danvm

ajl said:

All games (applications as well) in Boot Camp can be maxed out to 4K not because Boot Camp drivers, but simply because Windows can manage up to 4K resolution.

Looks like Windows 10 goes higher than 4K resolution,

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2900692/microsoft-to-support-8k-video-resolutions-with-windows-10.html

macplusplus said:

danvm said:

macplusplus said:

danvm said:

StrangeDays said:

danvm said:

StrangeDays said:

danvm said:

StrangeDays said:

VRing said:

macxpress said:

 If Apple just wanted to pull an HP and just slap a bunch of shit together with a shitty heatsink on it then they could have had a new Mac Pro out before the end of 2017, but obviously Apple isn't going to do that. If that's what makes you happy then by all means go buy the HP. Nearly everything you see on and inside a Mac (or any Apple product for that matter) is custom engineered and built by Apple. Its not as simple as slap a bunch of shit together and call it a day like PC manufacturers do. 

You should really stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

HP makes some excellent workstations from the Z2 Mini:



Up to the Z8:

Is that supposed to be impressive? The old Mac Pro cheese grater cases were more impressive and they’re over 12 years old. 

The "cheese grater" Mac Pro's were impressive for their time, and the same can be said of the HP workstations of the time, IIRC the XW8000 series.  But Apple is no more in the mid/high end workstation market, while HP have been doing an excellent job.  As today, there is nothing from Apple that comes close to the Z8.  This system can be configured with 2 Xeon CPU's (56 cores), 1.5TB of RAM (yes, Terabytes. And 3TB for first half of next year), three NVidia P6000 and 48TB of internal storage.  And this system is design to work under stress with all those components installed.  IMO, this is far more impressive than the "cheese grater" Mac Pro. 

I’m obviously not referring to the specs of an obsolete Mac. I’m referring to the case design and its thermal map he posted. 

I'm talking about thermals too.  That's the reason I mention the specs you can have the Z8, which generate a lot of heat.  Would be nice to know how do you get to the conclusion that the 2006-2012 Mac Pro thermals are "far more impressive" than a 2017 HP Z8 based only in the picture @VRing posted.

Let me try to make it clear for you - the case design (internals as posted in the pic and with regard to thermal management) of the 12+ year old cheese grater best the snot out of that ugly piece of junk. 

I'm still not clear by your response.  Again, how the MacPro 2006-2012 if "far more impressive" than a HP Z8 2017?  How do you got to that conclusion by only looking at the picture?  Do you have technical details of both devices on how they manage thermals?

BTW, do you really think a device that can hold 1.5/3TB of RAM, 56 cores and three NVidia P6000 w/24GB of RAM each is an "ugly piece of junk"?  I don't think companies like Adobe, Autodesk, Solidworks, Siemens and Bentley agree with you, since every HP Z Workstation is certified by them, among other companies.

http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/isv-certifications/mcad-isv-certification.html?jumpid=ba_yt8mgi675q

Plus companies like DreamWorks do their movies with HP Z workstations.  Impressive what you can do with these "ugly pieces of junk", don't you think?

http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/workstations/media-entertainment-animation.html
 

You come up with so much bold statements that you need to forward a shitload of benchmarks (god forbid) to support your claims above. 

My posts were related to thermals and not performance/benchmarks. 

How for example those ISV's software products scale up to 1.5/3 TB of RAM, 56 cores and three (THREE !!!) Nvidia P6000 w/24GB of RAM while that industry couldn't even keep up with 2013 Mac Pro's dual GPUs?

DreamWorks have been using Z Workstations for years, and in this article they gave details of the scale of the work they do,

http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-news/press-release.html?id=302067

"Released in 2001, Dreamworks Animation’s original “Shrek” film used more than 6 terabytes of data and required nearly 5 million render hours. With the artistic bar rising ever higher, the production of “How to Train Your Dragon” used nearly 100 terabytes of data and more than 50 million render hours." 

In 2013 "Turbo" had 75 million render hours and 230TB of data. 

https://www.slashgear.com/hp-workstations-used-for-dreamworks-latest-turbo-animated-film-17290835/

This is an example on how much grew the data and rendering process during the years.  Can you imagine now with 4K?  Plus HP says the Z8 is capable of 8K rendering.  Maybe this kind of customer are the one who will benefit with a maxed out HP Z8. 

And now we are talking of AR/VR and machine learning, among other technologies, which will benefit of multicore CPU's, GPU's and lot's of RAM. 

This is not “scaling”. Or it is, if your only layman knowledge consists of reading spec sheets.

Looks like I misunderstood the "scaling" of your post. My English definitely needs to improve...

But since you have question about how software scale, here is an interesting line I found from an article,

“We’ve usually used 75 million compute hours just to render the images, and that’s just for one movie. We usually have 10 films in active production, so we are actively using 15,000 cores in a completely ProLiant blade server farm to make these movies every single day.”

https://siliconangle.com/blog/2016/06/15/technology-innovation-fuels-the-creation-of-movie-animation-guestoftheweek/

Here is another example from 2014,

"Otto showed me a demo of the software on a machine with 16 cores — quadrupling what you’d find in the base-level Mac Pro — and the moment he tweaked a character’s position the sequence re-rendered seamlessly without even the mildest hiccup."

https://www.theverge.com/2014/6/12/5804070/the-amazing-animation-software-behind-how-to-train-your-dragon-2

So it looks like they have some experience scaling software in high end hardware.  I don't see any issues for them doing the same for the Z8 hardware. 

What I didn't find was an article with benchmarks, and I don't think will be easy having a Z8 with 3 Nvidia P6000 considering they cost $5300 per card (that's more expensive than an iMac Pro).  But I don't think there are any doubts that the Z8 is a very capable device. 

macplusplus said:

danvm said:

StrangeDays said:

danvm said:

StrangeDays said:

danvm said:

StrangeDays said:

VRing said:

macxpress said:

 If Apple just wanted to pull an HP and just slap a bunch of shit together with a shitty heatsink on it then they could have had a new Mac Pro out before the end of 2017, but obviously Apple isn't going to do that. If that's what makes you happy then by all means go buy the HP. Nearly everything you see on and inside a Mac (or any Apple product for that matter) is custom engineered and built by Apple. Its not as simple as slap a bunch of shit together and call it a day like PC manufacturers do. 

You should really stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

HP makes some excellent workstations from the Z2 Mini:



Up to the Z8:

Is that supposed to be impressive? The old Mac Pro cheese grater cases were more impressive and they’re over 12 years old. 

The "cheese grater" Mac Pro's were impressive for their time, and the same can be said of the HP workstations of the time, IIRC the XW8000 series.  But Apple is no more in the mid/high end workstation market, while HP have been doing an excellent job.  As today, there is nothing from Apple that comes close to the Z8.  This system can be configured with 2 Xeon CPU's (56 cores), 1.5TB of RAM (yes, Terabytes. And 3TB for first half of next year), three NVidia P6000 and 48TB of internal storage.  And this system is design to work under stress with all those components installed.  IMO, this is far more impressive than the "cheese grater" Mac Pro. 

I’m obviously not referring to the specs of an obsolete Mac. I’m referring to the case design and its thermal map he posted. 

I'm talking about thermals too.  That's the reason I mention the specs you can have the Z8, which generate a lot of heat.  Would be nice to know how do you get to the conclusion that the 2006-2012 Mac Pro thermals are "far more impressive" than a 2017 HP Z8 based only in the picture @VRing posted.

Let me try to make it clear for you - the case design (internals as posted in the pic and with regard to thermal management) of the 12+ year old cheese grater best the snot out of that ugly piece of junk. 

I'm still not clear by your response.  Again, how the MacPro 2006-2012 if "far more impressive" than a HP Z8 2017?  How do you got to that conclusion by only looking at the picture?  Do you have technical details of both devices on how they manage thermals?

BTW, do you really think a device that can hold 1.5/3TB of RAM, 56 cores and three NVidia P6000 w/24GB of RAM each is an "ugly piece of junk"?  I don't think companies like Adobe, Autodesk, Solidworks, Siemens and Bentley agree with you, since every HP Z Workstation is certified by them, among other companies.

http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/isv-certifications/mcad-isv-certification.html?jumpid=ba_yt8mgi675q

Plus companies like DreamWorks do their movies with HP Z workstations.  Impressive what you can do with these "ugly pieces of junk", don't you think?

http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/workstations/media-entertainment-animation.html
 

You come up with so much bold statements that you need to forward a shitload of benchmarks (god forbid) to support your claims above. 

My posts were related to thermals and not performance/benchmarks. 

How for example those ISV's software products scale up to 1.5/3 TB of RAM, 56 cores and three (THREE !!!) Nvidia P6000 w/24GB of RAM while that industry couldn't even keep up with 2013 Mac Pro's dual GPUs?

DreamWorks have been using Z Workstations for years, and in this article they gave details of the scale of the work they do,

http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-news/press-release.html?id=302067

"Released in 2001, Dreamworks Animation’s original “Shrek” film used more than 6 terabytes of data and required nearly 5 million render hours. With the artistic bar rising ever higher, the production of “How to Train Your Dragon” used nearly 100 terabytes of data and more than 50 million render hours." 

In 2013 "Turbo" had 75 million render hours and 230TB of data. 

https://www.slashgear.com/hp-workstations-used-for-dreamworks-latest-turbo-animated-film-17290835/

This is an example on how much grew the data and rendering process during the years.  Can you imagine now with 4K?  Plus HP says the Z8 is capable of 8K rendering.  Maybe this kind of customer are the one who will benefit with a maxed out HP Z8. 

And now we are talking of AR/VR and machine learning, among other technologies, which will benefit of multicore CPU's, GPU's and lot's of RAM. 

StrangeDays said:

danvm said:

StrangeDays said:

danvm said:

StrangeDays said:

VRing said:

macxpress said:

 If Apple just wanted to pull an HP and just slap a bunch of shit together with a shitty heatsink on it then they could have had a new Mac Pro out before the end of 2017, but obviously Apple isn't going to do that. If that's what makes you happy then by all means go buy the HP. Nearly everything you see on and inside a Mac (or any Apple product for that matter) is custom engineered and built by Apple. Its not as simple as slap a bunch of shit together and call it a day like PC manufacturers do. 

You should really stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

HP makes some excellent workstations from the Z2 Mini:



Up to the Z8:

Is that supposed to be impressive? The old Mac Pro cheese grater cases were more impressive and they’re over 12 years old. 

The "cheese grater" Mac Pro's were impressive for their time, and the same can be said of the HP workstations of the time, IIRC the XW8000 series.  But Apple is no more in the mid/high end workstation market, while HP have been doing an excellent job.  As today, there is nothing from Apple that comes close to the Z8.  This system can be configured with 2 Xeon CPU's (56 cores), 1.5TB of RAM (yes, Terabytes. And 3TB for first half of next year), three NVidia P6000 and 48TB of internal storage.  And this system is design to work under stress with all those components installed.  IMO, this is far more impressive than the "cheese grater" Mac Pro. 

I’m obviously not referring to the specs of an obsolete Mac. I’m referring to the case design and its thermal map he posted. 

I'm talking about thermals too.  That's the reason I mention the specs you can have the Z8, which generate a lot of heat.  Would be nice to know how do you get to the conclusion that the 2006-2012 Mac Pro thermals are "far more impressive" than a 2017 HP Z8 based only in the picture @VRing posted.

Let me try to make it clear for you - the case design (internals as posted in the pic and with regard to thermal management) of the 12+ year old cheese grater best the snot out of that ugly piece of junk. 

I'm still not clear by your response.  Again, how the MacPro 2006-2012 if "far more impressive" than a HP Z8 2017?  How do you got to that conclusion by only looking at the picture?  Do you have technical details of both devices on how they manage thermals?

BTW, do you really think a device that can hold 1.5/3TB of RAM, 56 cores and three NVidia P6000 w/24GB of RAM each is an "ugly piece of junk"?  I don't think companies like Adobe, Autodesk, Solidworks, Siemens and Bentley agree with you, since every HP Z Workstation is certified by them, among other companies.

http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/isv-certifications/mcad-isv-certification.html?jumpid=ba_yt8mgi675q

Plus companies like DreamWorks do their movies with HP Z workstations.  Impressive what you can do with these "ugly pieces of junk", don't you think?

http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/workstations/media-entertainment-animation.html
 

StrangeDays said:

danvm said:

StrangeDays said:

VRing said:

macxpress said:

 If Apple just wanted to pull an HP and just slap a bunch of shit together with a shitty heatsink on it then they could have had a new Mac Pro out before the end of 2017, but obviously Apple isn't going to do that. If that's what makes you happy then by all means go buy the HP. Nearly everything you see on and inside a Mac (or any Apple product for that matter) is custom engineered and built by Apple. Its not as simple as slap a bunch of shit together and call it a day like PC manufacturers do. 

You should really stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

HP makes some excellent workstations from the Z2 Mini:



Up to the Z8:

Is that supposed to be impressive? The old Mac Pro cheese grater cases were more impressive and they’re over 12 years old. 

The "cheese grater" Mac Pro's were impressive for their time, and the same can be said of the HP workstations of the time, IIRC the XW8000 series.  But Apple is no more in the mid/high end workstation market, while HP have been doing an excellent job.  As today, there is nothing from Apple that comes close to the Z8.  This system can be configured with 2 Xeon CPU's (56 cores), 1.5TB of RAM (yes, Terabytes. And 3TB for first half of next year), three NVidia P6000 and 48TB of internal storage.  And this system is design to work under stress with all those components installed.  IMO, this is far more impressive than the "cheese grater" Mac Pro. 

I’m obviously not referring to the specs of an obsolete Mac. I’m referring to the case design and its thermal map he posted. 

I'm talking about thermals too.  That's the reason I mention the specs you can have the Z8, which generate a lot of heat.  Would be nice to know how do you get to the conclusion that the 2006-2012 Mac Pro thermals are "far more impressive" than a 2017 HP Z8 based only in the picture @VRing posted.