Many people still use Firewire. I have a 2008 Macbook Pro and Mac Pro. Those machines still work very well. Some did not understand my statement earlier. The point I was trying to make is the new protocol USB-C embracing TB3 is going to cause a lot of simplified cabling and a pain for a lot of us with older tech.
That is not something that is unique to the transition to USB-C though. I have whole draws full of specialized to support past technologies. Most of them are useless these days. You are really complaining about the cost of doing business here and frankly you go after the technology you need new find a way to pay for it.
Sooner or later, your 2007 Macbook Pro and my computers will be obsolete. No more firewire ports or even display port. Apple is giving you a "heads up" with their plans with the introduction of the new Macbook with 1 USB-C port.
Proof that even Apple can and does do stupid things.
I just bought some display port cables recently for my new LG monitor. Boy, do I feel stupid. With this new protocol, this transition to USB-C is going to be expensive... Just for new cables. I was hoping someone knew of a cable recycler so I can at least get a little bit of my money back for all these cables I have in my office. $1 a cable would be fine with me.
Hey how about taking my decades old SCSI cables off my hands? Ultimately the old hardware either becomes trash or gets recycled into something different.
This is such BS. The overwhelming majority of the cases is gaming and the difference is going to be about 15% between native PCIe x16 and over TB. Performance is still FAR better than the performance of even the new Intel IGPs.
Honestly for Mac users I'd have to say your comments are BS. The vast majority of Mac users aren't buying their machines to game. The platform never seriously supported gaming and frankly still doesn't.
"Real performance losses only become apparent in x8 1.1 and x4 2.0, where the performance drop becomes noticeable with around 15%. ... Contrary to intuition, the driving factor for PCI-Express bus width and speed for most games is the framerate, not resolution, and our benchmarks conclusively show that the performance difference between PCIe configurations shrinks at higher resolution. This is because the bus transfers a fairly constant amount of scene and texture data - for each frame."
I guess if your goal is to support gaming, an activity with zero interest in the Mac community, you might have a point.
For compute tasks the degradation is entire in line with what you expect. With half the bandwidth you lose half the performance for transferring data but compute bound tasks still run pretty well.
Compute on a GPU is Very interesting and frankly the results you get vary widely with the application. However simply having an integrated GPU gives one advantages for certain types of compute.
XEON Phi is an interesting platform and the direction Intel is taking it tells us much about the future of PC hardware. For example Intel expects to put 16 GB of high speed RAM right in the package to maximize performance. the goal is to avoid going off package and dealing with the slow downs that implies. It may take awhile to see such tech built into mainstream processors but I'm certain it will happen.
What makes using TB for GPUs highly useful is the ability to take a 12" MacBook and gain 80+% of the power for gaming and a significant improvement for many GP-GPU tasks over using just the IGP.
Maybe but honestly I'd rather not have my processor performance split between stationary and portable units. If someone is looking for an external GPU solution in my mind they are buying the wrong hardware.
I know this point has been argued before and there are many competing points of view, but I always come back to these questions:
1. Does the economics make sense?
2. Is the potential here worth the trouble?
I still use a Firewire-400 external drive on my 2007 MacBook Pro. Works like a charm.
I regularly use the FW800 on my '09 17" MBP (not to mention on my MacPro at work). Once per year I break out the 400-800 adapter for the one FW400 drive I still have! But I'm looking forward to this new TB3/USB3.1 standard, hopefully cables and peripherals are somewhat more reasonable in price. Next year looks like the time to upgrade (but iMac R5k or 15" rMBP, still undecided).
Hey Wizard69, What is with the point by point analysis of our posts. Do you agree with the post or are you trying to embarrass people by your wit and sarcasm. My post was about how USB-C and TB3 are becoming the same connector and the older cables are slowly going away. I was trying to be humorous about finding a cable recycler. You all are wound up a bit too tight.
I was trying to be humorous about finding a cable recycler. You all are wound up a bit too tight.
This is no time to be humorous. Ports are really important stuff, especially concerning protocols that aren't yet available, made for computers that won't be announced for months, due to chips that aren't yet manufactured.
Hey Wizard69, What is with the point by point analysis of our posts. Do you agree with the post or are you trying to embarrass people by your wit and sarcasm. My post was about how USB-C and TB3 are becoming the same connector and the older cables are slowly going away. I was trying to be humorous about finding a cable recycler. You all are wound up a bit too tight.
Maybe I missed the humor! Sometimes that happens on the net but I really don't find humor in all the money I've invested in cables over the years. At work there is significant problem with ports on laptops and support for legacy hardware. We have capital equipment that is over 20 years old and still must be supported. At times you would have more luck with scratch off lottery tickets than being able to pick the right RS232 to USB adapter that actually works with a specific device.
In a nut shell the rapid evolution of laptop ports is a huge problem. Now don't get me wrong I want higher performance just like anybody else. The problem is "pro" equipment needs to give users some sort of bridge capability. For example keep,a couple of the old USB ports around for awhile, they are perfectly good ports for Keyboards and a host of other slower devices.
This is no time to be humorous. Ports are really important stuff, especially concerning protocols that aren't yet available, made for computers that won't be announced for months, due to chips that aren't yet manufactured.
A lot of people here simply don't use their ports so they have no clear idea of why they are there and don't understand why somebody would use them. I find this to be extremely frustrating when conversations about ports come up. The reality is you can't update a lot of the devices you want to connect to. At times a laptop is peanuts relative to the cost of the equipment you are connecting to. Thus a measly $2000 device creates all sorts of headaches when you need to get your job done.
Now if you never have to go through the grief created by "the ports issue" you won't understand the concern about a potential MBP with no legacy ports. It is just a bad idea.
Okay wizard69 and Frank777 I get how "serious" ports are. What can anyone do about it. Apple or Intel doesn't care. They make more money from developing these new ports such as USB-C and TB3. About a 18 months ago when TB2 came out and basically had a hand in the development of the new Mac Pro. Remember they decided to get rid of the drive bays and extra PCI slots because of the introduction TB2. I cried foul but everyone said, "That's the future. Everything is going to be external drive bays and docks. You can daisy chain devices. Instead of a neat desktop, you get cable clutter.
Well now it's USB-C/TB3... We can now consolidate ports maybe force people into using wireless more. Apple and Intel claims that is the future. But who's future? All I see is more hardship for anyone trying to make a living using these new devices with their older equipment. It is not just cables but connectivity of all technologies, old and new.
Okay wizard69 and Frank777 I get how "serious" ports are. What can anyone do about it. Apple or Intel doesn't care.
That is the problem they don't care.
They make more money from developing these new ports such as USB-C and TB3. About a 18 months ago when TB2 came out and basically had a hand in the development of the new Mac Pro. Remember they decided to get rid of the drive bays and extra PCI slots because of the introduction TB2. I cried foul but everyone said, "That's the future.
It is the future don't get me wrong there. What I object to is the lack of a transition and a suitable number of ports. At least with a Mac Pro you get backwards compatible USB ports.
Everything is going to be external drive bays and docks. You can daisy chain devices. Instead of a neat desktop, you get cable clutter.
Well now it's USB-C/TB3... We can now consolidate ports maybe force people into using wireless more. Apple and Intel claims that is the future. But who's future?
Everyone's!
The future I don't have a problem with. It is forcing complications with the past that sucks.
All I see is more hardship for anyone trying to make a living using these new devices with their older equipment. It is not just cables but connectivity of all technologies, old and new.
Well for the Mac Book that is certainly true. I do have to wonder if the machine is selling as well as Apple hoped. I can't personally recommend it to anybody unless they have very specific needs to fulfill.
I'm not sure how to word this, but since there would be fewer MBP ports, what, in your opinion, would a hub look like? How many ports should it have? I assume different sized hubs will be marketed, but what basic ports would be needed for legacy peripherals. OR will it be necessary to replace older peripherals.
I am going to do what wizard69 loves to do. point by point analysis of a post.
They make more money from developing these new ports such as USB-C and TB3. About a 18 months ago when TB2 came out and basically had a hand in the development of the new Mac Pro. Remember they decided to get rid of the drive bays and extra PCI slots because of the introduction TB2. I cried foul but everyone said, "That's the future.
It is the future don't get me wrong there. What I object to is the lack of a transition and a suitable number of ports. At least with a Mac Pro you get backwards compatible USB ports.
Quote:
Everything is going to be external drive bays and docks. You can daisy chain devices. Instead of a neat desktop, you get cable clutter.
Well now it's USB-C/TB3... We can now consolidate ports maybe force people into using wireless more. Apple and Intel claims that is the future. But who's future?
Everyone's!
The future I don't have a problem with. It is forcing complications with the past that sucks.
This is not everyone's future. HP, Dell and Lenovo still builds workstations with PCI slots, drive bays. They have not taken the DVD drive out either. This is Apple's view of the future. They are forcing you to swallow their view and still pay high margins for it. There are other alternatives than Apple. The other companies only problem is they are running Windows but in the long run...it looks like OS X and iOS is beginning to look alike and act alike. I can see these operating systems merging. To me, the future is not here yet. This new USB-C/TB3 protocols is the beginning of more confusing times.
The main reasons the MacBook doesn't have Thunderbolt are:
1. The controller is huge, relative to the size of the MacBook's motherboard
2. The controller power consumption is also relatively huge (it has about the same power consumption as a MacBook does, in total - motherboard + screen + etc.)
And, TB3 doesn't ship until fall. The next round of new 12" MacBooks might have it, note that there are two versions of the Alpine Ridge controller, though maybe the MacBook still needs to wait for the next TB controller that is smaller.
My mistake, you need a bandwidth of about 130Gbps to stream 8K video at 60fps so such a bandwidth is a long way off then and really not needed anytime soon...
That can't be quite right. 8K is four times 4K (ie, doubling vertical and horizontal resolution). If 8K needed 130 Gb/s, then 4K would need 32.5 Gb/s. But TB2 with 20 Gb/s can support 4K.
Thus, TB4 (if it double the throughput again) should support 8K.
Apple said that USB-C is the future. Tying it together with TB3 is very smart. Now, what am I going to do with all these different cables I have been collecting over the years. I even have old first generation USB with my going to be totally phased out firewire stuff. Is there a cable recycler out there?
I already have about six different USB cables (and that is without USB-C):
Honestly for Mac users I'd have to say your comments are BS. The vast majority of Mac users aren't buying their machines to game. The platform never seriously supported gaming and frankly still doesn't.
Valve obviously disagreed since there's Steam on the mac and there are many recent titles/ports for OSX of top PC games.
For that matters Apple disagrees since they still list gaming performance as an important aspect of overall MBP performance.
We may not be buying macs to primarily game but many DO game on the Mac and it's a viable platform even without boot camping.
Quote:
I guess if your goal is to support gaming, an activity with zero interest in the Mac community, you might have a point.
If there was zero interest we'd have zero games on Steam. Instead the catalog of games continues to get better.
Quote:
Compute on a GPU is Very interesting and frankly the results you get vary widely with the application. However simply having an integrated GPU gives one advantages for certain types of compute.
IGPs still suck for many professional use cases. Which is why many pros typically buy MBPs with GPUs. The OTHER use of GPUs is for heavy lifting for image and video processing. The reason that a MBA could edit 4K video in 2012 was because of Thunderbolt and the use of a Red Rocket. Today, a MB or MBA can provide significant processing capability by using off board processing cards and GPUs.
Two very nice platforms for which you cannot get dedicated GPU support. Or even the MBP 13". An external GPU option even at PCIe x4 would allow for a MB or MBA user to be lightweight for day to day but be able to do faster editing and preview on the go at a shoot.
Likewise a MB or MBA user could be lightweight for mobile use and dock with a GPU at their desk.
Quote:
XEON Phi is an interesting platform and the direction Intel is taking it tells us much about the future of PC hardware. For example Intel expects to put 16 GB of high speed RAM right in the package to maximize performance. the goal is to avoid going off package and dealing with the slow downs that implies.
And the slow down isn't that much given that in 2012 you could edit 4K video while storing it on a RAID using TB1 and a MBA.
The difference between 2012 and today is that you CAN eck by in FCPX natively on a MBA but an external GPU would be able to reduce stuttering and increase performance even at PCIe x4 speeds over native.
Quote:
Maybe but honestly I'd rather not have my processor performance split between stationary and portable units. If someone is looking for an external GPU solution in my mind they are buying the wrong hardware.
I know this point has been argued before and there are many competing points of view, but I always come back to these questions:
1. Does the economics make sense?
2. Is the potential here worth the trouble?
The economics makes perfect sense for users. It doesn't make sense for Apple since we could buy a 13" MBPr instead of a 15" MBPr or iMac.
The potential is 50-80% of top end iMac performance in a 13" MBA footprint with a GPU sized docking station.
Valve obviously disagreed since there's Steam on the mac and there are many recent titles/ports for OSX of top PC games.
For that matters Apple disagrees since they still list gaming performance as an important aspect of overall MBP performance.
We may not be buying macs to primarily game but many DO game on the Mac and it's a viable platform even without boot camping.
Correct. True. Agreed.
Metal for Mac is an exciting development too. It should hoover up some of that 'open gl' disparity in terms of performance between Windows and Mac gaming. Largely bypassing 'GL' and going more direct to the gpu. 50% more general performance is nothing to sniffed at. 40% greater efficiency. 10x greater gaming 'draw' performance is outstanding. Be interesting to see which developers take 'Metal' up. If EVEN Adobe can this for Illustrator and After Fx...(please, no laughter...) then it augers well for other, less 'glacial', companies.
There was the Apple II. The Mac. Now there's the 'Mac' renaissance in iOS via iPhone and iPads (Macs in all but name...) Burying consoles and even Windows gaming in the process in terms of adoption. Now, finally, the Mac gets some 'Metal.' With an installed user base which must(!) now be pushing 100 million and sales of 5 million+ Macs a quarter...that's too much money to turn down.
I'm surprised Apple hasn't bought it's own Mac gaming studio for Mac (and iOS) to highlight the platform's budding potential with Metal.
Mac gaming kind of arrived a while back with Half Life 2 and Valve's Steam. With a 100 million user base, Mac gaming is going to undergo quite the PR transformation.
4k monitors are on the horizon for mass adoption. By the time they are, I suspect even mainstream Mac GPUs should be able to handle 25-30fps.
Comments
Hey how about taking my decades old SCSI cables off my hands? Ultimately the old hardware either becomes trash or gets recycled into something different.
Maybe but honestly I'd rather not have my processor performance split between stationary and portable units. If someone is looking for an external GPU solution in my mind they are buying the wrong hardware.
I know this point has been argued before and there are many competing points of view, but I always come back to these questions:
1. Does the economics make sense?
2. Is the potential here worth the trouble?
I still use a Firewire-400 external drive on my 2007 MacBook Pro. Works like a charm.
I regularly use the FW800 on my '09 17" MBP (not to mention on my MacPro at work). Once per year I break out the 400-800 adapter for the one FW400 drive I still have! But I'm looking forward to this new TB3/USB3.1 standard, hopefully cables and peripherals are somewhat more reasonable in price. Next year looks like the time to upgrade (but iMac R5k or 15" rMBP, still undecided).
Hey Wizard69, What is with the point by point analysis of our posts. Do you agree with the post or are you trying to embarrass people by your wit and sarcasm. My post was about how USB-C and TB3 are becoming the same connector and the older cables are slowly going away. I was trying to be humorous about finding a cable recycler. You all are wound up a bit too tight.
I was trying to be humorous about finding a cable recycler. You all are wound up a bit too tight.
This is no time to be humorous. Ports are really important stuff, especially concerning protocols that aren't yet available, made for computers that won't be announced for months, due to chips that aren't yet manufactured.
In a nut shell the rapid evolution of laptop ports is a huge problem. Now don't get me wrong I want higher performance just like anybody else. The problem is "pro" equipment needs to give users some sort of bridge capability. For example keep,a couple of the old USB ports around for awhile, they are perfectly good ports for Keyboards and a host of other slower devices.
A lot of people here simply don't use their ports so they have no clear idea of why they are there and don't understand why somebody would use them. I find this to be extremely frustrating when conversations about ports come up. The reality is you can't update a lot of the devices you want to connect to. At times a laptop is peanuts relative to the cost of the equipment you are connecting to. Thus a measly $2000 device creates all sorts of headaches when you need to get your job done.
Now if you never have to go through the grief created by "the ports issue" you won't understand the concern about a potential MBP with no legacy ports. It is just a bad idea.
Okay wizard69 and Frank777 I get how "serious" ports are. What can anyone do about it. Apple or Intel doesn't care. They make more money from developing these new ports such as USB-C and TB3. About a 18 months ago when TB2 came out and basically had a hand in the development of the new Mac Pro. Remember they decided to get rid of the drive bays and extra PCI slots because of the introduction TB2. I cried foul but everyone said, "That's the future. Everything is going to be external drive bays and docks. You can daisy chain devices. Instead of a neat desktop, you get cable clutter.
Well now it's USB-C/TB3... We can now consolidate ports maybe force people into using wireless more. Apple and Intel claims that is the future. But who's future? All I see is more hardship for anyone trying to make a living using these new devices with their older equipment. It is not just cables but connectivity of all technologies, old and new.
The future I don't have a problem with. It is forcing complications with the past that sucks.
Well for the Mac Book that is certainly true. I do have to wonder if the machine is selling as well as Apple hoped. I can't personally recommend it to anybody unless they have very specific needs to fulfill.
I'm not sure how to word this, but since there would be fewer MBP ports, what, in your opinion, would a hub look like? How many ports should it have? I assume different sized hubs will be marketed, but what basic ports would be needed for legacy peripherals. OR will it be necessary to replace older peripherals.
I am going to do what wizard69 loves to do. point by point analysis of a post.
It is the future don't get me wrong there. What I object to is the lack of a transition and a suitable number of ports. At least with a Mac Pro you get backwards compatible USB ports.
Everything is going to be external drive bays and docks. You can daisy chain devices. Instead of a neat desktop, you get cable clutter.
Well now it's USB-C/TB3... We can now consolidate ports maybe force people into using wireless more. Apple and Intel claims that is the future. But who's future?
Everyone's!
The future I don't have a problem with. It is forcing complications with the past that sucks.
This is not everyone's future. HP, Dell and Lenovo still builds workstations with PCI slots, drive bays. They have not taken the DVD drive out either. This is Apple's view of the future. They are forcing you to swallow their view and still pay high margins for it. There are other alternatives than Apple. The other companies only problem is they are running Windows but in the long run...it looks like OS X and iOS is beginning to look alike and act alike. I can see these operating systems merging. To me, the future is not here yet. This new USB-C/TB3 protocols is the beginning of more confusing times.
The main reasons the MacBook doesn't have Thunderbolt are:
1. The controller is huge, relative to the size of the MacBook's motherboard
2. The controller power consumption is also relatively huge (it has about the same power consumption as a MacBook does, in total - motherboard + screen + etc.)
And, TB3 doesn't ship until fall. The next round of new 12" MacBooks might have it, note that there are two versions of the Alpine Ridge controller, though maybe the MacBook still needs to wait for the next TB controller that is smaller.
My mistake, you need a bandwidth of about 130Gbps to stream 8K video at 60fps so such a bandwidth is a long way off then and really not needed anytime soon...
That can't be quite right. 8K is four times 4K (ie, doubling vertical and horizontal resolution). If 8K needed 130 Gb/s, then 4K would need 32.5 Gb/s. But TB2 with 20 Gb/s can support 4K.
Thus, TB4 (if it double the throughput again) should support 8K.
Apple said that USB-C is the future. Tying it together with TB3 is very smart. Now, what am I going to do with all these different cables I have been collecting over the years. I even have old first generation USB with my going to be totally phased out firewire stuff. Is there a cable recycler out there?
I already have about six different USB cables (and that is without USB-C):
USB-A to USB-B
USB-A to mini
USB-A to micro
USB-A to Panasonic micro-ish
USB-A to Sony micro-ish
USB-A for USB3
Then I have cables for:
VGA
DVI
micro-DVI
mDP
HDMI
FW400
FW800
Honestly for Mac users I'd have to say your comments are BS. The vast majority of Mac users aren't buying their machines to game. The platform never seriously supported gaming and frankly still doesn't.
Valve obviously disagreed since there's Steam on the mac and there are many recent titles/ports for OSX of top PC games.
For that matters Apple disagrees since they still list gaming performance as an important aspect of overall MBP performance.
We may not be buying macs to primarily game but many DO game on the Mac and it's a viable platform even without boot camping.
If there was zero interest we'd have zero games on Steam. Instead the catalog of games continues to get better.
IGPs still suck for many professional use cases. Which is why many pros typically buy MBPs with GPUs. The OTHER use of GPUs is for heavy lifting for image and video processing. The reason that a MBA could edit 4K video in 2012 was because of Thunderbolt and the use of a Red Rocket. Today, a MB or MBA can provide significant processing capability by using off board processing cards and GPUs.
Two very nice platforms for which you cannot get dedicated GPU support. Or even the MBP 13". An external GPU option even at PCIe x4 would allow for a MB or MBA user to be lightweight for day to day but be able to do faster editing and preview on the go at a shoot.
Likewise a MB or MBA user could be lightweight for mobile use and dock with a GPU at their desk.
And the slow down isn't that much given that in 2012 you could edit 4K video while storing it on a RAID using TB1 and a MBA.
The difference between 2012 and today is that you CAN eck by in FCPX natively on a MBA but an external GPU would be able to reduce stuttering and increase performance even at PCIe x4 speeds over native.
I know this point has been argued before and there are many competing points of view, but I always come back to these questions:
1. Does the economics make sense?
2. Is the potential here worth the trouble?
The economics makes perfect sense for users. It doesn't make sense for Apple since we could buy a 13" MBPr instead of a 15" MBPr or iMac.
The potential is 50-80% of top end iMac performance in a 13" MBA footprint with a GPU sized docking station.
Valve obviously disagreed since there's Steam on the mac and there are many recent titles/ports for OSX of top PC games.
For that matters Apple disagrees since they still list gaming performance as an important aspect of overall MBP performance.
We may not be buying macs to primarily game but many DO game on the Mac and it's a viable platform even without boot camping.
Correct. True. Agreed.
Metal for Mac is an exciting development too. It should hoover up some of that 'open gl' disparity in terms of performance between Windows and Mac gaming. Largely bypassing 'GL' and going more direct to the gpu. 50% more general performance is nothing to sniffed at. 40% greater efficiency. 10x greater gaming 'draw' performance is outstanding. Be interesting to see which developers take 'Metal' up. If EVEN Adobe can this for Illustrator and After Fx...(please, no laughter...) then it augers well for other, less 'glacial', companies.
There was the Apple II. The Mac. Now there's the 'Mac' renaissance in iOS via iPhone and iPads (Macs in all but name...) Burying consoles and even Windows gaming in the process in terms of adoption. Now, finally, the Mac gets some 'Metal.' With an installed user base which must(!) now be pushing 100 million and sales of 5 million+ Macs a quarter...that's too much money to turn down.
I'm surprised Apple hasn't bought it's own Mac gaming studio for Mac (and iOS) to highlight the platform's budding potential with Metal.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Mac gaming kind of arrived a while back with Half Life 2 and Valve's Steam. With a 100 million user base, Mac gaming is going to undergo quite the PR transformation.
4k monitors are on the horizon for mass adoption. By the time they are, I suspect even mainstream Mac GPUs should be able to handle 25-30fps.
Lemon Bon Bon.
...but there's only one game for me. City of Heroes.
I miss it terribly.
Lemon Bon Bon.
...but there's only one game for me. City of Heroes.
I miss it terribly.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I had a pretty nifty defender for a while but eventually stopped playing all MMOs. You'd have to bootcamp buy you could try Champions Online.