Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro

1363739414266

Comments

  • Reply 761 of 1320
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by v5v View Post


     


    A projector has better black levels than a plasma display? That seems contrary to the laws of physics...



    Wel, i'm sure it depends on the projection system, now doesn't it?  Have you seen a plasma display and compare it to a Meridian Reference projector?  NO. You haven't.   This projection system also is capable of displaying 10K, not 4K.  The resolution on these things is about as good as you can get.  It also depends on the screen that's being used since there are different types of screens that have a factor into the equation.


     


    For a real home theater, I would be looking at LEAST an 8 to 10 foot display, at minimum.  I would much rather get a high quality fixed screen  and even go with the MF1 with a 10 foot screen than get a 103inch plasma and have a much better experience that would come close to a movie theater, than a plasma. 


     




    They send a guy out and they spend 4 days in the calibration process.    They get pretty damn near what you would get if you had film or even an iMax theater.  Obviously, I'd turn the lights down because that's what anyone would do for a real cinematic experience.




    This thing is not something you buy at your local Best Buy and have some Geeksquad dork calibrating your system. 

  • Reply 762 of 1320
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Relic View Post





    Yea mine was 2900, it would have been $3,549 but I purchased the 32GB RAM and 256GB SSD drive separately, Apple charges more than twice the market price for these things, especially memory. Anyway, yes I expect the MacPro to start around 3,000, 2,000 no way, I couldn't even build a halfway decent XEON machine for that.


    Yeah, XEONs aren't cheap when you get to the higher number of cores and Ghz ratings.  sure Apple is at a lower cost point due to they are buying more.  It wouldn't surprise me if the entry level system is around $3000.  I think maybe they are increasing the number of GPUs, faster SSD memory, tons of TB 2 ports and offsetting the costs of traditional HDD, Optical, bigger case, power supply, etc. 




    It's all going to boil down to what configurations they offer.   They are supposedly going to be using a 12 Core single chip XEON, but I've seen anything discussed from Intel on that chip.  They have 6 and 8 cores mentioned, but not 12 and I don't think they are going with 2 6 core chips.  Not enough room.

  • Reply 763 of 1320
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Here is some info on the upcoming [URL=http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Xeon-Ivy-Bridge-EP-Server,21972.html]Xeon 12 Core E5-2600[/URL], the E7 series will have 15 Cores.
  • Reply 764 of 1320
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Relic View Post



    Apple charges more than twice the market price for these things, especially memory.


     


    Oh, but Apple only uses the finest, organically grown, carbon-free RAM that is faster, more accurate and much more reliable than the crap every single manufacturer on the planet dumps on the consumer market. Apple RAM is WORTH twice as much! Only a fool would buy aftermarket.


     


    image

  • Reply 765 of 1320
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    Wel, i'm sure it depends on the projection system, now doesn't it?  Have you seen a plasma display and compare it to a Meridian Reference projector?  NO. You haven't.



     


    Dude, relax. It's a TV, not a cure for cancer.


     


    All I was saying is that I don't understand how a light shining through a display element could produce deeper blacks than a plasma element. You didn't address that point at all, but fine, yours is bigger (and blacker) than mine and therefore better.


     


    So anyway, how about that new Mac Pro, eh? Pretty cool.

  • Reply 766 of 1320
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    OT
    Holy Crap, Doc !
    Only $185,000 msrp :-)

    A toy for the big boys, that's for sure.
  • Reply 767 of 1320


    With the total lack of new information since the June Mac Pro announcement this thread has really gone off on tangents.


     


    In one way it's kind of interesting that there's been nothing new. Usually on new updates there's been rumors from suppliers, but nothing so far. Maybe since it's being assembled here the states, Apple is able to keep a tighter lid on the flow of information. Maybe it's still in prototype stage and the final specs for the different systems haven't been finalized yet. Maybe Apple is waiting for a sufficient supply of component to meet their expected demand. Maybe ... ?


     


    Originally I was hoping for a September release but that's looking overly optimistic. Maybe late October - November with constrained supply into December? Hope I'm wrong.

  • Reply 768 of 1320
    bergermeisterbergermeister Posts: 6,784member


    Mac mini base prices of $599, $799 and $999.


    The server version can be configured so that it costs $1999.


     


    iMac base prices of $1299, $1499, $1799, $1999.


    The 27" can be configured up to $3849.


     


    That's a lot of overlap once you start configuring, but the prices of the base models are distinct jumps


     


    My guess is the Mac pro will start at under $2500 (but more than $1999 to separate it from the iMac) and go to the sky from there.

  • Reply 769 of 1320
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    Yeah, XEONs aren't cheap when you get to the higher number of cores and Ghz ratings.  sure Apple is at a lower cost point due to they are buying more.  It wouldn't surprise me if the entry level system is around $3000.  I think maybe they are increasing the number of GPUs, faster SSD memory, tons of TB 2 ports and offsetting the costs of traditional HDD, Optical, bigger case, power supply, etc. 




    It's all going to boil down to what configurations they offer.   They are supposedly going to be using a 12 Core single chip XEON, but I've seen anything discussed from Intel on that chip.  They have 6 and 8 cores mentioned, but not 12 and I don't think they are going with 2 6 core chips.  Not enough room.



    Sandy Bridge EP came with up to 8, and that didn't even accompany a process shrink.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by v5v View Post


     


    Oh, but Apple only uses the finest, organically grown, carbon-free RAM that is faster, more accurate and much more reliable than the crap every single manufacturer on the planet dumps on the consumer market. Apple RAM is WORTH twice as much! Only a fool would buy aftermarket.


     


    image



    Some after market brands seem to have more dead sticks than others, but it's easy enough to test it prior to using the machine.

  • Reply 770 of 1320
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator
    Maybe it's still in prototype stage and the final specs for the different systems haven't been finalized yet. Maybe Apple is waiting for a sufficient supply of component to meet their expected demand. Maybe ... ?

    Originally I was hoping for a September release but that's looking overly optimistic. Maybe late October - November with constrained supply into December? Hope I'm wrong.

    They have to wait on Intel for the Thunderbolt 2 controllers and the Ivy Bridge E5 v2 chips. These will likely be shown off at Intel's IDF in San Francisco around September 10th. The new Mac Pro could well be a showcase for Intel to use to demo their new tech. Acer recently said they'd stop using Thunderbolt in favour of USB 3 so Apple is really a good candidate for Intel to use to promote Thunderbolt now. The problem with the cheap PC makers is they don't have much of an audience for the high-end equipment so USB 3 just suits their audience better but you can't run a Red Rocket or HDX card over USB 3 and never will so they are just limiting themselves to having high-end peripherals stuck on towers and having other form factors for consumers.

    We're about 7 weeks away from the components Apple needs being available. It looks like the quad i7 laptop CPUs are shipping in some PC laptops so MBPs should be on the way soon too.

    The Mini should use the same chips as the MBPs but the CPUs for the 13" MBP aren't clear yet. It looks like it will be a 'ULV' chip but one of the high TDP ones, which is kind of an odd setup and presumably why they moved from using ULV to ULT because a high TDP chip isn't ULV.

    Tim said updates would spread through 2014 but that could just be some misdirection to put people off waiting. I doubt they'd hold back any Macs until early 2014 unless they are planning to go to 4K iMacs.
    They are supposedly going to be using a 12 Core single chip XEON, but I've seen anything discussed from Intel on that chip. They have 6 and 8 cores mentioned, but not 12 and I don't think they are going with 2 6 core chips.

    The 12-core CPU is the following that showed up in the Geekbench log:

    http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon E5-2697 v2.html
  • Reply 771 of 1320
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Marvin wrote: »
    They have to wait on Intel for the Thunderbolt 2 controllers and the Ivy Bridge E5 v2 chips. These will likely be shown off at Intel's IDF in San Francisco around September 10th. The new Mac Pro could well be a showcase for Intel to use to demo their new tech.
    Intel has a bunch of chips due for September. Rise wondering where the new Macs are inky need to look at what is publicly known about Intels plans.
    Asus recently said they'd stop using Thunderbolt in favour of USB 3 so Apple is really a good candidate for Intel to use to promote Thunderbolt now.
    I thought that was Acer. Doesn't matter though, these people don't sell systems like Apple. I'm convinced that Apple has already gotten just about everything they wanted out of TB as it is a near perfect docking solution for laptops.
    The problem with the cheap PC makers is they don't have much of an audience for the high-end equipment so USB 3 just suits their audience better but you can't run a Red Rocket or HDX card over USB 3 and never will so they are just limiting themselves to having high-end peripherals stuck on towers and having other form factors for consumers.
    It isn't a question of "high-end" but rather the ablity to grok a system. Think about it how many PC manufactures would build a display / dock to work with even their cheapest laptops? Apple sells systems that represent complete solutions.
    We're about 7 weeks away from the components Apple needs being available. It looks like the quad i7 laptop CPUs are shipping in some PC laptops so MBPs should be on the way soon too.
    I'm thinking by the end of September.
    The Mini should use the same chips as the MBPs but the CPUs for the 13" MBP aren't clear yet. It looks like it will be a 'ULV' chip but one of the high TDP ones, which is kind of an odd setup and presumably why they moved from using ULV to ULT because a high TDP chip isn't ULV.
    Just because a processor is low voltage doesn't mean it can't disapate a lot of heat. I'm not clear on what will go in the 13" Pro but I'm hoping it has Iris Pro graphics.
    Tim said updates would spread through 2014 but that could just be some misdirection to put people off waiting. I doubt they'd hold back any Macs until early 2014 unless they are planning to go to 4K iMacs.
    The 12-core CPU is the following that showed up in the Geekbench log:
    Hard to say. One obvious thing is that Aple can't update unless it has chips. Further if they are in allocation the laptops get first choice. It wouldn't be the first time the Mini update is delayed in preference to other hardware.
  • Reply 772 of 1320
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

     I'm not clear on what will go in the 13" Pro but I'm hoping it has Iris Pro graphics.

     


    They cost more, but it would give the 13" that differentiation from the Air. I suspect the 13" Pro is popular in spite of the Air. Otherwise it may not have lasted.

  • Reply 773 of 1320
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    hmm wrote: »
    They cost more, but it would give the 13" that differentiation from the Air. I suspect the 13" Pro is popular in spite of the Air. Otherwise it may not have lasted.

    Hopefully iPad autocorrect won't turn this into something no one can understand!????????

    I'm not sure why people see the 13" MBP as being in the same category as the AIR. I see them as two entirely different machines. On The other hand the current AiRs are such a step forward that all the MBP's are in need of substantial updates. That simply to put a solid performance delta back in place.

    For people that don't need a MBP right this very minute, waiting for the new models is highly advised. As for the Mini I'd still like to see Apple break away a little bit from Intel and consider an AMD chip. In that regard the new chips being prepared for the new gaming console seem like an interesting possibility. Mainly so that we can get lots of cores along with a high performance GPU. I know those cores in the console machines aren't the fastest but that is balanced somewhat by lots of them in a small package. AMD is slowly coming back and frankly Intel needs a thorn in their side. 8 cores in a Mini combined with a really good GPU would be fantastic.
  • Reply 774 of 1320
    macroninmacronin Posts: 1,174member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    Hopefully iPad autocorrect won't turn this into something no one can understand!????????



    I'm not sure why people see the 13" MBP as being in the same category as the AIR. I see them as two entirely different machines. On The other hand the current AiRs are such a step forward that all the MBP's are in need of substantial updates. That simply to put a solid performance delta back in place.



    For people that don't need a MBP right this very minute, waiting for the new models is highly advised. As for the Mini I'd still like to see Apple break away a little bit from Intel and consider an AMD chip. In that regard the new chips being prepared for the new gaming console seem like an interesting possibility. Mainly so that we can get lots of cores along with a high performance GPU. I know those cores in the console machines aren't the fastest but that is balanced somewhat by lots of them in a small package. AMD is slowly coming back and frankly Intel needs a thorn in their side. 8 cores in a Mini combined with a really good GPU would be fantastic.


    That would be ideal for me as a HTPC/WoW box…


     


    WoW on the 60" HDTV (with audio handled by an Onkyo THX HTiB), surfing the web on an iPad & watching videos on an iPad mini…


     


    Multitasking…!!! ;^p

  • Reply 775 of 1320
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


     


    Some people would.  And lots do; the AIOs actually sell pretty well.



     


     


    There is no $2000 Mac Pro with dual GPUs.  The context was THIS:

     


     


    US$2,000.00


    Xeon 6-core workstation-class CPU


    16GB DDR3 ECC RAM


    512GB PCIe Flash RAM SSD


    Dual W5000 FirePro workstation-class GPUs w/2GB GDDR5 RAM


     


    would crater iMac sales.


     


    If you'd rather buy a 3.2 Ghz Core i5 with a 1GB GTX675MX with 8GB RAM for $1999 or even the next revision of the base 27" iMac with Haswell instead of this mythical Mac Pro for $2K you're a complete moron.  I don't care how in love you are with an AIO, I stand by my statement that a dual 2GB W5000 Mac Pro that sells for only $2000 will absolutely crater iMac sales unless Apple suddenly has a desire to have Dell sized margins across their desktop lines.


     


    Quote:


    Less expense; the display is included.  Less clutter.  Fewer cables.  Nothing to worry about... go in, buy one machine, have a complete computer system.  Thus the idea of all-in-one.   Does it solve every user's needs?  Of course not.


     


    The iMac I bought cost just shy of $3000.  Would you suggest then that the Mac Pro must come in over that?




     


    No.  I would suggest that the Mac Pro will have a quad E3 v2 or maybe if we're lucky a quad E3 v3 or low end hexa core V2 with a single low end GPU, 8GB RAM and a 256GB SSD and cost $2500.  It will spec in at around the same as a moderately upgraded iMac around that $2500 price point.


  • Reply 776 of 1320
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nht View Post


     


     


     


    No.  I would suggest that the Mac Pro will have a quad E3 v2 or maybe if we're lucky a quad E3 v3 or low end hexa core V2 with a single low end GPU, 8GB RAM and a 256GB SSD and cost $2500.  It will spec in at around the same as a moderately upgraded iMac around that $2500 price point.



    I expect better logic from you sir! The problem with an E3 is it requires an entirely different logic board / chipset to use a cpu that costs the same as an entry level Xeon EP 1620. They're both around $300. If you saw a quad version, it would be an E5-1620  in a v2 version. To suggest they would go with an entirely different socket is just so far beyond silly. A likely E3 candidate would be something like an E3-1245  as it's about the same as what they use in 27" imacs. It makes no sense to fork the entire line just to use that when a more logical and pin compatible choice is available. I don't know why this even comes up. There is really no reason to ever dip below EP options at this point, although I've stated that the new design really seems aimed at Xeon 1600 configurations more than Xeon 2600.

  • Reply 777 of 1320
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post







    I'm not sure why people see the 13" MBP as being in the same category as the AIR. I see them as two entirely different machines. On The other hand the current AiRs are such a step forward that all the MBP's are in need of substantial updates. That simply to put a solid performance delta back in place.


    I was thinking in context of Apple. Apple is well known for dumping certain features and functionality on lower cost models while retaining them as higher price tiers.

    I was saying that the 13" mbp is likely too significant to do something like that. I'm not really against APU solutions at all, but I don't think they are mature yet for all use cases. They are getting better. I mean the Iris pro was in no way tangential from the GMA chips from a few years ago. It is an entirely different design mantra of engineering. Their igpus seemed to start as a repository for leftover transistor allocation, and that stopped being the case with the HD 3000 in spite of its weakness.

  • Reply 778 of 1320
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    I expect better logic from you sir! The problem with an E3 is it requires an entirely different logic board / chipset to use a cpu that costs the same as an entry level Xeon EP 1620.



     


    Yah, you're right they'll use a quad core E5-1600 v2 but I was under the mistaken impression they were all 6+ core.  /shrug  Shame on me for not double checking.


     


    Yes, a new logic board is unlikely but maybe for Haswell it's worthwhile.  LOL...imagine the screaming if they did have a $1799 Mac Pro but it was a E3-1285 v3 and no discrete GPUs at all.


     


    I was pony-wishing for a mini with the E3-12x5.  LOL.


  • Reply 779 of 1320

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nht View Post


    If you'd rather buy a 3.2 Ghz Core i5 with a 1GB GTX675MX with 8GB RAM for $1999 or even the next revision of the base 27" iMac with Haswell instead of this mythical Mac Pro for $2K you're a complete moron.  


     



     


     


     


    Just because my computer needs and other considerations don't match yours, I'm a moron?


     


    Such a sweet thing for you to say.  Should I accept that as a compliment?


     


     


    Edit:


     


    Sorry, you said "complete moron".  

  • Reply 780 of 1320
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


     


    Just because my computer needs and other considerations don't match yours, I'm a moron?



     


    Yep.  You're arguing for the sake of I have no clue what if you claim you would turn down a dual Firepro W5000 hexa core Mac Pro in favor of a quad core Core i5 iMac for the same $2000.  


     


    ESPECIALLY given what you stated you do with your iMac and your described needs and other considerations.  So you're just trying to be offended and pretend I called you a moron.


     


    Even ignoring all that it STILL would be an insanely poor value to pick the base 27" iMac over that hugely underpriced Mac Pro configuration AND YOU KNOW IT.


     


    Even for Dell that would be a $3000 machine.  Go price out a T5600 with 6 cores, dual W5000s, 16GB RAM and a 256GB SSD.


     


    Drop it down to dual V4900s, quad core and 8GB RAM and you're back down to $2200.  For a Dell.

Sign In or Register to comment.