The new has a fraction of the chassis materials of the old.
The new has a fraction of the components of the old (no CD, HD, cables and a single cooling fan).
The new has a smaller foot print of the old thereby Apple will save on shipping to stores/warehouse and be able to stock more units in stores.
The new should have a fraction of the assembly labor time of the old.
The new has an inexpensively produced design, the beer can shell.
The new should be less expensive to update compared to the old because it use three small boards instead of one large board.
The new will have practically no warranty repair of the old because of no mechanical drives.
The new should sell for much less than the old considering. It makes me believe because of its small design that Apple may be thinking of eventually replacing the Mac Mini and even the iMac with this Mac Pro if they price it right. It will reduce their product line but instead offer consumers a powerful yet affordable unit that they can expanded and be a computer, server, media server etc. If Apple goes the other way and sells it for more than the old units it will sell few and make people turn to the hackintosh community.
Good first post!
Yes they have done a lot of things to reduce costs. In addition they bought that Israeli SSD manufacturer -- they could use their own product and maybe share among iDevices to gain economies of scale...
I would not be too surprised to see this offered at an unexpectedly low price -- AIR, the original Mac Pro was very competitively priced.
When I realized how small and attractive it was (also quiet fan) I too thought a version as a Airport/backup/media server/iCloud staging server -- possibly with ARM chips.
The new has a fraction of the chassis materials of the old.
The new has a fraction of the components of the old (no CD, HD, cables and a single cooling fan).
The new has a smaller foot print of the old thereby Apple will save on shipping to stores/warehouse and be able to stock more units in stores.
The new should have a fraction of the assembly labor time of the old.
The new has an inexpensively produced design, the beer can shell.
The new should be less expensive to update compared to the old because it use three small boards instead of one large board.
The new will have practically no warranty repair of the old because of no mechanical drives.
The new should sell for much less than the old considering. It makes me believe because of its small design that Apple may be thinking of eventually replacing the Mac Mini and even the iMac with this Mac Pro if they price it right. It will reduce their product line but instead offer consumers a powerful yet affordable unit that they can expanded and be a computer, server, media server etc. If Apple goes the other way and sells it for more than the old units it will sell few and make people turn to the hackintosh community.
It won't be much less and it won't be much more. Apple has a habit of maintaining its price points and just changing what it offers at a given price point.
By making the machine in the US they signal that this is a relative niche product and aren't expecting stellar sales (as compared to their other product lines).
What they save in some respects, they have in added costs elsewhere: SSDs are still considerably more expensive than disk drives, and GPUs aren't cheap either, so having two of them in the system is adding to the cost, too.
replacing a $20,000 Protools HD system with an Apogee or UA set up isn't something I or most other professional studios will do any time soon.
Would replacing expensive hardware ever be the only option though? The absolute worst case should be buying a Magma 3T and some external storage. That's about $2k. There's a test here of the Protools HDX connected to a Mac Mini via Thunderbolt:
I think if the "new Mac Pro" is indeed all that will be available from Apple, you'll see most professional studios (i'm not talking small project studios or basement/bedroom jobs) forced to switch to Windows machines just from a cost/simplicity perspective, as weird as that sounds.
Anyways, hopefully i'm wrong and we'll see Apple release a professional and cost-effective solution if there's a backlash - remember when they pulled Final Cut Pro?
Nobody would be forced to switch, they would choose to switch after making the decision that they didn't want to invest in Thunderbolt options - some had decided that long ago anyway. The people who make the hardware they use are offering Thunderbolt options.
"For good or bad this Mac Pro will change everything and cause a ripple effect in my entire computing life. And its probably about time," he writes, adding: "When I look at the existing tech that is sitting on and under my desk I realize that I have been looking at pretty much the same picture for the last 20 years. Its probably about time that some company takes me to the next step."
This is a mayor misconception! Only because things worked in a certain way for 20 years doesn't mean it is automatically outdated or obsolete. Or what about the guitars, valve amplifiers and pedal effects lying around in the studio? Replace them with a software emulation just because it is possible?
It is a bit like Apple decision to ditch tracks in FCPX. Why? Just because they have been used in editing for the last 20 years doesn't mean they are not useful.
This is the first time the Mac Pro has been spotted sold out at so many authorized resellers, and is likely a sign that Apple is winding down ? or has halted ? production of the current model.
No, it's sold out at many European resellers as well.
When it launches, the newly redesigned Mac Pro will mark the end of an era for Apple's legacy aluminum tower, which has existed since the launch of the Power Mac G5 in June of 2003.
A pity, as I have four of these towers now (but only using the latest model).
The first Power Mac G5 featured dual 2-gigahertz processors, and could support up to 8 gigabytes of RAM.
No, the first PowerMac was a single 1.6 GHz CPU, a week later we got the 1.8 and 2 more weeks later we got the dual 2.0 (later they added a dual 1.8 as well).
The desktop was rebranded as the Mac Pro in 2006, when Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel processors while keeping the same enclosure. The first Intel-based tower Mac included two dual-core Intel Xeon 5150 processors clocked at 2.66 gigahertz.
No, the first configs were: two 2.0, two 2.66, or two 3.0 GHz
The design of the tower remained largely the same, though Apple added a second optical drive bay, along with a second USB port and FireWire 800 port on the front of the desktop.
On looks perhaps, but the innards have been redesigned at almost every iteration. The WiFi, BT, PSU, HDD, CPU layout, cooling... every tiddybit has been redesigned many times.
I'd be surprised if this turns out to be true. The rumors say that the new one won't be out until fall. I can't imagine that they'd stop shipments this early.
They stopped selling them in Europe, in March, but this is due to that fan-hazard thing.
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">
<div class="quote-block" id="user_yui_3_10_0_1_1372414321293_998" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:10px;padding-right:10px;padding-bottom:10px;padding-left:10px;border-top-width:1px;border-right-width:1px;border-bottom-width:1px;border-left-width:1px;border-top-style:solid;border-right-style:solid;border-bottom-style:solid;border-left-style:solid;border-top-color:rgb(217,218,216);border-right-color:rgb(217,218,216);border-bottom-color:rgb(217,218,216);border-left-color:rgb(217,218,216);background-color:rgb(241,241,241);color:rgb(0,0,0);"><span id="user_yui_3_10_0_1_1372414321293_1004" style="line-height:normal;color:rgb(0,0,255);">"For good or bad this Mac Pro will change everything and cause a ripple effect in my entire computing life. And its probably about time," he writes, adding: "When I look at the existing tech that is sitting on and under my desk I realize that I have been looking at pretty much the same picture for the last 20 years. Its probably about time that some company takes me to the next step."</span> </div>
<div class="quote-container" style="margin-top:5px;margin-right:10px;margin-bottom:5px;margin-left:10px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">This is a mayor misconception! Only because things worked in a certain way for 20 years doesn't mean it is automatically outdated or obsolete. Or what about the guitars, valve amplifiers and pedal effects lying around in the studio? Replace them with a software emulation just because it is possible?</div>
<div class="quote-container" style="margin-top:5px;margin-right:10px;margin-bottom:5px;margin-left:10px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">It is a bit like Apple decision to ditch tracks in FCPX. Why? Just because they have been used in editing for the last 20 years doesn't mean they are not useful.</div>
In some ways, I agree...
I do not think it is good to change for the sake of change itself -- or just because we can!
However, it is sometimes necessary to abandon the current, comfortable -- in order to move ahead.
Apple is in an rather unique position: to participate in the current "status quo" while at the same time "designing the future" by pushing the envelope of technology...
You may not remember, but I do -- when Apple disrupted technology:
Apple ][ [mostly] all-in one pre-assembled computer instead of S-100 Card Cages
use 5 1/4" mini-floppies instead of 8" maxi-floppies
Mac all-in-one and GUI
use micro-floppies instead of mini-floppies
iMac all-in-one
use Optical Disk instead of floppies
usb instead of RS-232, DTB...
iphone
iPad
Every time Apple cut the cord with the past, it forced us to get our butts up off the chair and out of our comfort zone -- in order to move forward.
There were naysayers every time... but look around where we all are today -- and what technology we are using.
Not to say that there haven't been false starts, bet we have moved forward... Unlike MS who keeps holding itself (and its users) back by trying to drag that ever-heaverier legacy support into the future,
To the above list of disruptive steps forward, I could have added FCP 1. While it wasn't conceived/written by Apple -- they introduced it intro the niche pro market -- where it rapidly became the most popular NLE.
You brought up FCPX... Apple did a lot of things wrong in the way they handled the introduction. But, they made the right choice: rethinking and reimplementing the NLE to be able to exploit today's and future technology. Today's FCPX, fleshed out with 3rd party support, and with 7 updates in 2 years (made possible by the total rewrite) has silenced most of the critics. Some Pros say FCPX is "best in class" for some things like multi-cam... Even FCPX competitors are beginning to copy FCPX features...
You also mentioned FCPX "ditching tracks"... Many editors claim improved productivity by letting the computer/application handle the drudgery of keeping multiple video and audio tracks aligned (synched) -- instead of forcing the editor to do that.
But, because FCPX is so flexible, fast, and powerful... you can do it your way:
The new should sell for much less than the old considering. It makes me believe because of its small design that Apple may be thinking of eventually replacing the Mac Mini and even the iMac with this Mac Pro if they price it right.
Not sure about dropping the Mac Mini. It's a nice embedded home theater solution if your needs surpass the AppleTV. And the Mini is Apple's current server machine; While the new Mac Pro is technically stackable, the thermal implications of that are much more dangerous.
glnf
This is a mayor misconception! Only because things worked in a certain way for 20 years doesn't mean it is automatically outdated or obsolete. Or what about the guitars, valve amplifiers and pedal effects lying around in the studio? Replace them with a software emulation just because it is possible?
It is a bit like Apple decision to ditch tracks in FCPX. Why? Just because they have been used in editing for the last 20 years doesn't mean they are not useful.
Software instruments are a good way to experiment with arrangements or get something done fast on a budget. No one is forced to ditch their analog equipment, but they do have more options now.
For what it's worth, I used FCP-E for years, and I heartily prefer the magnetic timeline of FCPX.
Editors can still use the old behavior by making the main track a gap/blank; other layers can then be moved independently of one another, since only the main track is magnetic.
[...] But if the price points are right, this is going to be a big seller. The number crunching claims for this thing are stupid fast.
Unless they managed to get very low prices for the components, the price is going to be high. Just add all what they announced, and you easily climb to $5000+
It has more than double the sugar of the current Mac Pro, so price can be double as well (two top-of-the-line GPUs, very fast flash, new Itanium, etc...)
I'll love to buy one, because it's just what I need, but I'm a bit afraid of prices...
Unless they managed to get very low prices for the components, the price is going to be high. Just add all what they announced, and you easily climb to $5000+
It has more than double the sugar of the current Mac Pro, so price can be double as well (two top-of-the-line GPUs, very fast flash, new Itanium, etc...)
I'll love to buy one, because it's just what I need, but I'm a bit afraid of prices...
The old one topped out over $10,000. Both were advertised up to 12-core but the entry point isn't 12-core. There are cheaper FirePros for the entry model. They can hit the old price point pretty easily but the internet has largely decided that $1999 is the most favourable price point for just a quad-core so that's what it'll have to be and they can probably hit that price too.
The old one topped out over $10,000. Both were advertised up to 12-core but the entry point isn't 12-core. There are cheaper FirePros for the entry model. They can hit the old price point pretty easily but the internet has largely decided that $1999 is the most favourable price point for just a quad-core so that's what it'll have to be and they can probably hit that price too.
There is a reason Schiller specifically mentioned a dual FirePro set up with 4096 shaders on a 384-bit bus. That's a W9000 level category FirePro times two. AMD isn't going to build a full tier of GPGPUs for the Mac Pro. The design time and assembly isn't worth the contract to do so.
Apple will have, at most, two cards to choose from and it will be based on the Hawaii GCN 2.0 Architecture coming out this Fall at either 28nm or 20nm depending on the ramp up time from GloFo.
The Entry Product will start at over $6000k, especially with the Xeons Apple is using and how Intel isn't dropping their CPU prices for that end.
Apple will have, at most, two cards to choose from and it will be based on the Hawaii GCN 2.0 Architecture coming out this Fall at either 28nm or 20nm depending on the ramp up time from GloFo.
Two GPUs would still be enough to hit a $2500 or lower entry point e.g W5000 and W9000. I think they'll have 3 options: W5000, W7000 and W9000.
The Entry Product will start at over $6000k, especially with the Xeons Apple is using and how Intel isn't dropping their CPU prices for that end.
There's no reason for them to leave that much of a price gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro. I reckon they'll manage the top spec 12-core + W9000 below $7k. The highest volume of customers is at the lower end of the pricing scale. $6k would only appeal to a very small audience.
I am a pro, just not an audio/video type...I run a stock trading firm. We currently run Mac Pro's with 6 monitors attached to each. My biggest concern for the new Pros (of which I have been waiting a long time for replacing our current stock) is the expandability...specifically additional video!
Running 3 monitors isn't going to cut it. I realize Phil said in the keynote that it would run (3) 4K monitors, so perhaps it can be configured to drive more lower resolution monitors as well...but that is a big question mark for me. I hate the thought of having to switch my organization over to Win boxes, but I fear that is what is going to be forced upon me. I will not go without a fight though...meaning I may just be forced to switch over to the current Mac Pro towers from eBay or some such nonsense.
So I am intrigued, but very cautiously optomistic!
Interesting follow-up. Spoke with a tech at a local Apple Reseller. He said it was his understanding that the Mac Pro that would push (3) 4K displays will drive (6) 1080 displays. Now that will work for me! Can't wait for confirmation.
Interesting follow-up. Spoke with a tech at a local Apple Reseller. He said it was his understanding that the Mac Pro that would push (3) 4K displays will drive (6) 1080 displays. Now that will work for me! Can't wait for confirmation.
You can hook up two Thunderbolt displays and an HDMI display to a Macbook Pro:
and it only has one Thunderbolt controller and half the bandwidth dedicated to video output. The Mac Pro has 3 controllers with all the bandwidth usable for display output. You can also run displays over USB 3 but those tend not to be hardware accelerated. I expect the Mac Pro to support at least 7 displays.
The Mac Pro has 3 controllers with all the bandwidth usable for display output. You can also run displays over USB 3 but those tend not to be hardware accelerated. I expect the Mac Pro to support at least 7 displays.
Can we assume that driving three 4k monitors equals 3 * 8,294,400 = 24,883,200 pixels and therefore could power 6(,75 to be precise) TB (2,560 * 1,440 = 3.686.400 px) Displays? If the bandwidth is there would that be a logical conclusion?
Can we assume that driving three 4k monitors equals 3 * 8,294,400 = 24,883,200 pixels and therefore could power 6(,75 to be precise) TB (2,560 * 1,440 = 3.686.400 px) Displays? If the bandwidth is there would that be a logical conclusion?
Yes, though the GPU has to have enough memory and power to run the displays too - I expect the entry model will have dual W5000 with 2GB of video memory (you only get 2GB in Crossfire as it mirrors the memory on each GPU). A single W9000 with 6GB is enough to drive 6 displays:
[VIDEO]
but that looks a bit choppy. Performance will depend on what's being drawn on screen. AMD has a list of supported numbers of displays:
Comments
Good first post!
Yes they have done a lot of things to reduce costs. In addition they bought that Israeli SSD manufacturer -- they could use their own product and maybe share among iDevices to gain economies of scale...
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3326519/apple-buys-israeli-start-up-and-ssd-maker-anobit/
I would not be too surprised to see this offered at an unexpectedly low price -- AIR, the original Mac Pro was very competitively priced.
When I realized how small and attractive it was (also quiet fan) I too thought a version as a Airport/backup/media server/iCloud staging server -- possibly with ARM chips.
It won't be much less and it won't be much more. Apple has a habit of maintaining its price points and just changing what it offers at a given price point.
By making the machine in the US they signal that this is a relative niche product and aren't expecting stellar sales (as compared to their other product lines).
What they save in some respects, they have in added costs elsewhere: SSDs are still considerably more expensive than disk drives, and GPUs aren't cheap either, so having two of them in the system is adding to the cost, too.
Would replacing expensive hardware ever be the only option though? The absolute worst case should be buying a Magma 3T and some external storage. That's about $2k. There's a test here of the Protools HDX connected to a Mac Mini via Thunderbolt:
[VIDEO]
Here's it in the Magma 3T:
[VIDEO]
Here's a setup with the Sonnet:
[VIDEO]
Nobody would be forced to switch, they would choose to switch after making the decision that they didn't want to invest in Thunderbolt options - some had decided that long ago anyway. The people who make the hardware they use are offering Thunderbolt options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Here are some interesting quotes from Larry Jordan and Lou Borella (emphasis mine):
http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/?newsid=3453334
Quote:
"For good or bad this Mac Pro will change everything and cause a ripple effect in my entire computing life. And its probably about time," he writes, adding: "When I look at the existing tech that is sitting on and under my desk I realize that I have been looking at pretty much the same picture for the last 20 years. Its probably about time that some company takes me to the next step."
This is a mayor misconception! Only because things worked in a certain way for 20 years doesn't mean it is automatically outdated or obsolete. Or what about the guitars, valve amplifiers and pedal effects lying around in the studio? Replace them with a software emulation just because it is possible?
It is a bit like Apple decision to ditch tracks in FCPX. Why? Just because they have been used in editing for the last 20 years doesn't mean they are not useful.
No, it's sold out at many European resellers as well.
A pity, as I have four of these towers now (but only using the latest model).
No, the first PowerMac was a single 1.6 GHz CPU, a week later we got the 1.8 and 2 more weeks later we got the dual 2.0 (later they added a dual 1.8 as well).
No, the first configs were: two 2.0, two 2.66, or two 3.0 GHz
On looks perhaps, but the innards have been redesigned at almost every iteration. The WiFi, BT, PSU, HDD, CPU layout, cooling... every tiddybit has been redesigned many times.
They stopped selling them in Europe, in March, but this is due to that fan-hazard thing.
In some ways, I agree...
I do not think it is good to change for the sake of change itself -- or just because we can!
However, it is sometimes necessary to abandon the current, comfortable -- in order to move ahead.
Apple is in an rather unique position: to participate in the current "status quo" while at the same time "designing the future" by pushing the envelope of technology...
You may not remember, but I do -- when Apple disrupted technology:
Every time Apple cut the cord with the past, it forced us to get our butts up off the chair and out of our comfort zone -- in order to move forward.
There were naysayers every time... but look around where we all are today -- and what technology we are using.
Not to say that there haven't been false starts, bet we have moved forward... Unlike MS who keeps holding itself (and its users) back by trying to drag that ever-heaverier legacy support into the future,
To the above list of disruptive steps forward, I could have added FCP 1. While it wasn't conceived/written by Apple -- they introduced it intro the niche pro market -- where it rapidly became the most popular NLE.
You brought up FCPX... Apple did a lot of things wrong in the way they handled the introduction. But, they made the right choice: rethinking and reimplementing the NLE to be able to exploit today's and future technology. Today's FCPX, fleshed out with 3rd party support, and with 7 updates in 2 years (made possible by the total rewrite) has silenced most of the critics. Some Pros say FCPX is "best in class" for some things like multi-cam... Even FCPX competitors are beginning to copy FCPX features...
You also mentioned FCPX "ditching tracks"... Many editors claim improved productivity by letting the computer/application handle the drudgery of keeping multiple video and audio tracks aligned (synched) -- instead of forcing the editor to do that.
But, because FCPX is so flexible, fast, and powerful... you can do it your way:
http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/tutorials/1158-managing-audio-layers-in-final-cut-pro-x
Great!
Also, there are lots of good tutorials out there, and many reluctant converts are becoming proponents.
Most say that FCPX makes editing fast and fun!
bjr001
The new should sell for much less than the old considering. It makes me believe because of its small design that Apple may be thinking of eventually replacing the Mac Mini and even the iMac with this Mac Pro if they price it right.
Not sure about dropping the Mac Mini. It's a nice embedded home theater solution if your needs surpass the AppleTV. And the Mini is Apple's current server machine; While the new Mac Pro is technically stackable, the thermal implications of that are much more dangerous.
glnf
This is a mayor misconception! Only because things worked in a certain way for 20 years doesn't mean it is automatically outdated or obsolete. Or what about the guitars, valve amplifiers and pedal effects lying around in the studio? Replace them with a software emulation just because it is possible?
It is a bit like Apple decision to ditch tracks in FCPX. Why? Just because they have been used in editing for the last 20 years doesn't mean they are not useful.
Software instruments are a good way to experiment with arrangements or get something done fast on a budget. No one is forced to ditch their analog equipment, but they do have more options now.
For what it's worth, I used FCP-E for years, and I heartily prefer the magnetic timeline of FCPX.
Editors can still use the old behavior by making the main track a gap/blank; other layers can then be moved independently of one another, since only the main track is magnetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NukemHill
[...] But if the price points are right, this is going to be a big seller. The number crunching claims for this thing are stupid fast.
Unless they managed to get very low prices for the components, the price is going to be high. Just add all what they announced, and you easily climb to $5000+
It has more than double the sugar of the current Mac Pro, so price can be double as well (two top-of-the-line GPUs, very fast flash, new Itanium, etc...)
I'll love to buy one, because it's just what I need, but I'm a bit afraid of prices...
The old one topped out over $10,000. Both were advertised up to 12-core but the entry point isn't 12-core. There are cheaper FirePros for the entry model. They can hit the old price point pretty easily but the internet has largely decided that $1999 is the most favourable price point for just a quad-core so that's what it'll have to be and they can probably hit that price too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The old one topped out over $10,000. Both were advertised up to 12-core but the entry point isn't 12-core. There are cheaper FirePros for the entry model. They can hit the old price point pretty easily but the internet has largely decided that $1999 is the most favourable price point for just a quad-core so that's what it'll have to be and they can probably hit that price too.
There is a reason Schiller specifically mentioned a dual FirePro set up with 4096 shaders on a 384-bit bus. That's a W9000 level category FirePro times two. AMD isn't going to build a full tier of GPGPUs for the Mac Pro. The design time and assembly isn't worth the contract to do so.
Apple will have, at most, two cards to choose from and it will be based on the Hawaii GCN 2.0 Architecture coming out this Fall at either 28nm or 20nm depending on the ramp up time from GloFo.
The Entry Product will start at over $6000k, especially with the Xeons Apple is using and how Intel isn't dropping their CPU prices for that end.
They won't be specially designing chips, just the boards. It doesn't even have to be AMD that does the boards.
Two GPUs would still be enough to hit a $2500 or lower entry point e.g W5000 and W9000. I think they'll have 3 options: W5000, W7000 and W9000.
There's no reason for them to leave that much of a price gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro. I reckon they'll manage the top spec 12-core + W9000 below $7k. The highest volume of customers is at the lower end of the pricing scale. $6k would only appeal to a very small audience.
I am a pro, just not an audio/video type...I run a stock trading firm. We currently run Mac Pro's with 6 monitors attached to each. My biggest concern for the new Pros (of which I have been waiting a long time for replacing our current stock) is the expandability...specifically additional video!
Running 3 monitors isn't going to cut it. I realize Phil said in the keynote that it would run (3) 4K monitors, so perhaps it can be configured to drive more lower resolution monitors as well...but that is a big question mark for me. I hate the thought of having to switch my organization over to Win boxes, but I fear that is what is going to be forced upon me. I will not go without a fight though...meaning I may just be forced to switch over to the current Mac Pro towers from eBay or some such nonsense.
So I am intrigued, but very cautiously optomistic!
Interesting follow-up. Spoke with a tech at a local Apple Reseller. He said it was his understanding that the Mac Pro that would push (3) 4K displays will drive (6) 1080 displays. Now that will work for me! Can't wait for confirmation.
You can hook up two Thunderbolt displays and an HDMI display to a Macbook Pro:
http://blog.macsales.com/14241-macbook-pro-15-with-retina-display-can-run-3-external-displays
and it only has one Thunderbolt controller and half the bandwidth dedicated to video output. The Mac Pro has 3 controllers with all the bandwidth usable for display output. You can also run displays over USB 3 but those tend not to be hardware accelerated. I expect the Mac Pro to support at least 7 displays.
Can we assume that driving three 4k monitors equals 3 * 8,294,400 = 24,883,200 pixels and therefore could power 6(,75 to be precise) TB (2,560 * 1,440 = 3.686.400 px) Displays? If the bandwidth is there would that be a logical conclusion?
TIA Marvin
Yes, though the GPU has to have enough memory and power to run the displays too - I expect the entry model will have dual W5000 with 2GB of video memory (you only get 2GB in Crossfire as it mirrors the memory on each GPU). A single W9000 with 6GB is enough to drive 6 displays:
[VIDEO]
but that looks a bit choppy. Performance will depend on what's being drawn on screen. AMD has a list of supported numbers of displays:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/workstation/graphics/ati-firepro-3d/Pages/product-comparison.aspx
The W5000 is listed up to 3, the W9000 is listed up to 6. I don't know if that changes having dual GPUs.
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/29465/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]