I am looking to purchase a Mac Pro. While I don't have a project currently lined up that demands the highest performance, I want to have it to be safe. I have a very large sample library collection(Music Composition) that I use to create my music. To save time, just know that I'm set on purchasing a Mac Pro and that I feel that I could use the upgrade, okay?
However, after seeing various posts on this topic, I have decided to hold off on the immediate purchase that I had planned in December 2010 to await the release of the MP line with the new Sandy Bridge processors. Since I'm going to spend this much money, I want to have the latest greatest thing, if only for a little while (couldn't this argument make me purchase now, though? lol).
In your opinion, do you think it's better to wait for the new architecture of the Sandy Bridge? Or, will performance level be on my side to purchase now?
I've read that when the new SB processors are incorporated into the line, it may only be offered with the highest core count of 4 (quad). Just nonsense or what?
Basically... Is it very that a high core count current 2010 model (8 or 12 core) will have a greater performance over the 2011 (or whenever) new version?
I won't claim myself to be very technologically savvy. Just looking for some help. Please feel free to ask me questions to clarify my situation. Thanks, people!
In your opinion, do you think it's better to wait for the new architecture of the Sandy Bridge? Or, will performance level be on my side to purchase now?
If you can wait, you don't need a Mac Pro; you're not in the target market.
If you can wait, you don't need a Mac Pro; you're not in the target market.
And he admits that he doesn't really need it. But that doesn't mean he doesn't want it. Perhaps he is looking for a Mac that is easy to open and offers internal expandability. The Mac Pro is the only Mac that offers those two things.
Apple has created a secondary market for the Mac Pro beyond those that really need it by not offering an easy to open mid range Mac.
If someone has the bucks to spend on the Mac Pro why not buy it?
If you can wait, you don't need a Mac Pro; you're not in the target market.
Excuse me, but if I want a Mac Pro and I feel I have legitimate reasons to obtain one... doesn't that automatically put me in the target market? I'm in the target market, if I say I'm in the target market.
ANYWAY ... I was hoping to avoid these types of comments ... Please, carefully read my original post before you just offer opinions on whether or not you feel I need a Mac Pro or if you don't think I deserve one or anything of the like. It's not what I'm after.
I didn't feel it was necessary to share this, but I'm a Music Composition major, slowly working my way into the film scoring industry. I work on occasional projects when I have time. I have a large collection of samples and libraries. I have many that just plain rip through my current RAM (8GB) on my iMac (21.5", Late 2009). While an update in memory would do well enough, I need more processing power, too, as well as storage (1x1 TB internal; 3x1TB external, current). Everything just needs upscaled and I think Mac Pro can do that for me. I'm a happy and loyal Mac customer, and I plan to stick with them. Right or wrong, that's my choice and my burden to bear.
The fellow above me is correct in that I would also like to take advantage of the easy upgrade abilities of a Mac Pro.
Having said all of this... was anything not clear in my first Post that I could address to help the willing people provide answers to my questions.
*I'm not trying to get mean on the anti- Mac Pro people, but just stating that Mac Pro is dead or that you don't think I need one does not help my case. Try to restrain yourself with those thoughts. I'd still love to hear any thoughts that take my case into consideration from you!
I am looking to purchase a Mac Pro. While I don't have a project currently lined up that demands the highest performance, I want to have it to be safe. I have a very large sample library collection(Music Composition) that I use to create my music. To save time, just know that I'm set on purchasing a Mac Pro and that I feel that I could use the upgrade, okay?
However, after seeing various posts on this topic, I have decided to hold off on the immediate purchase that I had planned in December 2010 to await the release of the MP line with the new Sandy Bridge processors. Since I'm going to spend this much money, I want to have the latest greatest thing, if only for a little while (couldn't this argument make me purchase now, though? lol).
In your opinion, do you think it's better to wait for the new architecture of the Sandy Bridge? Or, will performance level be on my side to purchase now?
I've read that when the new SB processors are incorporated into the line, it may only be offered with the highest core count of 4 (quad). Just nonsense or what?
Basically... Is it very that a high core count current 2010 model (8 or 12 core) will have a greater performance over the 2011 (or whenever) new version?
I won't claim myself to be very technologically savvy. Just looking for some help. Please feel free to ask me questions to clarify my situation. Thanks, people!
Personally, I would wait. The Sandybridge processors are significantly faster than their predecessor. Just as an example, I just got a new MacBook Pro and I have a 8-core Xeon MacPro from 2008. On the geekbench benchmark the MacBook Pro is only about 10% slower than the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro has 16GB of RAM and the MBP 8GB. To have a laptop that's nearly as powerful as my tower is pretty amazing. To me it suggests that the new MacPros will be that much faster.
Personally, I would wait. The Sandybridge processors are significantly faster than their predecessor. Just as an example, I just got a new MacBook Pro and I have a 8-core Xeon MacPro from 2008. On the geekbench benchmark the MacBook Pro is only about 10% slower than the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro has 16GB of RAM and the MBP 8GB. To have a laptop that's nearly as powerful as my tower is pretty amazing. To me it suggests that the new MacPros will be that much faster.
Thank you! That's the kind of stuff that I'm looking for.
So, even if I purchased a 12-core 2010 model, do you think the next gen is likely to trump it's performance even with fewer cores?
Thank you! That's the kind of stuff that I'm looking for.
So, even if I purchased a 12-core 2010 model, do you think the next gen is likely to trump it's performance even with fewer cores?
The next generation of Xeon cpus will have more cores not fewer. And they will be faster and more power efficient, I really think they will offer a significant upgrade. For the MP, Apple will probably use 4-core, 6-core and 8-core cpus, that up to 16 cores for the dual-cpus models. The MP is certainly a weapon of choice for what you do. I would wait too.
Depending on your budget (whether you're planning on buying a single cpu model or a dual-cpu model, for example), and since the future MP may only be released late this year (or early next year), in the meantime I would check the upcoming iMacs that should get a nice cpu speedbump, and probably a Thunderbolt port, for which some devices will be released this summer, fast storage and audio/video equipment, that may be useful/interesting in your line of work.
I don't think you understand what Thunderbolt is whatsoever. A combo card like you described would need 40x PCIe 2.0 lanes to be fully functional.
TB supporting up to 7 devices and all the bandwidth available being 4x, there will be instances when a few TB devices will saturate the port.
It's not like people will daisy-chain 7 devices off each port if they have 6 ports - who even daisy chains 2 devices? If you have 32Gbps/6 = 5Gbps per port, you can easily have say 3 x 30" displays, a capture card and a RAID array connected. If people go overboard with it, the devices just won't have enough bandwidth but it's their own fault and they just unplug something. Also, it can be hooked into a PCI 3.0 slot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
Don't get me wrong, TB is bound for greatness, no question. But to say that it's enough to kill the MP (and other computers with PCIe slots) is just wrong.
I think it will be the end for multiple internal expansion slots, especially when it hits 100Gbps (or when you get multiple ports from a 100Gbps+ source). Computer technology just has to match usage scenarios and examples saturating 100Gbps are going to be pretty flakey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by compos24
In your opinion, do you think it's better to wait for the new architecture of the Sandy Bridge? Or, will performance level be on my side to purchase now?
Models that are only a generation apart usually don't see more than a 50% bump in CPU. The chips that would go in it aren't out until Q4 2011:
I'd wait until after NAB 2011 (April 9-14) though because Thunderbolt is going to be important for film work and I just don't think Apple will leave it out of the Mac Pro for 7 months. I expect a minor change to the spec but worth getting. I wouldn't wait until the end of the year for it nor would I jump to a 12-core. Your iMac would be a Core 2 Duo, even a 6-core Mac Pro would be 4x faster than this. Instead of spending so much on the extra cores, invest in a 256 SSD boot drive. Intel's G3 drives just came out 30% cheaper than before and this will give you much better IO for loading audio tracks.
It's not like people will daisy-chain 7 devices off each port if they have 6 ports - who even daisy chains 2 devices? If you have 32Gbps/6 = 5Gbps per port, you can easily have say 3 x 30" displays, a capture card and a RAID array connected. If people go overboard with it, the devices just won't have enough bandwidth but it's their own fault and they just unplug something. Also, it can be hooked into a PCI 3.0 slot.
I think it will be the end for multiple internal expansion slots, especially when it hits 100Gbps (or when you get multiple ports from a 100Gbps+ source). Computer technology just has to match usage scenarios and examples saturating 100Gbps are going to be pretty flakey.
People won't have 6 TB ports in the near future. What can be hooked to what PCIe 3.0 slot? So now it's TB ports and PCIe slots on the same computer? So the MP isn't dead yet?
Wow. Still not getting it. Let's talk about today or this year or even early next year, Thunderbolt at 10Gb/s, because you won't see 100Gb/s Light Peak before 2020 (that's Intel's own forecast), and you don't know when TB will move to v2 either. Those bi-directional 10Gb/s channels don't appear for thin air, but from the PCIe lanes available on the cpu/chipset of the computer.
For the next few months we will see only one Thunderbolt port on computers, two on very few designs.
Why?
-? Because each TB port uses 4x PCIe 2.0 lanes.
How many PCIe 2.0 lanes found on mainstream cpus?
-? 16
What about if I want a dedicated gpu connected to the cpu?
1- no Thunderbolt.
2- TB on the chipset that already uses some PCIe lanes for other tasks and a slower link to the cpu, performance will be poor.
3- use 8x for the gpu and up to 8x for TB controller(s), that's what Apple did for the 15/17" MBPs
So, for the next few months people will only have one TB port to play with, they will daisy chain a lot. A typical setup in audio will be:
MacBook Pro -? Storage -? audio interface -? DSP processing -? display (optional, but nice to have)
That's what you will see in most digital audio workstations like the MP, but internally. Typically, you'll have multiple drives, the gpu, one i/o card and up to 2 DSP cards (Apogee + UAD-2, for example), or up to three combo i/o-DSP cards (Pro Tools HD).
And that's already something you can often see with FW: multiple storage units + audio interface, even sometimes a FW DSP unit (there are few of them, but they exist).
I don't except the iMac to get more than one TB port either, it has the same limitations as the MBP. The only design that could receive two TB controllers/ports is the Mac mini server (integrated graphics, two display outputs and HDMI useless, 16x unused PCIe lanes on the cpu to play with). So daisy-chaining will be very common.
Just try to realize that 6 TB ports mean 24x PCIe 2.0 lanes used (just for data, not including PCIe lanes for the gpus). Only Xeon and very high-end desktop cpus offer that many lanes. For you that means that only workstations/servers/very high-end desktop will be able to offer that many TB ports. So they compete with themselves?
When/If, one day, there are enough Thunderbolt devices (in a wide price range) to make FW really obsolete, then we will probably get 2 TB ports on MBPs, iMacs,... But it will take some time.
When, one day, TB reaches v2 (20Gb/s), it will also need 2 times the number of lanes (or lanes twice as fast), so the problem will be similar (how many lanes on the cpu, how many for the gpu,...). Intel will offer PCIe 3.0 on Xeons later this year, and will start offering it on some mainstream cpus in 2012, so maybe Intel will launch TB v2 in 2013.
People won't have 6 TB ports in the near future. What can be hooked to what PCIe 3.0 slot? So now it's TB ports and PCIe slots on the same computer? So the MP isn't dead yet?
Wow. Still not getting it. Let's talk about today or this year or even early next year, Thunderbolt at 10Gb/s, because you won't see 100Gb/s Light Peak before 2020 (that's Intel's own forecast), and you don't know when TB will move to v2 either. Those bi-directional 10Gb/s channels don't appear for thin air, but from the PCIe lanes available on the cpu/chipset of the computer.
For the next few months we will see only one Thunderbolt port on computers, two on very few designs.
Why?
-? Because each TB port uses 4x PCIe 2.0 lanes.
How many PCIe 2.0 lanes found on mainstream cpus?
-? 16
What about if I want a dedicated gpu connected to the cpu?
1- no Thunderbolt.
2- TB on the chipset that already uses some PCIe lanes for other tasks and a slower link to the cpu, performance will be poor.
3- use 8x for the gpu and up to 8x for TB controller(s), that's what Apple did for the 15/17" MBPs
So, for the next few months people will only have one TB port to play with, they will daisy chain a lot. A typical setup in audio will be:
MacBook Pro -? Storage -? audio interface -? DSP processing -? display (optional, but nice to have)
That's what you will see in most digital audio workstations like the MP, but internally. Typically, you'll have multiple drives, the gpu, one i/o card and up to 2 DSP cards (Apogee + UAD-2, for example), or up to three combo i/o-DSP cards (Pro Tools HD).
And that's already something you can often see with FW: multiple storage units + audio interface, even sometimes a FW DSP unit (there are few of them, but they exist).
I don't except the iMac to get more than one TB port either, it has the same limitations as the MBP. The only design that could receive two TB controllers/ports is the Mac mini server (integrated graphics, two display outputs and HDMI useless, 16x unused PCIe lanes on the cpu to play with). So daisy-chaining will be very common.
Just try to realize that 6 TB ports mean 24x PCIe 2.0 lanes used (just for data, not including PCIe lanes for the gpus). Only Xeon and very high-end desktop cpus offer that many lanes. For you that means that only workstations/servers/very high-end desktop will be able to offer that many TB ports. So they compete with themselves?
When/If, one day, there are enough Thunderbolt devices (in a wide price range) to make FW really obsolete, then we will probably get 2 TB ports on MBPs, iMacs,... But it will take some time.
When, one day, TB reaches v2 (20Gb/s), it will also need 2 times the number of lanes (or lanes twice as fast), so the problem will be similar (how many lanes on the cpu, how many for the gpu,...). Intel will offer PCIe 3.0 on Xeons later this year, and will start offering it on some mainstream cpus in 2012, so maybe Intel will launch TB v2 in 2013.
But on a mac pro how will TB tie into a ati / nvidia card?
Custom ATI / nvidia cards? + custom card + custom slot? moded pci-e slot or pci-e slot + add on slot in the back of it?
voodoo 1 loop back / loop though like cable?
severs boards / workstations broad tend to NOT have on board video then have on board PCI based video not chip set based.
But on a mac pro how will TB tie into a ati / nvidia card?
Custom ATI / nvidia cards? + custom card + custom slot? moded pci-e slot or pci-e slot + add on slot in the back of it?
voodoo 1 loop back / loop though like cable?
severs boards / workstations broad tend to NOT have on board video then have on board PCI based video not chip set based.
TB ports with out video?
The Mac Pro is probably the only computer that doesn't need Thunderbolt as it already has PCIe slots, and most of what will be released (at first) as Thunderbolt devices will be based on existing PCIe devices or can be achieve internally (storage).
Like I've already mentionned I don't think that we will see lots of gpu+TB cards, since TB requires at least 4x PCIe lanes, and gpus like 16x lanes. With only 16x PCIe 2.0 lanes per slot, you end up "limiting" the number of lanes to the gpu. With 16x PCIe 3.0 slots (if/when released), you would be able to offer enough bandwith to the gpu (8x PCIe 3.0 = 16x PCIe 2.0) and up to four 10Gb/s TB ports (8x PCIe 3.0 = 4x4 PCIe 2.0).
There are indeed servers/workstations with on-board dedicated graphics or even integrated graphics. Workstation doesn't always mean graphics workstation.
Video is part of Thunderbolt specs, I don't think Intel will allow designs without a link to video, as they already stated that there will be no PCIe Thunderbolt "upgrade" cards for existing computers. But that doesn't mean you have to connect a display to a Thunderbolt port, you can use "data" devices only.
I don't know Apple's plans for the MP. But I already stated that the design and the architecture may change if not this year, later next year, to take advantage of the latest technologies, including Thunderbolt. IMO and even for the current design that also plays the role of the late XServe, I would offer basic on-board graphics with 2 Thunderbolt ports that would be located with the bunch of usual ports, this way no PCIe slot would be used, and no need for more custom slots/cards. And if one needs better graphics, he can add "standard" AMD/ATI or nvidia Quadro cards, and the Thunderbolt ports would still be available as "data" ports. Another benefit is that if your added graphics card fails, you still have the on-board graphics for your displays. I don't think the added cost of on-board graphics+Thunderbolt will be that much of a burden, as it could be based on the gpu used in the low-end iMac, for example.
People won't have 6 TB ports in the near future. What can be hooked to what PCIe 3.0 slot? So now it's TB ports and PCIe slots on the same computer? So the MP isn't dead yet? Wow. Still not getting it...
With 16x PCIe 3.0 slots (if/when released), you would be able to offer enough bandwith to the gpu (8x PCIe 3.0 = 16x PCIe 2.0) and up to four 10Gb/s TB ports (8x PCIe 3.0 = 4x4 PCIe 2.0).
earlier: In a MP, if the design is unchanged, that could mean two 16x PCIe 3.0 slots and two 8x PCIe 3.0 slots.
You said earlier that the reason Thunderbolt can't replace internal PCI slots is because it can't match the bandwidth when PCIe 3.0 arrives. So I suggest using a PCIe 3.0 slot and now you say, sure it can take 4 TB ports but that's *if/when* we get PCIe 3.0.
There's no reason for you to want it to fail to replace internal expansion this much.
Intel themselves have said that if you plug a device into a Thunderbolt port, it appears to the operating system just like a PCI express device and it's been designed with the intent of bringing specialist PCI devices to everyone:
"With Thunderbolt technology, workstation-level performance feature expansion can be packaged as standalone accessories, and is only a cable away. And by leveraging the inherently tight timing synchronization (within 8ns across 7 hops downstream from a host) and low latencies of Thunderbolt technology, broadcast-quality media can be produced using Thunderbolt products."
This also means it's trivial to support things like FW800 because it's no different from adding a PCIe FW800 card.
The theoretical use cases don't matter. If this development brings a Radeon 5870 to a Mac Mini and an inexpensive Apogee card to everyone, why complain about it? 70-80% of people are using laptops and a fraction of the remainder will want to buy compatible PCI cards and install them. By making them plug and play for anyone, it means a huge market boost for peripheral manufacturers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
So, for the next few months people will only have one TB port to play with, they will daisy chain a lot. A typical setup in audio will be: MacBook Pro -? Storage -? audio interface -? DSP processing -? display (optional, but nice to have)
Ok sure, someone with that setup on the MBP may have 4 devices in a chain but if you had multiple ports, you wouldn't daisy chain and it's not like these scenarios are going to be common. The vast majority of people will be hooking up a single monitor or storage device.
As far as the Mac Pro is concerned, having these things external is better anyway. You can use very high powered devices with their own PSU, you don't have to bend down to the back of the tower to plug/unplug anything, you can share a single device with multiple machines e.g buy one apogee/RED/Blackmagic/AJA adaptor and use the same one with the Mac Pro and Macbook Pro with plug/play, no shutting down to install/remove cards. If you need to upgrade or change devices, you have a much bigger market for resale.
Externalised high performance IO benefits everyone and I think it will mean an end to internal expansion slots - you can almost cut motherboards in half doing that. I don't think that alone determines the end to the Mac Pro but it is yet another contributing factor among the following:
- people don't like large, bulky workstations
- sales volumes are getting ever lower for workstations and prices creeping higher
- Intel take much longer to come out with improvements (Jan '11 for mobile, Dec '11 for Xeon)
- storage will move to very small SSD
- optical drives are dead in the water
- fast external IO means no need for internal expansion
- combined CPU/GPU means no need for large internal GPU and external IO can allow faster ones
There will be kinks along the way and people proclaiming that consumer setup A offers nowhere near the capability of professional setup B and the professionals will never stand for the change but the transition is going to happen all the same and in the end, nobody's going to give a damn about it because it will just work.
- fast external IO means no need for internal expansion
SO instead of large bulky workstations you offer the solution of lots of external devices all over the place and a bunch of extra cables lying every which way. And yes I purposely wrote it to describe a messy looking desk. Why? Because external devices aren't the same size or shape and lots of them don't stack well. I'd even be willing to bet that the owner's manuals for lots of external devices tell you not to stack because of cooling concerns.
I'll take internal expansion over clutter any day.
SO instead of large bulky workstations you offer the solution of lots of external devices all over the place and a bunch of extra cables lying every which way.
A Mac Pro has 3 slots free so you're talking about 3 devices externally in the worst case to match the Mac Pro expansion. You cut the height of the Mac Pro down by at least 1/3 in the process.
So you have 3 boxes sitting around, big deal. If you are in the market for expansion, it's unlikely you'd care enough about this kind of space usage. For the vast majority who don't, they just saved a lot of space. If they redesign the motherboard, that Mac Pro can shrink to a much smaller size for use in server racks and have a smaller desktop footprint.
I'd say that the biggest threat to the Mac Pro at the moment, is that a lot of the software hasn't be re-written to take advantage of multiple cores.
If the software that you use does benefit from multiple cores that the Mac Pro can often be a no-brainer. But if your software hasn't be re-written, then you're probably better saving yourself a chunk of money and going for the 27" iMac i3.
I'd say that the biggest threat to the Mac Pro at the moment, is that a lot of the software hasn't be re-written to take advantage of multiple cores.
If the software that you use does benefit from multiple cores that the Mac Pro can often be a no-brainer. But if your software hasn't be re-written, then you're probably better saving yourself a chunk of money and going for the 27" iMac i3.
Must be frustrating for Apple.
Actually, this is the very same issue with all of their products... most now have multi-core CPUs.
One very big use for multiple CPUs is video. Late las6t year I opted for the 3.3 GHz 6 core MP... to me that is THE sweet spot in the MP line. It runs really cool and I love seeing all 12 cores (single CPU so we're talking real and virtual) thumping away when running Handbrake.
I'd say that the biggest threat to the Mac Pro at the moment, is that a lot of the software hasn't be re-written to take advantage of multiple cores.
To which I have to say you don't understand the market! Seriously the machines are being sold to people that make use of those cores. They either use specifically written software or write their own.
But highly threaded software is only one way to leverage these machines. Perhaps the more common approach is to do multiple things at once. You know multitasking something that has been around for years. Multiple core processors with lots of disk I/O means that you can have many long running processes going all at once with little if any slow down.
Which by the way is one reason why a Mini with Thunderbolt will never replace the Mac Pro. In simple terms the pipe is too thin. That is you can't push enough data through it.
Quote:
If the software that you use does benefit from multiple cores that the Mac Pro can often be a no-brainer. But if your software hasn't be re-written, then you're probably better saving yourself a chunk of money and going for the 27" iMac i3.
The purchase of an i3 anything is stupidity.
Even if you have very little demanding multithreaded software on your Mac you still have many apps that benefit from threading. Has everyone forgotten what Snow Leopard and GCD did for apps?
Beyond that how many people, even novices, do only one thing at a time on their PCs? Seriously people these days have more tasks running than ever before. Multiple cores just means that all of that happens in a smoother glitch free manner.
Quote:
Must be frustrating for Apple.
The only thing I see frustrating for Apple is posts like this! The suggestion that the i3 is a good deal probably has people all over the net laughing their a$$ off but Apple must be especially disappointed. IMac isn't a bargain basement computer but that isn't the point, the point is Apple wants customers going away satisfied. Telling people to go cheap doesn't lead to long term satisfaction.
To which I have to say you don't understand the market! Seriously the machines are being sold to people that make use of those cores. They either use specifically written software or write their own.
Specifically, what software out there takes full advantage of multi-threading? To my (admittedly limited) knowledge there is very little out there that has been optimized for this. Other than Apple's own software (Logic Pro) I really do not know of any.
And let us not forget that the MP is the only machine one can add a fairly burly video cared to AND the only one (absent the Mini) one can have a reasonable monitor for... without it doubling as a make-up mirror/torch mode example while you're trying to get work done.
BTW, did y'all notice that all the images of the iPad2 on their website definitely show glare WILL be an issue? I bet that was dictated by legal... hard for someone to create a class action claim one can't really read much on the screen in daylight!
Specificlly, what software out there takes full advantage of multi-threading? To my (admittedly limited) knowledge there is very little out there that has been optimized for this. Other than Apple's own software (Logic Pro) I really do not know of any.
Comments
I am looking to purchase a Mac Pro. While I don't have a project currently lined up that demands the highest performance, I want to have it to be safe. I have a very large sample library collection(Music Composition) that I use to create my music. To save time, just know that I'm set on purchasing a Mac Pro and that I feel that I could use the upgrade, okay?
However, after seeing various posts on this topic, I have decided to hold off on the immediate purchase that I had planned in December 2010 to await the release of the MP line with the new Sandy Bridge processors. Since I'm going to spend this much money, I want to have the latest greatest thing, if only for a little while (couldn't this argument make me purchase now, though? lol).
In your opinion, do you think it's better to wait for the new architecture of the Sandy Bridge? Or, will performance level be on my side to purchase now?
I've read that when the new SB processors are incorporated into the line, it may only be offered with the highest core count of 4 (quad). Just nonsense or what?
Basically... Is it very that a high core count current 2010 model (8 or 12 core) will have a greater performance over the 2011 (or whenever) new version?
I won't claim myself to be very technologically savvy. Just looking for some help. Please feel free to ask me questions to clarify my situation. Thanks, people!
In your opinion, do you think it's better to wait for the new architecture of the Sandy Bridge? Or, will performance level be on my side to purchase now?
If you can wait, you don't need a Mac Pro; you're not in the target market.
If you can wait, you don't need a Mac Pro; you're not in the target market.
And he admits that he doesn't really need it. But that doesn't mean he doesn't want it. Perhaps he is looking for a Mac that is easy to open and offers internal expandability. The Mac Pro is the only Mac that offers those two things.
Apple has created a secondary market for the Mac Pro beyond those that really need it by not offering an easy to open mid range Mac.
If someone has the bucks to spend on the Mac Pro why not buy it?
If you can wait, you don't need a Mac Pro; you're not in the target market.
Excuse me, but if I want a Mac Pro and I feel I have legitimate reasons to obtain one... doesn't that automatically put me in the target market? I'm in the target market, if I say I'm in the target market.
ANYWAY ... I was hoping to avoid these types of comments ... Please, carefully read my original post before you just offer opinions on whether or not you feel I need a Mac Pro or if you don't think I deserve one or anything of the like. It's not what I'm after.
I didn't feel it was necessary to share this, but I'm a Music Composition major, slowly working my way into the film scoring industry. I work on occasional projects when I have time. I have a large collection of samples and libraries. I have many that just plain rip through my current RAM (8GB) on my iMac (21.5", Late 2009). While an update in memory would do well enough, I need more processing power, too, as well as storage (1x1 TB internal; 3x1TB external, current). Everything just needs upscaled and I think Mac Pro can do that for me. I'm a happy and loyal Mac customer, and I plan to stick with them. Right or wrong, that's my choice and my burden to bear.
The fellow above me is correct in that I would also like to take advantage of the easy upgrade abilities of a Mac Pro.
Having said all of this... was anything not clear in my first Post that I could address to help the willing people provide answers to my questions.
*I'm not trying to get mean on the anti- Mac Pro people, but just stating that Mac Pro is dead or that you don't think I need one does not help my case. Try to restrain yourself with those thoughts. I'd still love to hear any thoughts that take my case into consideration from you!
Hey Guys!
I am looking to purchase a Mac Pro. While I don't have a project currently lined up that demands the highest performance, I want to have it to be safe. I have a very large sample library collection(Music Composition) that I use to create my music. To save time, just know that I'm set on purchasing a Mac Pro and that I feel that I could use the upgrade, okay?
However, after seeing various posts on this topic, I have decided to hold off on the immediate purchase that I had planned in December 2010 to await the release of the MP line with the new Sandy Bridge processors. Since I'm going to spend this much money, I want to have the latest greatest thing, if only for a little while (couldn't this argument make me purchase now, though? lol).
In your opinion, do you think it's better to wait for the new architecture of the Sandy Bridge? Or, will performance level be on my side to purchase now?
I've read that when the new SB processors are incorporated into the line, it may only be offered with the highest core count of 4 (quad). Just nonsense or what?
Basically... Is it very that a high core count current 2010 model (8 or 12 core) will have a greater performance over the 2011 (or whenever) new version?
I won't claim myself to be very technologically savvy. Just looking for some help. Please feel free to ask me questions to clarify my situation. Thanks, people!
Personally, I would wait. The Sandybridge processors are significantly faster than their predecessor. Just as an example, I just got a new MacBook Pro and I have a 8-core Xeon MacPro from 2008. On the geekbench benchmark the MacBook Pro is only about 10% slower than the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro has 16GB of RAM and the MBP 8GB. To have a laptop that's nearly as powerful as my tower is pretty amazing. To me it suggests that the new MacPros will be that much faster.
Personally, I would wait. The Sandybridge processors are significantly faster than their predecessor. Just as an example, I just got a new MacBook Pro and I have a 8-core Xeon MacPro from 2008. On the geekbench benchmark the MacBook Pro is only about 10% slower than the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro has 16GB of RAM and the MBP 8GB. To have a laptop that's nearly as powerful as my tower is pretty amazing. To me it suggests that the new MacPros will be that much faster.
Thank you! That's the kind of stuff that I'm looking for.
So, even if I purchased a 12-core 2010 model, do you think the next gen is likely to trump it's performance even with fewer cores?
Thank you! That's the kind of stuff that I'm looking for.
So, even if I purchased a 12-core 2010 model, do you think the next gen is likely to trump it's performance even with fewer cores?
The next generation of Xeon cpus will have more cores not fewer. And they will be faster and more power efficient, I really think they will offer a significant upgrade. For the MP, Apple will probably use 4-core, 6-core and 8-core cpus, that up to 16 cores for the dual-cpus models. The MP is certainly a weapon of choice for what you do. I would wait too.
Depending on your budget (whether you're planning on buying a single cpu model or a dual-cpu model, for example), and since the future MP may only be released late this year (or early next year), in the meantime I would check the upcoming iMacs that should get a nice cpu speedbump, and probably a Thunderbolt port, for which some devices will be released this summer, fast storage and audio/video equipment, that may be useful/interesting in your line of work.
I don't think you understand what Thunderbolt is whatsoever. A combo card like you described would need 40x PCIe 2.0 lanes to be fully functional.
TB supporting up to 7 devices and all the bandwidth available being 4x, there will be instances when a few TB devices will saturate the port.
It's not like people will daisy-chain 7 devices off each port if they have 6 ports - who even daisy chains 2 devices? If you have 32Gbps/6 = 5Gbps per port, you can easily have say 3 x 30" displays, a capture card and a RAID array connected. If people go overboard with it, the devices just won't have enough bandwidth but it's their own fault and they just unplug something. Also, it can be hooked into a PCI 3.0 slot.
Don't get me wrong, TB is bound for greatness, no question. But to say that it's enough to kill the MP (and other computers with PCIe slots) is just wrong.
I think it will be the end for multiple internal expansion slots, especially when it hits 100Gbps (or when you get multiple ports from a 100Gbps+ source). Computer technology just has to match usage scenarios and examples saturating 100Gbps are going to be pretty flakey.
In your opinion, do you think it's better to wait for the new architecture of the Sandy Bridge? Or, will performance level be on my side to purchase now?
Models that are only a generation apart usually don't see more than a 50% bump in CPU. The chips that would go in it aren't out until Q4 2011:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel...d-183372.shtml
I'd wait until after NAB 2011 (April 9-14) though because Thunderbolt is going to be important for film work and I just don't think Apple will leave it out of the Mac Pro for 7 months. I expect a minor change to the spec but worth getting. I wouldn't wait until the end of the year for it nor would I jump to a 12-core. Your iMac would be a Core 2 Duo, even a 6-core Mac Pro would be 4x faster than this. Instead of spending so much on the extra cores, invest in a 256 SSD boot drive. Intel's G3 drives just came out 30% cheaper than before and this will give you much better IO for loading audio tracks.
It's not like people will daisy-chain 7 devices off each port if they have 6 ports - who even daisy chains 2 devices? If you have 32Gbps/6 = 5Gbps per port, you can easily have say 3 x 30" displays, a capture card and a RAID array connected. If people go overboard with it, the devices just won't have enough bandwidth but it's their own fault and they just unplug something. Also, it can be hooked into a PCI 3.0 slot.
I think it will be the end for multiple internal expansion slots, especially when it hits 100Gbps (or when you get multiple ports from a 100Gbps+ source). Computer technology just has to match usage scenarios and examples saturating 100Gbps are going to be pretty flakey.
People won't have 6 TB ports in the near future. What can be hooked to what PCIe 3.0 slot? So now it's TB ports and PCIe slots on the same computer? So the MP isn't dead yet?
Wow. Still not getting it. Let's talk about today or this year or even early next year, Thunderbolt at 10Gb/s, because you won't see 100Gb/s Light Peak before 2020 (that's Intel's own forecast), and you don't know when TB will move to v2 either. Those bi-directional 10Gb/s channels don't appear for thin air, but from the PCIe lanes available on the cpu/chipset of the computer.
For the next few months we will see only one Thunderbolt port on computers, two on very few designs.
Why?
-? Because each TB port uses 4x PCIe 2.0 lanes.
How many PCIe 2.0 lanes found on mainstream cpus?
-? 16
What about if I want a dedicated gpu connected to the cpu?
1- no Thunderbolt.
2- TB on the chipset that already uses some PCIe lanes for other tasks and a slower link to the cpu, performance will be poor.
3- use 8x for the gpu and up to 8x for TB controller(s), that's what Apple did for the 15/17" MBPs
So, for the next few months people will only have one TB port to play with, they will daisy chain a lot. A typical setup in audio will be:
MacBook Pro -? Storage -? audio interface -? DSP processing -? display (optional, but nice to have)
That's what you will see in most digital audio workstations like the MP, but internally. Typically, you'll have multiple drives, the gpu, one i/o card and up to 2 DSP cards (Apogee + UAD-2, for example), or up to three combo i/o-DSP cards (Pro Tools HD).
And that's already something you can often see with FW: multiple storage units + audio interface, even sometimes a FW DSP unit (there are few of them, but they exist).
I don't except the iMac to get more than one TB port either, it has the same limitations as the MBP. The only design that could receive two TB controllers/ports is the Mac mini server (integrated graphics, two display outputs and HDMI useless, 16x unused PCIe lanes on the cpu to play with). So daisy-chaining will be very common.
Just try to realize that 6 TB ports mean 24x PCIe 2.0 lanes used (just for data, not including PCIe lanes for the gpus). Only Xeon and very high-end desktop cpus offer that many lanes. For you that means that only workstations/servers/very high-end desktop will be able to offer that many TB ports. So they compete with themselves?
When/If, one day, there are enough Thunderbolt devices (in a wide price range) to make FW really obsolete, then we will probably get 2 TB ports on MBPs, iMacs,... But it will take some time.
When, one day, TB reaches v2 (20Gb/s), it will also need 2 times the number of lanes (or lanes twice as fast), so the problem will be similar (how many lanes on the cpu, how many for the gpu,...). Intel will offer PCIe 3.0 on Xeons later this year, and will start offering it on some mainstream cpus in 2012, so maybe Intel will launch TB v2 in 2013.
People won't have 6 TB ports in the near future. What can be hooked to what PCIe 3.0 slot? So now it's TB ports and PCIe slots on the same computer? So the MP isn't dead yet?
Wow. Still not getting it. Let's talk about today or this year or even early next year, Thunderbolt at 10Gb/s, because you won't see 100Gb/s Light Peak before 2020 (that's Intel's own forecast), and you don't know when TB will move to v2 either. Those bi-directional 10Gb/s channels don't appear for thin air, but from the PCIe lanes available on the cpu/chipset of the computer.
For the next few months we will see only one Thunderbolt port on computers, two on very few designs.
Why?
-? Because each TB port uses 4x PCIe 2.0 lanes.
How many PCIe 2.0 lanes found on mainstream cpus?
-? 16
What about if I want a dedicated gpu connected to the cpu?
1- no Thunderbolt.
2- TB on the chipset that already uses some PCIe lanes for other tasks and a slower link to the cpu, performance will be poor.
3- use 8x for the gpu and up to 8x for TB controller(s), that's what Apple did for the 15/17" MBPs
So, for the next few months people will only have one TB port to play with, they will daisy chain a lot. A typical setup in audio will be:
MacBook Pro -? Storage -? audio interface -? DSP processing -? display (optional, but nice to have)
That's what you will see in most digital audio workstations like the MP, but internally. Typically, you'll have multiple drives, the gpu, one i/o card and up to 2 DSP cards (Apogee + UAD-2, for example), or up to three combo i/o-DSP cards (Pro Tools HD).
And that's already something you can often see with FW: multiple storage units + audio interface, even sometimes a FW DSP unit (there are few of them, but they exist).
I don't except the iMac to get more than one TB port either, it has the same limitations as the MBP. The only design that could receive two TB controllers/ports is the Mac mini server (integrated graphics, two display outputs and HDMI useless, 16x unused PCIe lanes on the cpu to play with). So daisy-chaining will be very common.
Just try to realize that 6 TB ports mean 24x PCIe 2.0 lanes used (just for data, not including PCIe lanes for the gpus). Only Xeon and very high-end desktop cpus offer that many lanes. For you that means that only workstations/servers/very high-end desktop will be able to offer that many TB ports. So they compete with themselves?
When/If, one day, there are enough Thunderbolt devices (in a wide price range) to make FW really obsolete, then we will probably get 2 TB ports on MBPs, iMacs,... But it will take some time.
When, one day, TB reaches v2 (20Gb/s), it will also need 2 times the number of lanes (or lanes twice as fast), so the problem will be similar (how many lanes on the cpu, how many for the gpu,...). Intel will offer PCIe 3.0 on Xeons later this year, and will start offering it on some mainstream cpus in 2012, so maybe Intel will launch TB v2 in 2013.
But on a mac pro how will TB tie into a ati / nvidia card?
Custom ATI / nvidia cards? + custom card + custom slot? moded pci-e slot or pci-e slot + add on slot in the back of it?
voodoo 1 loop back / loop though like cable?
severs boards / workstations broad tend to NOT have on board video then have on board PCI based video not chip set based.
TB ports with out video?
But on a mac pro how will TB tie into a ati / nvidia card?
Custom ATI / nvidia cards? + custom card + custom slot? moded pci-e slot or pci-e slot + add on slot in the back of it?
voodoo 1 loop back / loop though like cable?
severs boards / workstations broad tend to NOT have on board video then have on board PCI based video not chip set based.
TB ports with out video?
The Mac Pro is probably the only computer that doesn't need Thunderbolt as it already has PCIe slots, and most of what will be released (at first) as Thunderbolt devices will be based on existing PCIe devices or can be achieve internally (storage).
Like I've already mentionned I don't think that we will see lots of gpu+TB cards, since TB requires at least 4x PCIe lanes, and gpus like 16x lanes. With only 16x PCIe 2.0 lanes per slot, you end up "limiting" the number of lanes to the gpu. With 16x PCIe 3.0 slots (if/when released), you would be able to offer enough bandwith to the gpu (8x PCIe 3.0 = 16x PCIe 2.0) and up to four 10Gb/s TB ports (8x PCIe 3.0 = 4x4 PCIe 2.0).
There are indeed servers/workstations with on-board dedicated graphics or even integrated graphics. Workstation doesn't always mean graphics workstation.
Video is part of Thunderbolt specs, I don't think Intel will allow designs without a link to video, as they already stated that there will be no PCIe Thunderbolt "upgrade" cards for existing computers. But that doesn't mean you have to connect a display to a Thunderbolt port, you can use "data" devices only.
I don't know Apple's plans for the MP. But I already stated that the design and the architecture may change if not this year, later next year, to take advantage of the latest technologies, including Thunderbolt. IMO and even for the current design that also plays the role of the late XServe, I would offer basic on-board graphics with 2 Thunderbolt ports that would be located with the bunch of usual ports, this way no PCIe slot would be used, and no need for more custom slots/cards. And if one needs better graphics, he can add "standard" AMD/ATI or nvidia Quadro cards, and the Thunderbolt ports would still be available as "data" ports. Another benefit is that if your added graphics card fails, you still have the on-board graphics for your displays. I don't think the added cost of on-board graphics+Thunderbolt will be that much of a burden, as it could be based on the gpu used in the low-end iMac, for example.
People won't have 6 TB ports in the near future. What can be hooked to what PCIe 3.0 slot? So now it's TB ports and PCIe slots on the same computer? So the MP isn't dead yet? Wow. Still not getting it...
With 16x PCIe 3.0 slots (if/when released), you would be able to offer enough bandwith to the gpu (8x PCIe 3.0 = 16x PCIe 2.0) and up to four 10Gb/s TB ports (8x PCIe 3.0 = 4x4 PCIe 2.0).
earlier: In a MP, if the design is unchanged, that could mean two 16x PCIe 3.0 slots and two 8x PCIe 3.0 slots.
You said earlier that the reason Thunderbolt can't replace internal PCI slots is because it can't match the bandwidth when PCIe 3.0 arrives. So I suggest using a PCIe 3.0 slot and now you say, sure it can take 4 TB ports but that's *if/when* we get PCIe 3.0.
There's no reason for you to want it to fail to replace internal expansion this much.
Intel themselves have said that if you plug a device into a Thunderbolt port, it appears to the operating system just like a PCI express device and it's been designed with the intent of bringing specialist PCI devices to everyone:
"With Thunderbolt technology, workstation-level performance feature expansion can be packaged as standalone accessories, and is only a cable away. And by leveraging the inherently tight timing synchronization (within 8ns across 7 hops downstream from a host) and low latencies of Thunderbolt technology, broadcast-quality media can be produced using Thunderbolt products."
This also means it's trivial to support things like FW800 because it's no different from adding a PCIe FW800 card.
The theoretical use cases don't matter. If this development brings a Radeon 5870 to a Mac Mini and an inexpensive Apogee card to everyone, why complain about it? 70-80% of people are using laptops and a fraction of the remainder will want to buy compatible PCI cards and install them. By making them plug and play for anyone, it means a huge market boost for peripheral manufacturers.
So, for the next few months people will only have one TB port to play with, they will daisy chain a lot. A typical setup in audio will be: MacBook Pro -? Storage -? audio interface -? DSP processing -? display (optional, but nice to have)
Ok sure, someone with that setup on the MBP may have 4 devices in a chain but if you had multiple ports, you wouldn't daisy chain and it's not like these scenarios are going to be common. The vast majority of people will be hooking up a single monitor or storage device.
As far as the Mac Pro is concerned, having these things external is better anyway. You can use very high powered devices with their own PSU, you don't have to bend down to the back of the tower to plug/unplug anything, you can share a single device with multiple machines e.g buy one apogee/RED/Blackmagic/AJA adaptor and use the same one with the Mac Pro and Macbook Pro with plug/play, no shutting down to install/remove cards. If you need to upgrade or change devices, you have a much bigger market for resale.
Externalised high performance IO benefits everyone and I think it will mean an end to internal expansion slots - you can almost cut motherboards in half doing that. I don't think that alone determines the end to the Mac Pro but it is yet another contributing factor among the following:
- people don't like large, bulky workstations
- sales volumes are getting ever lower for workstations and prices creeping higher
- Intel take much longer to come out with improvements (Jan '11 for mobile, Dec '11 for Xeon)
- storage will move to very small SSD
- optical drives are dead in the water
- fast external IO means no need for internal expansion
- combined CPU/GPU means no need for large internal GPU and external IO can allow faster ones
There will be kinks along the way and people proclaiming that consumer setup A offers nowhere near the capability of professional setup B and the professionals will never stand for the change but the transition is going to happen all the same and in the end, nobody's going to give a damn about it because it will just work.
- people don't like large, bulky workstations
- fast external IO means no need for internal expansion
SO instead of large bulky workstations you offer the solution of lots of external devices all over the place and a bunch of extra cables lying every which way. And yes I purposely wrote it to describe a messy looking desk. Why? Because external devices aren't the same size or shape and lots of them don't stack well. I'd even be willing to bet that the owner's manuals for lots of external devices tell you not to stack because of cooling concerns.
I'll take internal expansion over clutter any day.
SO instead of large bulky workstations you offer the solution of lots of external devices all over the place and a bunch of extra cables lying every which way.
A Mac Pro has 3 slots free so you're talking about 3 devices externally in the worst case to match the Mac Pro expansion. You cut the height of the Mac Pro down by at least 1/3 in the process.
So you have 3 boxes sitting around, big deal. If you are in the market for expansion, it's unlikely you'd care enough about this kind of space usage. For the vast majority who don't, they just saved a lot of space. If they redesign the motherboard, that Mac Pro can shrink to a much smaller size for use in server racks and have a smaller desktop footprint.
If the software that you use does benefit from multiple cores that the Mac Pro can often be a no-brainer. But if your software hasn't be re-written, then you're probably better saving yourself a chunk of money and going for the 27" iMac i3.
Must be frustrating for Apple.
I'd say that the biggest threat to the Mac Pro at the moment, is that a lot of the software hasn't be re-written to take advantage of multiple cores.
If the software that you use does benefit from multiple cores that the Mac Pro can often be a no-brainer. But if your software hasn't be re-written, then you're probably better saving yourself a chunk of money and going for the 27" iMac i3.
Must be frustrating for Apple.
Actually, this is the very same issue with all of their products... most now have multi-core CPUs.
One very big use for multiple CPUs is video. Late las6t year I opted for the 3.3 GHz 6 core MP... to me that is THE sweet spot in the MP line. It runs really cool and I love seeing all 12 cores (single CPU so we're talking real and virtual) thumping away when running Handbrake.
I'd say that the biggest threat to the Mac Pro at the moment, is that a lot of the software hasn't be re-written to take advantage of multiple cores.
To which I have to say you don't understand the market! Seriously the machines are being sold to people that make use of those cores. They either use specifically written software or write their own.
But highly threaded software is only one way to leverage these machines. Perhaps the more common approach is to do multiple things at once. You know multitasking something that has been around for years. Multiple core processors with lots of disk I/O means that you can have many long running processes going all at once with little if any slow down.
Which by the way is one reason why a Mini with Thunderbolt will never replace the Mac Pro. In simple terms the pipe is too thin. That is you can't push enough data through it.
If the software that you use does benefit from multiple cores that the Mac Pro can often be a no-brainer. But if your software hasn't be re-written, then you're probably better saving yourself a chunk of money and going for the 27" iMac i3.
The purchase of an i3 anything is stupidity.
Even if you have very little demanding multithreaded software on your Mac you still have many apps that benefit from threading. Has everyone forgotten what Snow Leopard and GCD did for apps?
Beyond that how many people, even novices, do only one thing at a time on their PCs? Seriously people these days have more tasks running than ever before. Multiple cores just means that all of that happens in a smoother glitch free manner.
Must be frustrating for Apple.
The only thing I see frustrating for Apple is posts like this! The suggestion that the i3 is a good deal probably has people all over the net laughing their a$$ off but Apple must be especially disappointed. IMac isn't a bargain basement computer but that isn't the point, the point is Apple wants customers going away satisfied. Telling people to go cheap doesn't lead to long term satisfaction.
To which I have to say you don't understand the market! Seriously the machines are being sold to people that make use of those cores. They either use specifically written software or write their own.
Specifically, what software out there takes full advantage of multi-threading? To my (admittedly limited) knowledge there is very little out there that has been optimized for this. Other than Apple's own software (Logic Pro) I really do not know of any.
BTW, did y'all notice that all the images of the iPad2 on their website definitely show glare WILL be an issue? I bet that was dictated by legal... hard for someone to create a class action claim one can't really read much on the screen in daylight!
Specificlly, what software out there takes full advantage of multi-threading? To my (admittedly limited) knowledge there is very little out there that has been optimized for this. Other than Apple's own software (Logic Pro) I really do not know of any.
Guess you didn't read my post about Handbrake...