nsummy2

bugsnw said:

It's exciting to imagine a world where desktops and laptops follow iPhones on the hardware upgrade cycle. Even if the upgrades for non-phones were every 2 years, consistently, that would be better than some of the huge delays that occur now. Modular designs where components could receive updates for a certain time would be helpful in extending the usefulness of our hardware. I can think of one particular instance where Intel really put the screws to Apple: my MacBook was maxed out at 16GB ram and really needed 32 for opening up browsers with dozens of tabs. From what I understand, Intel's chip limited Apple on that front.

You need to pull your head out of the sand. Everything you mentioned is apple's doing, not Intel's.  If you want hardware that is regularly updated, modular, and allows expansion, buy a Dell, hp, Lenovo, etc.  And if you like os x that much you can run it in a vm

After reading this article a couple of times, my BS radar has been set off.  This article is similar to the Apple press release about how excited "pros" were for this.  I do have to hand it to apple though, they have managed to stoke plenty of arguments of what a "pro" is!  Its almost to the audiophile level of arguments 

Lets break down the sample of people though:

1.  A video editor that AppleInsider has known for 30 years  -  "I have to cut, render and output HD and 4K video very quickly. The video files can be very large and sometimes I'm running multiple programs. I need as much horsepower as I can get." 

2.  Blake Garner, an Automation Architect at Adobe - "The rack mount option is huge for Adobe," Garner said, "as we host a lot of Macs in server rooms doing Xcode builds and automated testing..... "the memory capacity is going to be a very noticeable improvement. Running large RAM virtual machines or sets of virtual machines for homelab work will eat all the RAM you can afford, let alone the large Xcode builds."      I mean this is kind of like cherrypicking your audience. Without a doubt Adobe will be buying plenty of these as they develop for these!  Kind of funny that the buying point he mentions is that its rack mountable and that currently they have these things on baker racks, like some sort of bitcoin mining farm.  At first I thought it was BS that he would buy one of these for a homelab, but I guess since the Mac mini tops out at 64 GB with zero expandability and you need a mac to (legally) virtualize OS X, this might sadly be his only choice.

3.  An anonymous photographer who is working on sensitive projects - He said that the new Mac Pro was appealing because of "raw horsepower" in his workflow. "Not having to wait while rendering [is key]," he said, "especially since Adobe makes minimal use of GPU processing in Lightroom and Photoshop."    Is this guy working for the CIA or something?  Or is he in the witness protection program?     And wait a minute, since he says he doesn't need high end GPUs, is he really buying this thing for a modern Xeon processor and more RAM?  If so this seems to perpetuate the claim that there are Pros who don't need quad GPUs and a 1000 watt PSU.

4.  Michael Trauffer, senior video editor for a large post production facility -  "The Keynote mentioned that Adobe is one of the software providers that is on board with the new Mac Pro," he says. "I'm hoping that their software will finally be able to take advantage of all of that horsepower that is being made available. Premiere Pro doesn't [currently] utilize multiple GPU when playing/editing.....  We are planning on getting one of the new Mac Pros to test it as a possible upgrade/replacement for our 2013 Mac Pros."      Finally someone who says what he is currently using.  That said, considering the last Mac Pro could be configured with dual GPUs, I don't really see why this new computer would relate to Adobe's software features.  The fact that they are buying one for testing to see if its even a viable replacement shows his company isn't sold.

5.  Keith R. Sbiral, Photographer and owner (or IT Manager, can't really tell) of a career-development consultancy business. - "Our office is an all-Mac one," he said, "and that alone makes my work and my life easier. There is something to be said for the dependability and expandability of a Mac Pro that simply make it a great machine... "For a vast majority of Mac users, admittedly including myself," he continued, "the specs are likely far beyond what I really need to do my job. But I love to work on a blazing fast machine, particularly when I'm working on photography projects."   - So is he buying one or not?  He thinks its overkill but likes it because its expandable and fast.  This doesn't sound like something you would find at career development consultancy.

6.  Jules Ryckebusch, product development for medical visualization - "I work in product development for medical visualization," Jules Ryckebusch told us, "specifically in the minimally-invasive surgery space. I am also a long-time hobby photographer and a video guy."    LOL thanks for the insight Jules.  

7.  High-ranking members of the Department of Defense - "Without divulging specifics, use cases cited include real-time image processing, and time-sensitive audio classification and identification."   Beep Beep Beep, BS detected.  What exactly is a high ranking member of the DoD? No one is going to use a Mac workstation for this type of stuff.


So what is the verdict about purchasing and what they think of the price?

1.  The anonymous Video Editor - Not Buying  "I won't buy it right away," he says. "My current Mac Pro is still getting the job done. I [also] want to take it for a test drive and see how well (or poorly) it performs with Adobe Premiere."  This guy seems the most grounded.  If you are doing fine with a 6 year old machine, buying one of these things would be a luxury purpose.  Considering he isn't getting one though, I wonder if he is truly a "Pro."

2. Blake Garner -  Buying for work   "Personally, cost is a factor.  I'll likely go with the bottom-end and enjoy using third party storage and RAM. Adding upgrades over time is a great way to get value from a high-end system like this. In the work context, teams will pick configurations that are optimized to save time, and high-end configurations will be worth the cost."  No surprise Adobe will be buying these in droves.  I thought he was buying one for his house too, but then the article said this:  As certain as he is that he and Adobe will be buying Mac Pro machines, Garner is also waiting for more details. "Thoughts will evolve once the third-party MPX modules and pricing is posted to the Apple Store," he said.   Translation: Not a pro

3.  The Anonymous Photographer - Buying  "Price is not too much of a concern," said the photographer. "I'm expecting to spend around $9,000-$10,000"  Well I was wrong about this guy.  When he dismissed the use of high spec GPUs I figured he wasn't a true pro.  Throwing $10k at a computer like someone driving through the toll lane though speaks otherwise. He also said he expects it to last a decade, which makes me question if he is a true pro after all.

4.  Michael Trauffer - Buying 

5. Keith R. Sbiral - Buying "I've had most every pro-level Mac since the 840AV, and I think the one fantastic part about the product is the longevity of use. I had a 2008 Mac Pro and a 2013 Mac Pro and now I'm ready for the 2019 version. I'm really excited about the power, graphics, and upgradability."  Apple has to love customers like this

6.  Jules Ryckebusch - Not Buying   "I expect it will be in the $10,000 - $20,000 range when I purchase," he says. "The other thing to take into account here is where the rest of it is going. We will need a 10gig LAN to really take advantage of the whole ecosystem... All of that also will need to catch up"    Sounds like this guy might be too Pro for this machine!


The article glosses over and cherry coats a lot of the quotes that should really be considered criticisms.  One of them says he plans to add in a RAID card along with NVME PCI cards.  Others cite the lack of 10 GB ethernet.  Another plans on populating the memory and GPU with 3rd party options.  All of this makes me wonder, why not just build your own computer?!  You pay a premium to Dell, HP, Apple, etc because they support what they build.  If you are forced to add your own cards to make up for the shortcomings it seems a little counterproductive.

DuhSesame said:

Soli said:

mcsandberg said:

Soli said:

mcsandberg said:

The problem with Apple's ARM implementation is that it is designed from the ground up around power efficiency. You simply don't care about that on the desktop. That's why they released the iMac Pro with a large intel processor. They might be getting close to desktop chips from a few years ago now with the A12 bionic, but close isn't anywhere near good enough to change https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/06/arm-promises-laptop-level-performance-in-2019/?comments=1 .

1) All chips care about power efficiency. The current Intel chips used in the iMac are able to perform as high as they can because of efforts to make them power efficient which helps reduce heat. Without these decades of effort many other aspects of the iMac would be much slower and much larger, which includes the iMac enclosure itself.

2) Would you look at the S-seres chip in the Apple Watch and then conclude that Apple could never make an iPhone or iPad because the S-series chip isn't powerful enough for those applications? Of course not, so why assume that Apple isn't focusing on larger, faster chips that produce considerably more heat simply because they have an A-series chip that is idealized for the small, portable, finless environment of their handhelds?

The emphasis on the desktop is performance, performance and performance. intel considers 150 watts TPD to be easy to handle. They just unveiled their latest Xeon W-3175X processor, with 28 cores at 255 watts TPD https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-xeon-w-3175x-cpu-specs,37899.html . It starts at 3.1 Ghz and tops out at 4.3 Ghz. AMD's latest offerings seem to be a bit faster. I wouldn't be surprised if the rumors base was Apple going with AMD for some of their machines.

All chips are designed with as much performance as possible within a given constraints, like heat and energy usage. Even in a tower, you balance all the components needs for energy usage so you can determine the ideal PSU to use, as well as how much heat is being given off for a variety of reasons. Power is never something you "don't care about" and the iMac using many desktop-grade components within an ultra-thin enclosure is not some lone exception.

Put it simple, if I can get the work done the same speed with less than half the power, then it’s going to be a win for me in every way.  I have less requirements for the same tasks, or much faster with same requirements.

That’s what we saw on Apple’s current architecture, where also Intel and former PowerPC fails at.  Even if someone states that power consumption is not their concern, it still affects them without knowing it.

You aren't ever going to get the same speed at half the power, unless you are comparing a current processor to something that is obsolete.  Within reason, power consumption is not a concern if you are talking about a high performance workstation (i.e. mac pro).  I mean obviously it is beneficial to have a processor that is efficient, but keeping the processor under a certain TPD is secondary to its performance.  People are comparing apples to oranges when they think that Apple's success in the mobile processor market will somehow translate into the desktop.  The apps that run on ios only perform a small subset of what full blown enterprise applications run.