- Last Active
Is there any Xeon that supports PCIe 4.0?That's unpossible!
Pylons said:That does however not mean that the CPU on these machines can be upgraded to a newer generation. Intel has a terrible history of not making any socket forward-compatible.
Which also means things like the iMac Pro aren't as bad a deal as we tend to tell ourselves it is. Screens don't last forever either.I'm still using a Mac Pro from 2007 - partly because I've been able to upgrade things in it like the video card (not easy, no plug and play and definitely for the uber geeky) but also I don't really need the full power of a Mac Pro. It was more a nice to have/lux item for me. For people that need the power, had I been one of them, I would have gritted my teeth and just got a trashcan - people needing max or high end performance just bake into the equation 3 year or less replacement cycle. That's why the trashcan laying stagnant for so long was more a problem than the design of the trashcan itself. The trashcan wasn't optimal, but it was OK for the first year - but starting from a sub-optimal position as it did, the longer it didn't get updated the dramatically worse the value proposition was that much more worse and so on.
Really the worst complaint about this Mac Pro is the entry price is a bit steep. But everything else is a pure knock out of the park. And then some - like the new interconnect for video cards I think are going to bring capabilities we can't even fathom. I suspect 3 8K streams at once wouldn't even be possible without it; time will tell.
You seriously think that a stand is worth $999?
But yeah, for $1K it better do a whole lot more than hold the monitor up
I wonder how much this beast will weigh and what a good desk or wall mount arm will cost? I suspect the Apple stand at $1K may be a bargain (that screen is HUGE and probably pretty hefty).
And is this the introduction of the third or fourth Apple proprietary connector to combine video and power? The more things change the more....
dcsimages said:Just for context, my first Mac was a 33mHz Quadra 950 with a 400 MB hard drive, 16 Mb ram and 1Mb vram for $7500 ($9600 when it first came out)
lols at people freaking out over $5K computers. My Mac Plus with external floppy, ImageWriter II and accessories was almost $4K in 1987 dollars. Almost $700 for a 40mb (megabyte!) external SCSI hard drive... yeah, people are spoiled!
karmadave said:Looks impressive, however there are a few drawbacks.
1. Single CPU only. Most professional workstations offer a dual CPU option.
2. AMD graphics only. Curious as to whether nor not nVidia GPU's will even work in this machine.
3. Limited storage bays. Two (2) SSD's seems quite limited compared to most professional workstations.
4. Price. $6K seems a bit over-priced for an 8-core workstation with minimal RAM, SSD, and Graphics.
Overall, this is a niche product and likely not a huge money maker for Apple. That said, I am glad they are re-engaging with professional video and audio producers who've been waiting years for Apple to (re)introduce a truly modular professional workstation...
1. I was waiting for this complaint. Why do you think dual sockets is a plus? Because its not. It adds EXTREME complexity, severely limits the number of chipsets and CPUs that are available to pick from, and caps the max clock frequency that CPU's can run at because higher clock speeds affect reliability over distance and at high GHz speeds every millimeter counts - among other things.
"Most professional workstations" are still dual socket because they are riding on old designs. This is a new design, crafted from the ground up around modern, high core CPUs. How many PCI Express lanes are in those dual core workstations you are thinking of? What's their memory bandwidth compared to this Mac Pro? And what are the price points for similar configured/capable machines?
Thank goodness we have finally got enough cores in a single socket where dual sockets are not needed. My big complaint on previous Pro's was them sticking to Xeons and dual sockets - driving the costs up and tying to Intel's glacial server chipset timelines.
2. Unless you are doing CUDA I have a feeling the GPUs in this beast will hang with or surpass Nvidia's offerings. Benchmarks will be interesting, but I can't wait to see real world application performance. This box is going to be a screamer for video! Did you notice the second interconnect for multiple card setups? I think Final Cut Pro X is going to absolutely kill on this machine. You can do amazing things when you own the hardware, OS and application software I don't think Windows/Linux boxes are going to be able to match video performance at any price; time will tell but boasting they can do three 8K streams in real time should hint that this just isn't a warmed-over PC workstation design. There's quite a bit more going on under the hood (as there should be for this long of a wait and at this price point!).
3. Meh - 4TB of flash is more than enough for in the box (as much as it pains me to say that). Most video houses have all their video on a SAN or beefy NAS, not local. And this isn't normal SSD - it's the same turbocharged SSD architecture power by the T2 for the SSD controller. Except in this Mac Pro it isn't soldered to the board - woot! The performance on this stuff should be amazing compared even to NVMe SSDs thanks to the T2. If you really need more local storage a Thunderbolt 3 array should more than make up for any missing internal drive capabilities. The amount of native TB3 ports you can hang a large number of arrays on their own TB3 port not shared with anything else - this thing is a beast when it comes to I/O. A mini mainframe, really...
4. Compared to what I spent on my 2007 Mac Pro this machine isn't a steal, but it's a better value for what you get. Yeah, it starts with a higher baseline - but feature for feature there is no comparison. If you don't need the extreme expandability then that's what the iMac Pro or a tricked out iMac is for. It would be nice if they had a smaller two or three slot Mac Pro (ala the IIcx/IIci) but really the case and slots aren't were the cost is. The bulk of cost is in the chipset, the CPU, the RAM, the power supply - the engineering to make all of that work. If they could shave $1K off would it be enough to justify a totally different SKU? Nope. Which is why we won't see the xMac any time soon (despite me still wanting one).
The Mac Pro was always a niche product. At least this iteration re-establishes that they wish to uncontestedly own that high end niche again