Teardown of Apple's new Mac Pro reveals socketed, removable Intel CPU

1911131415

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 283
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

     

    My point was precisely that Macs had no presence in that market, and people do only run this kind of stuff on linux (myself included). But all of those people (myself, again, included) carry around Mac  notebooks, so I would imagine that Apple COULD make some inroads, if it were interested. Presumably the Mac Pro's fast I/O would help with quant finance stuff as well - I had never seen a Mac in finance shops, but maybe I haven't been looking hard enough.


     

    Amusingly I too carry around an Apple notebook almost everywhere. It's not like I can take the Mac Pro everywhere, and it's old. It's just more flexible. Well maybe not everywhere and there are a lot of things I can't do with limited screen space, but I take it along frequently.

     

    You have me thinking on this, yet Apple would need to do more than just add DIMMs to a mac pro. It might require a different design. I am unsure of the state of their enterprise support. I would think thunderbolt would be less suitable than many other connectors for mission critical settings, given its lack of a locking mechanism. That probably seems silly, but every other common connector in such a setting uses some kind of lock. With servers I suspect part of the issue is vibration. Anyway they might need to make significant changes to OSX too. Linux provides a very lean system for situations where every bit of performance is needed. I would be surprised if they went this route. Their current presence is largely due to leveraging and in a few cases software acquisitions. Years ago they acquired Shake for some time. They had FCP and now FCPX. Other than that most of the corporate devices seem to be from BYOD policies. They have been more aggressive on certain hardware changes in the last 2 years, but that would really surprise me.

  • Reply 202 of 283
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,213moderator
    marubeni wrote: »
    My point was precisely that Macs had no presence in that market, and people do only run this kind of stuff on linux (myself included). But all of those people (myself, again, included) carry around Mac  notebooks, so I would imagine that Apple COULD make some inroads, if it were interested.

    If you are talking about workstations, there isn't a significant enough market for ones with massive amounts of RAM. If you mean servers in a shared environment where the RAM expense isn't allocated to an individual, they already had a server and stated nobody was buying them. It's all very well being the lone voice enthusiastically saying you'd buy one but unless there's another 100,000 people every quarter who feel the same way, it's not a good business decision for Apple. It's not just about making the initial sale either, people have to keep investing in new hardware regularly. Someone might go and build a 24-core Linux server with 512GB RAM and run it for 5-10 years using hardware with 15% margins. Those people might say it's a missed opportunity for Apple but clearly it's not as there's not enough profit in it for them. If they made one with their margins, people would still build them to save money.

    The fact you use a Mac laptop is what they care about because they are defining your user experience. The Linux boxes can sit processing data all day in a cupboard. Apple has never tried to make all things for all people; like every company, they pick which products make sense for their business model.
  • Reply 203 of 283
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,011member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

     

    Fanboys can be strange and myopic. I am an Apple zealot extraordinaire, but I don't let that get in the way of expressing my needs and disappointment in the direction the Mac Pro has been taken. Sorry, folks!

     

    Repeating... I don't need or want GPUs (at least at this time), hence the lack of GPUs in my custom configured linux system which has twice the performance (where I need it) compared to the least-expensive 12-core Mac Pro and for about the same price. I could have received the parts last week or earlier--not wait a couple months for when they should be even cheaper (and the profit margins greater ;-)

     

    I wouldn't buy a Dyson either.


    Then don't buy a Mac Pro. Problem solved. Nobody ever said any Mac was perfect for everyone. We know you don't like it and won't buy it so stop complaining and trying to justify when you won't buy one. We get it. Now go build your linux box and have fun.

     

    edit: Couldn't stop there. Once you get yours built, I'll finish compiling LaPack with GPU use and we'll compare results. :-)

  • Reply 204 of 283
    nhtnht Posts: 4,429member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    I appreciate everyone's detailed info and advice regarding my RAID setup but since it's better than I had before and I've already spent about $1000 for the components I think I'll take my chances for the time being. My next purchase will likely be a used Mac mini simply because that old PPC iMac I'm using to connect to the RAID is either not possible for Time Machine backups when using Leopard or makes iTunes wonky when using Leopard Server.

     

    You are far better off not using your RAID array for time machine backups and getting a hard drive toaster ($40) and a couple bare drives that you rotate for backups.  Probably your RAID drive would be far below 4TB usage at that point.

     

    Or just a couple external 4TB drives for $140 which is cheaper than bare drives but bigger to store.  Just plug one in for a couple weeks of backing up via time capsule or crashplan and then swap it for another.  Take the one you just replaced to work or a relative's house and stick in a drawer.

     

    /shrug

     

    That you spent $1000 is immaterial if you aren't getting the minimal level of protection a simple scheme like this provides.  

     

    I have my RAID on my primary machine attached via the fastest interconnect I can use.  Since you probably have about $650 worth of drives and only $350 worth of RAID I'd pull it apart, get a $40 toaster and rotate 2 of the 4TB drives for backup leaving you with a 4TB RAID 1 for use somewhere.

  • Reply 205 of 283
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    v5v wrote: »
    Is it really necessary to be insulting just to say you don't get it? We KNOW you don't get it. We don't EXPECT you to get it. We gave up on you being able to understand even such simple concepts a long time ago! ;)

    But seriously...

    I like making videos. The laptop I use to do that cost almost $4000 after BTO options, AppleCare and taxes. A basic Pro with a nice display would come in at about the same price and be MUCH better suited to the task.

    Oh, and if that Pro had a second internal SSD I wouldn't even need the fast external storage for source files. I could just archive stuff on cheap, slow USB drives.

    I get a lot more than you think. I just don't mind saying what I think. But why would anyone buy a multi thousand dollar workstation to play games on or to edit home movies on? It makes no sense financially, or even for editing purposes. A high end iMac is faster for most uses, and almost as fast for software like iPhoto, and other consumer level video editing apps that can't use all those cores.

    If you buy the four core model, there is little advantage to it for the home. A small speed boost for per core use, but not much else. The 300 cards aren't all that fast either. The main advantage would be for those who need vast bandwidth for dual channel Ethernet, or the 6 Thunderbolt 2 ports.
  • Reply 206 of 283
    nhtnht Posts: 4,429member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post



    I get a lot more than you think. I just don't mind saying what I think. But why would anyone buy a multi thousand dollar workstation to play games on or to edit home movies on? It makes no sense financially, or even for editing purposes. A high end iMac is faster for most uses, and almost as fast for software like iPhoto, and other consumer level video editing apps that can't use all those cores.



    If you buy the four core model, there is little advantage to it for the home. A small speed boost for per core use, but not much else. The 300 cards aren't all that fast either. The main advantage would be for those who need vast bandwidth for dual channel Ethernet, or the 6 Thunderbolt 2 ports.

     

    The cost delta between the iMac and the Mac Pro is actually very small.

     

    $3099 for a 3.7 Ghz quad core, 256GB SSD and 16 GB RAM, Dual Firepro D300

    $2749 for a 3.4 Ghz quad core, 256GB SSD and 16 GB RAM, 780M 4GB DDR5

     

    For $350 you get a much better platform to grow with.  That's not an unreasonable upgrade and buys you a small amount of future proofing (the greater possibility of GPU upgrades and far easier access to the SSD).

     

    Yes, you need to add keyboard, mouse and monitor.  The newly announced Dell 28" 4K monitor is $699.

     

    Consumer level video editing app?  You mean FCPX?  You DO realize that FCPX and iMovie appears to share the same core now right?  To the point that some unmodified FCPX plugins work in iMovie.

     

    http://alex4d.com/notes/item/imovie-2013-is-consumer-ui-on-fcpx

     

    http://alex4d.com/notes/item/final-cut-pro-x-plugins-work-in-imovie-2013

     

    If the Mac Pro was built to be a FCPX powerhouse I would bet that it's also a iMovie powerhouse.

     

    In any case FCPX is only $300.  Hardly out of the reach of the same kind of consumer that would buy any $2749 computer.

     

    I wouldn't buy a top end iMac for home use.  It's just too expensive for a consumer rig for what you get.

     

    I would buy the base model Mac Pro and believe it is comparatively a better value than the iMac based on the pricing above.   Mac Pros traditionally have a longer usable life than iMacs.  From a TCO perspective the Mac Pro strikes me as the better deal over the long haul.

     

    So your assertion that "If you're buying this for a home machine, then you're either nuts, someone who wants to brag, or simply has too much money, and too little brains." is of little merit or forethought and based only on your own prejudices.

     

    No surprise there.

  • Reply 207 of 283
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    nht wrote: »
    $3099 for a 3.7 Ghz quad core, 256GB SSD and 16 GB RAM, Dual Firepro D300
    $2749 for a 3.4 Ghz quad core, 256GB SSD and 16 GB RAM, 780M 4GB DDR5

    Don't forget to a display to the MP.

    And that is just it; I could get an iMac for my horsepower needs, 'heaviest' app used being Aperture, but then I'd get that semi glossy screen which I don't like. Matte for me, so either a MP or a Mini. I do use a Mini, but it's merely for downloading and displaying on the big screen in the living. Though I do think it's fast enough nowadays for Aperture as well and won't actually need a MP anymore. Still, I keep on buying that model every time.

    melgross wrote: »
    But why would anyone buy a multi thousand dollar workstation to play games on or to edit home movies on? It makes no sense financially, or even for editing purposes. A high end iMac is faster for most uses, and almost as fast for software like iPhoto, and other consumer level video editing apps that can't use all those cores.

    If you buy the four core model, there is little advantage to it for the home. A small speed boost for per core use, but not much else. The 300 cards aren't all that fast either. The main advantage would be for those who need vast bandwidth for dual channel Ethernet, or the 6 Thunderbolt 2 ports.

    Do you think I could get by with just a Mini, instead of my current dual quad 2.whatever GHz, RAM that never gets used et cetera? The only time I see all CPU's doing their thing is when converting FLAC to .mp3. And while I do that a lot, there's no need for me to have that task finish quickly; I'd simply batch that and check back adter an hour. Or the next day, whatever.

    You get this stuff; I'd like to read your opinion.
  • Reply 208 of 283
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post







    Do you think I could get by with just a Mini, instead of my current dual quad 2.whatever GHz, RAM that never gets used et cetera? The only time I see all CPU's doing their thing is when converting FLAC to .mp3. And while I do that a lot, there's no need for me to have that task finish quickly; I'd simply batch that and check back adter an hour. Or the next day, whatever.



    You get this stuff; I'd like to read your opinion.

     

    I don't think it would be a problem. Just pretend I'm melgross or mathematica, either one.

  • Reply 209 of 283
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    Do you think I could get by with just a Mini, instead of my current dual quad 2.whatever GHz, RAM that never gets used et cetera?

     

    I have one machine dedicated to transcoding and rendering. I used to use a Pro, but it was overkill since that kind of work is really CPU intensive and doesn't benefit from the dedicated graphics card and swappable storage in the Pro. I now use a mini. At $1500 it's half the price of a Pro and is almost as good. I don't care if a render job takes 20 hours or 26. I might care if I was chasing deadlines or if the difference was much larger, but it's just personal stuff so plus or minus a few hours is no big deal.

  • Reply 210 of 283
    nhtnht Posts: 4,429member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    Don't forget to a display to the MP.



    And that is just it; I could get an iMac for my horsepower needs, 'heaviest' app used being Aperture, but then I'd get that semi glossy screen which I don't like. Matte for me, so either a MP or a Mini. I do use a Mini, but it's merely for downloading and displaying on the big screen in the living. Though I do think it's fast enough nowadays for Aperture as well and won't actually need a MP anymore. Still, I keep on buying that model every time.

     

    The iMac never bothered me because I prefer dual monitor setups anyway.  That one is glossy is immaterial if all I have on it is email, twitter and palettes.  The 21" is most appealing in this way because that secondary monitor is smaller.

     

    Quote:


     Do you think I could get by with just a Mini, instead of my current dual quad 2.whatever GHz, RAM that never gets used et cetera? The only time I see all CPU's doing their thing is when converting FLAC to .mp3. And while I do that a lot, there's no need for me to have that task finish quickly; I'd simply batch that and check back adter an hour. Or the next day, whatever.



    You get this stuff; I'd like to read your opinion.


     

     

    The key limitation for the mini is obviously the lack of a GPU followed by RAM with only two slots available.  Aperture uses OpenCL.

     

    Still, if most of what you are doing is converting FLAC to .mp3 then a mini would be fine.  The Mac Pro (and high end iMac) shines when you are doing complex tasks in real time (Photoshop, FCPX, etc) vs batching them for overnight.  

     

    Since you already own a mini it should be trivial for you to try out a few days to see if it meets your requirements.  

     

    Personally I'd get a mini since that will be bulletproof and then tinker with a $500-700 hackintosh build.

  • Reply 211 of 283
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    nht wrote: »
    The iMac never bothered me because I prefer dual monitor setups anyway.  That one is glossy is immaterial if all I have on it is email, twitter and palettes.  The 21" is most appealing in this way because that secondary monitor is smaller.

    The key limitation for the mini is obviously the lack of a GPU followed by RAM with only two slots available.  Aperture uses OpenCL.

    A mini might be worth trying. Mavericks can use Intel HD4000 GPU for OpenCL. I've seen a computer with HD4000 graphics do some very powerful things.
  • Reply 212 of 283
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    hmm wrote: »
    philboogie wrote: »
    Do you think I could get by with just a Mini, instead of my current dual quad 2.whatever GHz, RAM that never gets used et cetera? The only time I see all CPU's doing their thing is when converting FLAC to .mp3. And while I do that a lot, there's no need for me to have that task finish quickly; I'd simply batch that and check back adter an hour. Or the next day, whatever.


    You get this stuff; I'd like to read your opinion.

    I don't think it would be a problem. Just pretend I'm melgross or mathematica, either one.

    No need to pretend; you're just as informative. Thanks, I thought the Mini nowadays would be powerful enough, just need confirmation.
    v5v wrote: »
    philboogie wrote: »
    Do you think I could get by with just a Mini, instead of my current dual quad 2.whatever GHz, RAM that never gets used et cetera?

    I have one machine dedicated to transcoding and rendering. I used to use a Pro, but it was overkill since that kind of work is really CPU intensive and doesn't benefit from the dedicated graphics card and swappable storage in the Pro. I now use a mini. At $1500 it's half the price of a Pro and is almost as good. I don't care if a render job takes 20 hours or 26. I might care if I was chasing deadlines or if the difference was much larger, but it's just personal stuff so plus or minus a few hours is no big deal.

    So basically in the same boat as me: no deadline, so no hurry in transcoding.

    You say $1500. Is that for the Mini + display or a maxed out Mini? I got the cheapest one for under the TV, and foubd out that I can through anything at it, the little guy just marches on (zipping, raring, multiple download, eight programs - doesn't matter). Did put 8GB RAM in.
    nht wrote: »
    philboogie wrote: »
    Don't forget to a display to the MP.


    And that is just it; I could get an iMac for my horsepower needs, 'heaviest' app used being Aperture, but then I'd get that semi glossy screen which I don't like. Matte for me, so either a MP or a Mini. I do use a Mini, but it's merely for downloading and displaying on the big screen in the living. Though I do think it's fast enough nowadays for Aperture as well and won't actually need a MP anymore. Still, I keep on buying that model every time.

    The iMac never bothered me because I prefer dual monitor setups anyway.  That one is glossy is immaterial if all I have on it is email, twitter and palettes.  The 21" is most appealing in this way because that secondary monitor is smaller.

    I agree, in this case a semi glossy wouldn't matter much to me either I guess.

    The key limitation for the mini is obviously the lack of a GPU followed by RAM with only two slots available.  Aperture uses OpenCL.

    Still, if most of what you are doing is converting FLAC to .mp3 then a mini would be fine.  The Mac Pro (and high end iMac) shines when you are doing complex tasks in real time (Photoshop, FCPX, etc) vs batching them for overnight.  

    Since you already own a mini it should be trivial for you to try out a few days to see if it meets your requirements.  

    Personally I'd get a mini since that will be bulletproof and then tinker with a $500-700 hackintosh build.

    I'll never go the hackintosh route, that's for sure. Don't want to see an update brick it.

    I would like to try out the Mini for a week or so, leaving the MP alone. Thing it, it has DP and I cannot connect my 30" ACD to it without getting the $99 adapter for it. And I don't know of any friend who has it so I could borrow it...I already have an unused ACD to Dual-Link DVI Adapter lying around.
  • Reply 213 of 283
    nhtnht Posts: 4,429member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post



    A mini might be worth trying. Mavericks can use Intel HD4000 GPU for OpenCL. I've seen a computer with HD4000 graphics do some very powerful things.

     

    True.  

     

    However, the mildly annoying thing about Apple's current line up is getting a Core i7 with GPU costs no less than $1699 these days.  And that's gimped with a 5400 RPM 1 TB drive.  To pull these up to 256GB SSD and 16GB RAM since you can't upgrade them later pushes the total to $2,099.

     

    $2999 for a Mac Pro doesn't look all that bad in comparison which is why I think Mel is completely wrong about the Mac Pro for home use.  It's easily worth $1500 more (including monitor, keyboard and mouse) off the Core i7/SSD/16GB/GT750M iMac build.

     

    At $800 the Mini, even the Ivy Bridge one, represents a huge value in the current line up.

  • Reply 214 of 283
    nht wrote: »
    $2999 for a Mac Pro doesn't look all that bad in comparison

    I will take a serious look at the Mini after my MP dies, but will never rule it out. They're great value for what you get. Plus I'm a sucker for tradition; always bought desktops, always the high-end. Switching to a Mini would be a first for me, but it does seem attractive price-wise.
  • Reply 215 of 283
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    I get a lot more than you think. I just don't mind saying what I think. But why would anyone buy a multi thousand dollar workstation to play games on or to edit home movies on? It makes no sense financially, or even for editing purposes. A high end iMac is faster for most uses, and almost as fast for software like iPhoto, and other consumer level video editing apps that can't use all those cores.



    If you buy the four core model, there is little advantage to it for the home. A small speed boost for per core use, but not much else. The 300 cards aren't all that fast either. The main advantage would be for those who need vast bandwidth for dual channel Ethernet, or the 6 Thunderbolt 2 ports.

     

    Mel, some people buy the nMP for the same reason people buy Audis, BMWs and other high end cars, because they can.

  • Reply 216 of 283
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    So basically in the same boat as me: no deadline, so no hurry in transcoding.

     

    Right, not considering typical human impatience, of course. If the waits were a lot longer I would undoubtedly become impatient even though there's no reason a job has to finish at any particular time. Fortunately, because the tasks I use it for are CPU intensive and one can get a mini with a decent CPU, it does a decent job.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    You say $1500. Is that for the Mini + display or a maxed out Mini?

     

    The latter. Mine's headless. It's connected to the living room TV via HDMI but that never gets used. I control it with my laptop via screen sharing.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    I would like to try out the Mini for a week or so, leaving the MP alone. Thing it, it has DP and I cannot connect my 30" ACD to it without getting the $99 adapter for it. And I don't know of any friend who has it so I could borrow it.

     

    Buy the adapter and try it out. If you decide the mini setup is good you'll need the adapter anyway. If it's not a config that makes you happy, return the adapter. That seems like a very fair and ethical application of the return policy.

  • Reply 217 of 283
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    Switching to a Mini would be a first for me, but it does seem attractive price-wise.

     

    We're getting new Macs for various Pro Tools systems at work. The radio studios just went with minis. We probably would on the TV side too, except that we occasionally need to play high-bandwidth video on ours. I'm not convinced the HD4000 in the mini is up to the task so we're waiting for a Pro. If not for that single demanding requirement, I think a mini would have been perfectly capable of hosting a professional audio-for-video workstation.

     

    Speaking of minis, has anyone heard anything about when we can expect new ones? I need one at home and don't want to buy the current model when a refresh must be imminent.

     

    I don't expect Haswell to make any difference, but I'm hoping (probably vainly) for a major graphics upgrade (please please please Iris Pro please please please!).

  • Reply 218 of 283
    v5v wrote: »
    philboogie wrote: »
    You say $1500. Is that for the Mini + display or a maxed out Mini?

    The latter. Mine's headless. It's connected to the living room TV via HDMI but that never gets used. I control it with my laptop via screen sharing.

    I'm surprised they range from $699 to $1,399 (2.6GHz i7, 16RAM, 256SSD). Tech has gotten so cheap it's becoming a difficult thing to look back at old invoices lol)
    philboogie wrote: »
    I would like to try out the Mini for a week or so, leaving the MP alone. Thing it, it has DP and I cannot connect my 30" ACD to it without getting the $99 adapter for it. And I don't know of any friend who has it so I could borrow it.
    Buy the adapter and try it out. If you decide the mini setup is good you'll need the adapter anyway. If it's not a config that makes you happy, return the adapter. That seems like a very fair and ethical application of the return policy.

    That's a Top Tip; never thought about getting something and then returning it. Nver done that, will need to know in advane if they allow that. Dutch laws are...Dutch!
    v5v wrote: »
    We're getting new Macs for various Pro Tools systems at work. The radio studios just went with minis. We probably would on the TV side too, except that we occasionally need to play high-bandwidth video on ours. I'm not convinced the HD4000 in the mini is up to the task so we're waiting for a Pro. If not for that single demanding requirement, I think a mini would have been perfectly capable of hosting a professional audio-for-video workstation.

    That is indeed what I understand to be the main talked about downside: the GPU. I also thought that integrated graphics would be...limited. All depends what we use it it for, obviously. For me, it plays back 1080p on the TV perfectly fine, but that's not the best test for a GPU capability.
    Speaking of minis, has anyone heard anything about when we can expect new ones? I need one at home and don't want to buy the current model when a refresh must be imminent.

    I don't expect Haswell to make any difference, but I'm hoping (probably vainly) for a major graphics upgrade (please please please Iris Pro please please please!).

    Don't know, haven't 'heard' anything. When I took a gander at the Store, I was surprised the 3 Mini's start with an i7, while all 4 iMacs start with an i5. Like you, I don't think the Haswell CPU will make some considerable change over the current version. Skip that, possibly not much noticeable over the 2011 models.

    Edit: noticed later that the cheapest Mini starts with an i7. My bad.
  • Reply 219 of 283
    nhtnht Posts: 4,429member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by v5v View Post

     

    Speaking of minis, has anyone heard anything about when we can expect new ones? I need one at home and don't want to buy the current model when a refresh must be imminent.

     

    I don't expect Haswell to make any difference, but I'm hoping (probably vainly) for a major graphics upgrade (please please please Iris Pro please please please!).


     

    You could email Tim and see if you get a response. LOL.

     

    I almost just pulled the trigger on a refurb mini.  Then said nah.

     

    Iris Pro is highly unlikely.  HD4600 is probably the most we can hope for.

  • Reply 220 of 283
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    For me, it plays back 1080p on the TV perfectly fine, but that's not the best test for a GPU capability.

     

    That would be enough for 90% of what we do because most of the time the editor gives us a "screener" (compressed) version of the video, but every so often we have to work with the same video the picture editors do which means either an animation codec (just one small step short of uncompressed) or XDCAM. In those cases having to use HD4000 would be maddening!

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nht View Post

     

    Iris Pro is highly unlikely.  HD4600 is probably the most we can hope for.


     

    NOOOO! Then I'll have waited for nothing! They'll give us at least 5000, won't they? Please say we'll get SOME flavour of Iris, even if it's "Amateur!" :)

Sign In or Register to comment.