10.7.3 support for Radeon 7950 - Mac Pro??

[TMay]

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.

All of the PC workstations that use Xeon (Lenovo and HP z series) are waiting for the next Xeon rev, not just the Mac Pro.

And I would disagree with your premise that "many are leaving". If anything, I'm under the impression that Mac Book Pro's with Parallels is a popular choice for a PC workstation replacement, providing you don't need a Quadro or FirePro graphics card.

 

[subsonix]

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.

Yes, but the Mac segment as a whole is growing and with it, the Mac Pro. The updates have been following the available CPUs from intel to a tee. Using normal desktop CPUs would in part not justify it's existence IMO, they might be looking into future use of GPUs or similar parallel compute processors as well, especially considering Apples involvement with OpenCL.

 

[gnasher729]

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). To be useful, and external GPU needs to exceed the Air’s internal GPU. By as much as possible and no more, please

Thunderbolt limits the available bandwidth. The max. bandwidth of Thunderbolt is a lot less than the max. bandwidth of high end graphics cards, which makes some people claim that Thunderbolt is useless for this purpose. They don't realize that the maximum bandwidth on these graphics cards is just there to not have lower numbers than the competitors, in real live it doesn't mean much at all.

Any graphics card that is twice as fast, or ten times as fast, as the Air's internal GPU will be quite happy with Thunderbolt bandwidth. Maybe the one that ought to be ten times faster will only be nine times faster - so what.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Yes, but the Mac segment as a whole is growing and with it, the Mac Pro. The updates have been following the available CPUs from intel to a tee. Using normal desktop CPUs would in part not justify it's existence IMO, they might be looking into future use of GPUs or similar parallel compute processors as well, especially considering Apples involvement with OpenCL.

I am just saying. A very high price outdated product is not selling well . . . who needs a crystal ball to predict that?

If instead they keep the unit up to date w/ desktop CPU and GPUs and a much lower entry price they would sell a lot more.

 

[azentropy]

The Current Mac Pro is still a BEAST!

In size, internal expandability and quality? Yes. In performance - not really. The entry model has been surpassed in performance specs (CPU, GPU, RAM, HD size, Optical drives etc.) by consumer desktops costing < $1000.

 

[SirHaakon]

About $80 billion in cash on hand and a successful vertical business model in a sea of low-margin volume-peddlers says they've been absolutely right so far. Apple has been the only one going against conventional business thinking for years while profiting obscenely the entire time.

If profit is the sole motivation, sure.

 

[subsonix]

I am just saying. A very high price outdated product is not selling well . . . who needs a crystal ball to predict that?

But it's not that outdated or high priced compared to other workstations. Still waiting for intel to release the Sandy Bridge EP.

If instead they keep the unit up to date w/ desktop CPU and GPUs and a much lower entry price they would sell a lot more.

Yes, but then it would not be a workstation, and it would cannibalize the iMac. If they have a workstation available, they are better to go into the extreme end instead of making it more similar to existing products, just IMO of course.

 

[azentropy]

Yes, but then it would not be a workstation, and it would cannibalize the iMac.

If they cannibalize the iMac sales with another product that has the same or higher profit margins and most likely still higher price points why would they care? Overall sales (and profits) would go up, not down.

 

[Schismz]

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.

Because you can't use dual CPUs unless they're Xeons (nevermind the other advantages Xeons offer, which may be minimal to some individuals and not a major selling point).

A normal desktop "PC" spec would be great together with a much lower entry price.

Yes, but then they're offering a Mac LessPro and a Mac Pro, the single processor Mac Pros (with the possible exception of the 3.33GHz 6-core) aren't really worthwhile from a price perspective. Once you're at 8-12-cores+ it's an extremely competitive workstation (features and price).

 

[pvdkleijn]

I am wondering how Apple is going to combine replaceable graphics with thunderbolt. I'm guessing that they will put the thunderbolt chip on the graphics board, which are always in 16x slots so enough bandwidth.

That would also mean Thunderbolt for older Mac Pro's

 

[MasterHowl]

My mid-2009 15 inch MBP's fast as lightning... Can't imagine how fast the new MP's are going to be! Reeeaaallllyyy want one heh

 

[the8thark]

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.

For me the only thing a 2011 i7 iMac can not do is have a raid set up for a crap load of TB's for space. It can do pretty much everything else. Even the iMac graphics are fantastic in my opinion. Especially the fact they are power saving.

And people say you can't really configure and add things apart from ram after the iMac sale to you. This is true. But with Mac Pros costing 50% - 100% or even more (without any added costs for your own at a later upgrades to the Mac Pro) then an iMac. You could get one iMac, sell it and buy a better one in the future all for less then the cost on the one Mac Pro.

So you upgrade a Mac Pro or you sell and buy a new iMac. Same price in the end. Give or take a few hundred dollars. Yes some people need server grade Ram and large hard drive raids. But 95% of people do not. And the price + fantastic iMac screen wins them over.

I happen to agree with you about the sun comment you made. You should not have your desktop computer/work station in direct sunlight. That's never good. Knowing this, then the screen glare issue as you pointed out is really not an issue.

 

[the8thark]

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.

Apple's aim is to have Macbook Pro power in a Macbook Air sized case. And have enough low heat tech that is powerful enough to do this. Yes we know this technology does not exist yet. But I guess that's what Apple wants to do.

 

[ChrisTX]

Mac Pros are a BEAST, but these days I prefer the portability of my 15" MacBook Pro.

 

[wilsonlaidlaw]

MacPro an essential halo product

Now that the blade server has gone, not to offer a range of new Mac Pro's would represent a total retreat from the high end professional market. The imaging and movie industry would be desperately disappointed if this was the case. There is a whole generation of operators, who have been spared the pain of Windoze. They would all have to be retrained.

There is also the halo effect of a super fast powerful product, sitting up at the top of the tree. The main development costs would devolve onto Intel and Radeon. Apple is basically just a box assembler, with little to no R&D costs. If the product can be sold at a profit and looking at the pricing of this product, it would be difficult to conceive it as being unprofitable - why not?

 

[linuxcooldude]

I am just saying. A very high price outdated product is not selling well . . . who needs a crystal ball to predict that?

If instead they keep the unit up to date w/ desktop CPU and GPUs and a much lower entry price they would sell a lot more.

The last few years they have been fairly consistent with up to date hardware at the time. It seems thats why they delayed the update with the next Mac Pro till Sandy Bridge come available.

Lowering the price would probably mean some sacrifices would be made in hardware and features, and like someone said would cut into their other lines of computers too much.

We can see that with them getting rid of their white Macbook line. It started competing with the base MacBook Airs in price so really made no sense keeping it around.

In size, internal expandability and quality? Yes. In performance - not really. The entry model has been surpassed in performance specs (CPU, GPU, RAM, HD size, Optical drives etc.) by consumer desktops costing < $1000.

Its natural to see the consumer lines of Apple computers starting to get more powerful then some base line Mac Pros. When the Mac Pro was refreshed last time, it came out with even more powerful offerings then the consumer versions. Thats how technology works.

If you are that worried about lower performance in the base models, don't buy them, they have 6/8/12 core models in various speeds available.

Lastly don't take all benchmarks to heart as they don't always take in account every aspect of the computer besides CPU/Graphics/Memory.

 

[toxic]

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.

i7-930: $320 on Amazon
W3530: $315 on Newegg, $340 on Amazon
price difference in March 2010 was $12 according to some old posts I found.

there is no or negligible cost saving going with i7, but you give up ECC memory and stricter manufacturing tolerance and operating load requirements. i7 also does not support dual-processor configurations.

 

[d-m-a-x]

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.

I think you are paying for a package a a whole, designed by one company from the ground up. My 2006 is a tank - is still fast, and my 1998 G4 still works!! I have always loved that about mac.

 

[UK-MacAddict]

I'm hoping for an early January release I've got the money ready and waiting. I've been holding off Mac purchases until 2012 when I think they will redesign a lot of their products. Then those designs should hold for 1-2 years.

Mac pro + Thunderbolt display

 

[Setmose]

I'm thinking about buying a Mac Pro, I just wondering energy wise how much energy it uses and how long do mac pros last?

They last a really long time. Apple uses the workstation-class Xeon series CPUs in the Mac Pro. They are thermally-robust chips designed for constant-duty server farms. And then Apple puts them in a thermally conservative case design that runs them cool. Cool case temps are also good for RAM and disk drives.

PowerBook was the same. I had a PowerBook G3 that lasted 9-years with no service. MacBook Pro not so much, as the components are really crammed in there to meet the "thin" criteria that dominates the market today.

 

[shawk]

The Mac Pro is a 24/7 machine. If you make a living with Macs, you need this and you can afford it.

 

[shaunp]

Complete Redesign

I know it's wishful thinking, but I would like them to redesign the case and bring out a product that's between the mini and the pro, i.e. a desktop that doesn't have a built-in screen and where I can add my own drives.

I have a Mini and a Drobo, mainly because I want to use my monitor for more than one computer on occasions, but a taller version of the mini, with some drive bays would be great. I don't need a high-end graphics card (although I wouldn't say no if it were possible), but a core i7, lots of memory and space for a few drives would be perfect.

 

[powers74]

What?

I thought Apple was abandoning the Pro market?




















lol.

How did I know I would get neg'd for that? Double lol!

 

[nagromme]

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.

Thunderbolt limits the available bandwidth. The max. bandwidth of Thunderbolt is a lot less than the max. bandwidth of high end graphics cards, which makes some people claim that Thunderbolt is useless for this purpose. They don't realize that the maximum bandwidth on these graphics cards is just there to not have lower numbers than the competitors, in real live it doesn't mean much at all.

Any graphics card that is twice as fast, or ten times as fast, as the Air's internal GPU will be quite happy with Thunderbolt bandwidth. Maybe the one that ought to be ten times faster will only be nine times faster - so what.

I see—thanks for the clarifications!

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I am just saying. A very high price outdated product is not selling well . . . who needs a crystal ball to predict that?

If instead they keep the unit up to date w/ desktop CPU and GPUs and a much lower entry price they would sell a lot more.

I think you do need a crystal ball, or inside information, to categorically state the MP isn't selling well since Apple does not release individual product sales numbers for Macs, only Macs as a category.

The MP is a niche product -- the epitome of what Jobs called a "truck". So it's highly probable it's the least "popular" Mac, but big picture, that is meaningless since it's understood it's not a mainstream product. Selling in large volume (w/ lower entry price) does not automatically equate to high profits (See the PC box makers as example). In the MPs case it would be dumb since consumers now vastly prefer laptops and tablets to desktops. Desktops are on the decline as a category.