMac Pro and Mac Pro will be the only Intel based Macs by the end of 2021 and if they don't sell they'll be EOLed. The EOL of OpenGL and OpenCL last year and now the iPadOS experiment all point to the convergence of Mac and iOS devices getting closer to the pointy end. Think of the efficiencies of scale combined with Apple's performance advantage on ARM and they could rule the new hyper mobile device future. You might be looking at not a return to being a Trillion dollar company but a 2 Trillion dollar company with every bit of hardware made in house.
Combine the above backdrop with the hyper competitive PC hardware market that the Mac Pro is going to be released into and would anyone really spend $15k on a Mac Pro that Apple may only support for a few short years? How long will Apple keep the BTO selection of GPU modules up to date and competitive with the mass produced PC market? What if the Mac Pro only sells in the low thousands what motivation would there be for Apple to keep the hardware of the Mac Pro current? Hear professionals talk about Apple and you'll hear them say after the FCP/FCPX debacle and the Mac Pro no show that they've lost confidence in Apple as a partner as they can no longer be trusted to not go missing in action. What if you sink $15k into the Mac Pro and it's Apple's last Mac Pro?
Most of us have lived through the PPC to Intel move and when Apple moves to a new chip architecture that becomes the focus. Any ambitious Apple engineers won't want to be left behind supporting the old Intel architecture they'll be heading for ARM product development. All the Apple marketing will be about ARM and the bright new future of ridiculous profit levels. I loved Jobs' ability to go from telling everyone PPC was faster than Intel until the day he announced Intel Macs which was a 'screamer' and we never heard of PPC ever again.
The Mac Pro is clearly a forum success, the people who will never need or use one seem absolutely sold on it but is there a single professional creative user on this forum that is going to go all in on the new Mac Pro and order one as soon as it hits the Apple store? If there is I'd love for you to explain why it makes sense from a financial and hardware perspective. Anyone?
I, for one, can't wait to use them. Codec conversions and exports are a lifeblood in post, and any extra speed is money and time saved. I'll take it.
I can understand how some might think the MacPro isn't worth it, but there are many (on this forum and off) that most definitely think it's worth it. Not all life is black and white. Worthless or not.
As for the DOD, I have no doubts that Macs are in use there. What I dispute is that they are currently using 5 year old Mac Pros with single xeon processors and AMD Firepros for "real-time image processing, and time-sensitive audio classification and identification" Interviewees 1 and 6 are tire kickers and the author himself even said they weren't buying one right away. Either way, what does that say about the sample size? The point of PCIE when buying from a system builder is that they will support what they put in it! If I order a Dell with RAID, I know it will work, and if it doesn't I call Dell and they figure it out or send someone to replace the card. Same with any extra NICs. When you start putting your own hardware into these machines, good luck figuring it out when there is a problem! This isn't a big deal if you are just using a machine for home, but when you have a computer that cannot go down, you need this type of stuff. For this reason its alarming that Apple has so few options.
ten years ago to the month I bought my current Mac Pro. This summer I am hoping to upgrade it to the 2012 chips and get a few more years out of it. After which time I will be getting a (maybe used/refurbed) nnMP. It breaks down to $400yr plus the couple hundred I've put into upgrades so far, and the couple hundred I plan on putting into it this year. Not a terrible deal.
The nnMP is an order of magnitude more powerful than the '09/'12 machine and upgadable to the point it's very likely the last desktop I'll ever have to buy. For only 2K more? Why wouldn't I?
My only concern about the new Mac Pro (apart from its price, or more specifically: that I’ll never be able to afford one) is, like the previous version, its limitation to a single CPU socket. Granted they’re up to 28 cores now, but my understanding is there are still many applications (particularly in science) for which traditional CPU power is used and required as opposed to graphics architectures. Wouldn’t 2 x 28 cores be even better for this segment of pros? You could do some crazily advanced fluid dynamics modelling and research with that kind of horsepower sitting on your desk.
So I feel like Apple mainly liaised and targeted graphics and media professionals (like studios) with this update. Granted there are plenty of scientists using GPU compute, but many of those have CUDA code, so Apple is still shutting the gate on them (for now) also.
In the end I think it was too difficult to find the space for another CPU with all that PCI and RAM expansion. I still think it’s an awesome looking machine, and that XDR screen is even more impressive.
Think about who the target user is for a Mac Pro ask yourself whether they'd have deep enough pockets for dual processors up to $19k each. (Figure taken from HP Z8 configurator). There's obviously a market for these processor but it'll be small even for the Win/Linux market and nil for MacOS.
So the Single socket Xeon is a reasonable choice. Crazy advanced fluid sims (hollywood vfx and weather) are done on render farms or super computers not 56 core or 28 core workstations. The sort of fluid sim or physics sim I'd do in Houdini will be most likely be able to be done on the GPU so only when your sim gets so large not to fit on the GPU you'd fall back to CPU. Many of my compatriots on ODForce Houdini forum use 32 core Threadrippers with a good chunk of RAM. Anything bigger then you're in the ILM bracket and that's a completely different game of render farms, cloud (e.g. gridmarkets) or super computing.
Maybe studios were liaised with but where the Mac Pro fits into a Studio I do not know. As far as 3D rendering is concerned Redshift and Octane have announced Metal support by the end of year but the success will be absolutely dependent on performance. If the VEGA II GPUs prove to be on par with nVidia in 3D rendering then the huge 32 GB VRAM will be a huge positive (if they don't cost silly money) but if the performance is, as I fear it will be, way lower than the current CUDA performance then absolutely no one will care. It's obvious Apple is throwing money and resources at Redshift and Octane because for years both companies have been researching how to get their renderer compatible with the MacOS. Neither company got very far to date for want of trying. Maybe Apple has some secret sauce, it'll be interesting to see what the real story is later in the year.