10.7.3 support for Radeon 7950 - Mac Pro??

[Fandongo]

As much as I don't like the Mac Pros for being terrible value for money computers. I really hope this rumour is true. Simply cause now a lot of people would choose an iMac over a Mac Pro. In a lot of tests the iMac is better.

I really want the Mac Pros to be better then the iMac in all tests. I want the people who buy a Mac Pro to get the best Mac out there. Well yes best is subjective cause every Mac from the MBA to the Mac Pro is best at something. Portability or screen or power or power saving or etc etc.

But I think you get my point. The Mac Pro is expensive and I want the people who want one to really get something good. I'm so not in the Mac Pro market. But if I was I'd either wait for this new Mac Pro or get a 27 iMac. The current Mac Pros though very good are just not a good investment. Not enough bang per buck spent.

I'm one. But then i wonder why i would buy an imac when i can get an easier to upgrade (as if i wasn't gonna send the imac straight to owc anyway) Macbook Pro.

The imac is cheaper, < $2k and they throw in in a $1k screen w/two thunderbolt polts.

Crap graphics (well, i want cuda), expensive *but dropping fast* - laptop ram,
Raid two SSDs in there, and you not only have a beast workstation as it is, but it can always be used as just a monitor/disk drive.
I want a NEW Mac pro. 96 gigs of ram, quadro 6000 (for mac plz).

I guess i'll have to put my "purchase a small country" fund on hold.
...in the meantime any quad+ i7 computer will do.

Apparently this world is filled with people who set up their workstation in an uncontrollable glareful environment.

matte MATTE MAAATTTEE screen blah.

UP lighting folks.

What do you have the sun at your back while working?
Be a real adult and wake up when the sun has set.

Matte is latin for dull and lifeless - as your screen, as your work.

 

[Nord]

seems like apple has alot to do in 2012, its like every product line is due for a redesign / big update

mac pro -> obviously
iphone 5 -> obviously
Imac -> Needs redesign
Macbook Pro -> Needs redesign
Macbook Air -> ???
Ipad 3 -> seems like its due for a substantial update

I think it's going to be: MacBook Pro (and MacBook) -> MacBook Air

All laptops will be MacBook Air soon, even the pros.

 

[PlipPlop]

Latest high end iMac runs X-Plane (at native resolution in high) over 200 FPS...

Lol on Dirt 2 I get the same fps on ultra as that mp gets on low

 

[Torrijos]

That's about six years, pretty good considering I usually upgrade my iMac every 2-3 years but I'm kinda sick of that trend. Any displays worth noting that are cheaper than the current apple model?

By the way depending on what you do Mac Pro might not last 6 years...

Looking at benchmarks we can see that high end iMacs might give them a run for your money after 3 years.

The only deciding factor for a Mac Pro are, do you need the max RAM?, or internal storage?, or intend to install or change a PCI card?

The only thing I ever want to do to my macs is put in a SSD (SHOULD be standard by now Apple!), so I'll be contempt if Apple ever releases an iMac with a drive bay accessible.
RAID might just be as well in a Thunderbolt enclosure, sure its a shame GPUs aren't more powerful, but next generation iMac might have something strong enough to drive all software decently at the native resolution of the screen.

 

[Torrijos]

You could be right. I’ll be interested to learn more about which GPUs can and can’t be used via Thunderbolt (and whether Thunderbolt’s 2 channels can be combined).

The impact of how many lanes are used by a GPU have been shown...
Example 1
Example 2

A thunderbolt port can offer up to 4 PCIe channels, so you would see an impact of around 15% on the card performances. Still pretty cool.

 

[Lesser Evets]

Mac Pros are great - they can last forever with added RAM, HD/SSD's and graphics cards. Much better investment that an iMac.

Yes/No. I always used MacPros (or the older equiv.), and it is true that they can last for 20 years... but by about 6 years on you will find they are getting tedious unless you "lock them in time" with software and OS and function. For example: if you want to use an old Mac tower for what it did the year it was released, it is perfect forever. If you you want to try and use an old tower to watch video on the internet or run new programs, you are out of luck.

The MacPro is a good 6 year investment. iMacs are definitely 3 or 4 year computers and their inaccessible HD means larger trouble for user repair; the HD almost always is the first major component to fail on a well-used computer. My MacPro, 4.5 y.o., is now getting a little slow and tedious at times. In 3 years I will definitely have to let it go. These days a MacMini is faster than this thing.

In the past, technology vs. function was changing and evolving so fast that it was helpful to buy a new computer every 2 or 3 years--even a Mac tower--though these days it is easier to keep average Macs for 4 years or beyond.

 

[Exhale]

A thunderbolt port can offer up to 4 PCIe channels, so you would see an impact of around 15% on the card performances. Still pretty cool.

If you choose to completely ignore latency, yes. Unfortunately the effect of that is a lot harder to predict without testing.

 

[Schranke]

Well of course the new MPs will be here shortly. I just purchased my mid-2010 MP. Typically, Apple releases the newer version a month after my purchase.

The same thing happened after two of my iMac purchases.

Then how about you bought a new iMac now so apple would be done with the next iMac next month?

 

[ogh]

Ready for a new Mac Pro

I need a bit of RAM for my simulations, say 200GB, and my old MacPro is getting rusty: 2GB RAM, G5 from 2003... Hopefully it will just manage to churn around until the new one arrives.

 

[FireArse]

I've got a Mac Pro 1,1 (late 2006) and it's still going great, I've upgraded it with a ATI 5770 and a SSD. Incredible machine though, gives anything a run for it's money even now. It's not missed a beat, though the PSU is on its way out. Not bad for 5 years without a rest, however.

This one uses between ~150 and ~400 watts depending on what's going on. The newer ones generally use less power, though it depends on the HDD/CPU/GPU config.

Good to hear there may finally be a Mac Pro worth replacing my 2006..

I've been upgrading mine and like yours, it hasn't missed a beat. SSD, RAM and flashed 4870. How do you know the PSU is on its way out?

F

 

[MacFanJeff]

Just admit you are wrong. Not too hard, eh?

I know what you mean and remember that thread quite well. However, I am still concerned about the future of Mac Pro and must look long term for my investment in software. As mentioned in that thread, I am a 3D artist and use a lot of high-end software that costs well over $5,000 plus upgrades per package. It would be nice to see some sort of statement one way or the other from Apple on where they are going instead of dragging things along guessing.

One other problem as I mentioned in the prior thread is AMD itself. If it is very top line graphics card that will be fine for most users, but 3D software tends to take better advantage of nVidia and their "CUDA" cores. When rendering, if that translates into speed difference or even the way a scene is constructed, then it will effect both my time and money. I was hoping to see nVidia back as an option, but it appears still AMD only.

It's not a matter of wanting to, but like I stated above it comes down to investment cost for the future and right now many are leaving Apple going to Windows for their 3D and CAD needs. You simply can't wait 15 months or more between new equipment or even graphics cards if you are in those fields. Unless there is a firm commitment, I too will be forced to make a decision in 2012 and it could be the end of the Mac era for me.

 

[Umbongo]

Sandy Bridge E5 based?

Aren't Ivy Bridge E3's due in the Q2 2012?

Are they going to offer a single-processor E3 and a dual-processor E5?

That seems highly unlikely. The only benefit to customers would be that the 3.4GHz quad Ivy Bridge will be faster than the 3.6GHz quad Sandy Bridge-EP. That is the highest end of Ivy Bridge has to offer and all the other options Apple will consider with E5s are superior. They don't need to offer it to sell Mac Pros and it would increase costs to have a split such as that.

 

[prowlmedia]

People have cited financial reasons why they might stop the pro. But it doesn't make any sense. They May make most of their money from mobile and tablet then laptops... but they are still probably selling more Pro's than they did before the iPhone. The percentages may have gone down but the actual numbers and figures will be better than 2007...

Design is Probably going to stay the same. You need all that room... for drives, memory, pro Cards - audio breakout etc. and still better than every other desktop design perhaps apart from that porsche/level 10 $800 case!

if you just compare the specs on the imac and pro...
4 core mobile / 12 core xeons -
up to 96gb Ram against 16
2 imac HD's / 4 HD bays in the pro ( poss 6 if they drop the optical)
Pro cards support

But overriding all that is the fact that you simply cannot produce (ALL) content for tablets and phones. even a 4 core iMac simply does not cut it. my 2008 macpro with a custom Rom 2gb GTX 285 (pretty much the fasted mac card other than the 4000 quardo) is still faster than the latest iMac. it's got 22gb of ram and is stupidly fast in premiere plus dual 30" non glare dell montors.

And people that have said that you will have the power of a pro in a tablet soon... well yes you will.. but the pro's will always be 50 times faster....

Apple would be immensely stupid to kill it. they would be effectively killing off the main production capacity of the whole ecosystem. Pro's will not want iMac's - mobile proc's and GFX. v.limited ram. etc. And do you really think Apple will let their content creators shift over to windoze or linux...?

 

[toxic]

I know what you mean and remember that thread quite well. However, I am still concerned about the future of Mac Pro and must look long term for my investment in software. As mentioned in that thread, I am a 3D artist and use a lot of high-end software that costs well over $5,000 plus upgrades per package. It would be nice to see some sort of statement one way or the other from Apple on where they are going instead of dragging things along guessing.

One other problem as I mentioned in the prior thread is AMD itself. If it is very top line graphics card that will be fine for most users, but 3D software tends to take better advantage of nVidia and their "CUDA" cores. When rendering, if that translates into speed difference or even the way a scene is constructed, then it will effect both my time and money. I was hoping to see nVidia back as an option, but it appears still AMD only.

It's not a matter of wanting to, but like I stated above it comes down to investment cost for the future and right now many are leaving Apple going to Windows for their 3D and CAD needs. You simply can't wait 15 months or more between new equipment or even graphics cards if you are in those fields. Unless there is a firm commitment, I too will be forced to make a decision in 2012 and it could be the end of the Mac era for me.

I'd like a statement on their commitment to delivering worthwhile Quadro drivers and better professional graphics support overall. I don't care who's fault it is now, there is no excuse for the crap we have now.

speaking of 3D modeling, why are there still Mac users? the Quadro 4000, while a big improvement over previous Quadros, still isn't really better than a GTX 285. worse yet, it's not even stable. Dave Girard at Ars Technica still recommends a 5870 for Maya because it can outperform the 4000 just from pure horsepower...but it doesn't support all the features the Quadro can, and it's still not as fast as doing everything in Windows.

I'm glad there's still support for Mac, and AutoCAD was finally ported back over and Rhino has a beta version out, but I'm surprised everyone hasn't moved over to Windows by now for increased productivity.

 

[linuxcooldude]

As much as I don't like the Mac Pros for being terrible value for money computers. I really hope this rumour is true. Simply cause now a lot of people would choose an iMac over a Mac Pro. In a lot of tests the iMac is better.

I really want the Mac Pros to be better then the iMac in all tests. I want the people who buy a Mac Pro to get the best Mac out there. Well yes best is subjective cause every Mac from the MBA to the Mac Pro is best at something. Portability or screen or power or power saving or etc etc.

But I think you get my point. The Mac Pro is expensive and I want the people who want one to really get something good. I'm so not in the Mac Pro market. But if I was I'd either wait for this new Mac Pro or get a 27 iMac. The current Mac Pros though very good are just not a good investment. Not enough bang per buck spent.

Workstations typically are not going to be the best bang for the buck. The people who are looking for the best bang, will probably never use one to its full potential and better off with a consumer style computer.

 

[d-m-a-x]

I'm one. But then i wonder why i would buy an imac when i can get an easier to upgrade (as if i wasn't gonna send the imac straight to owc anyway) Macbook Pro.

The imac is cheaper, < $2k and they throw in in a $1k screen w/two thunderbolt polts.

Crap graphics (well, i want cuda), expensive *but dropping fast* - laptop ram,
Raid two SSDs in there, and you not only have a beast workstation as it is, but it can always be used as just a monitor/disk drive.
I want a NEW Mac pro. 96 gigs of ram, quadro 6000 (for mac plz).

I guess i'll have to put my "purchase a small country" fund on hold.
...in the meantime any quad+ i7 computer will do.

Apparently this world is filled with people who set up their workstation in an uncontrollable glareful environment.

matte MATTE MAAATTTEE screen blah.

UP lighting folks.

What do you have the sun at your back while working?
Be a real adult and wake up when the sun has set.

Matte is latin for dull and lifeless - as your screen, as your work.

try working on location with that rational, like outside on a photoshoot or movie

 

[chaosbunny]

I would disagree. I own 2 iMacs. The last ever white iMac. 2006 C2D 2.0 Ghz my model is. I also own a 2011 21.5 i7.

My point is this.

White iMac - Nice screen. It's pretty good. No glare at all a good thing. But cleaning the screen is not the easiest thing. I'm always worried to damage the screen. And dust can sit at on the white plastic at the bottom on the screen. Not a good thing.

Alu iMac - The screen looks fantastic. One of the best screens I've even seen at this size. And cleaning it is a breeze. Just wipe the glass with a damp cloth the dry with a link free cloth making sure no dampness goes off the screen. Easy. Yes the glossy screen is a little glarey in full sunlight. But apart from that it's great.

In short don't put the iMac in full direct sunlight and it is an excellent screen. Yes there is always ways to improve things. But it's way better then the matte white iMac screen. I'd not have believed you in 2006. I got my white iMac cause I didn't like the (at the time) rumoured glossy screens. But now after using one I'd not go back. Glossy all the way.

It's a personal preference thing. I had a mirror iMac from 2007-2010 and while it only bugged me a little bit in the beginning I couldn't stand it anymore in the end. The reflections are constantly all over the place, even in a completely dark room. The iMac put light on me after all which reflected on the screen. When I moved a little bit something moved on the screen too. I know I'll never buy one again.

Also comparing a 2006 screen to a 2011 screen side by side isn't exactly fair.

Matte is latin for dull and lifeless - as your screen, as your work.

I guess this must be glossy screen design then:

 

[subsonix]

Sandy Bridge EP baby!

 

[pixor]

seems like apple has alot to do in 2012, its like every product line is due for a redesign / big update

mac pro -> obviously
iphone 5 -> obviously
Imac -> Needs redesign
Macbook Pro -> Needs redesign
Macbook Air -> ???
Ipad 3 -> seems like its due for a substantial update

Why does the MacBook Pro need a redesign? All it "needs" is Ivy Bridge to reduce the temperature. There are MacBook Airs for those who want smaller/lighter.

 

[blackcrayon]

It's a personal preference thing. I had a mirror iMac from 2007-2010 and while it only bugged me a little bit in the beginning I couldn't stand it anymore in the end.

If you reached the point where you literally "couldn't stand it", couldn't you have just pulled the glass cover from the front? Just wondering if there is some disadvantage to that that I haven't heard of (other than that it looks a bit ugly around the border, but again you sound like it was a *serious* hinderance).

 

[Cindori]

some people have gotten way too excited imo, this doesn't really say "mac pro won't be discontinued", the code netkas found would probably still be there even if apple went out a month ago and declared the Mac Pro line as dead. "Tahiti" refers to 7900 series which will probably be used in next iMac (with mobility card ofc, still Tahiti afaik).

so yeah, this should be interpreted as:

If a new Mac Pro is released, it will probably carry 7970 as a Graphic option, but this find does not say anything about a future Mac Pro existence.

 

[subsonix]

On the other hand, nothing credible have been released that indicates the EOL of Mac Pro.

What has been mentioned is based on supposedly over heard internal discussions at Apple discussing the future of Mac Pro, basically hearsay. Of course they are discussing the future of Mac Pro, like they are discussing the future of every other product they have. There are several different routes the Workstation segment as a whole can take.

 

[d-m-a-x]

some people have gotten way too excited imo, this doesn't really say "mac pro won't be discontinued", the code netkas found would probably still be there even if apple went out a month ago and declared the Mac Pro line as dead. "Tahiti" refers to 7900 series which will probably be used in next iMac (with mobility card ofc, still Tahiti afaik).

so yeah, this should be interpreted as:

If a new Mac Pro is released, it will probably carry 7970 as a Graphic option, but this find does not say anything about a future Mac Pro existence.

yup, is true. Does not say anything either way .
But it's a nice thread apart from all the gloom and doom

 

[iSayuSay]

I'm really glad if Apple keep developing the MacPro, Apple can keep the current price, but with that price, they should include 27" cinema display with it.

I mean come on, I pay $2500 and all I get is this "lousy" CPU, keyboard and mouse?! I did not mean lousy in performance, but value, even for an Apple product, the MacPro's price is just outrageous!

The most expensive standard (non BTO) 27" iMac costs a bit less than $2000, so it's only fair to put lowest-end MacPro price tag on $2500 but with 27" display included.

That way, Apple can fragmented their market from Macbook Air to MacPro seamlessly. And I'd happily upgrade my iMac to MacPro. The heat is just unbearable at times, and non upgradeable desktop is a downer, really.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

The MacPro has such a small percentage wise on overall Mac sales due to the not coming updates and the overall product specification. Why can't they just use normal desktop CPUs and not server class CPUs. A normal desktop "PC" spec would be great together with a much lower entry price.