10.7.3 support for Radeon 7950 - Mac Pro??

[damir00]

I don't care if you are a programmer, photographer, writer, teacher, video editor, etc... Being mobile in this economy is the key...

Absolutely right.

That's why I replaced the casters on the compute rack with ATV tires - hook that baby with it's 4Ux1 and 1Ux4 rack computers, 1/10GbE switch and UPS up to the tow ball on the back of my F-150 and we're totally mobile, ready to roll.

 

[mayhone1]

Absolutely right.

That's why I replaced the casters on the compute rack with ATV tires - hook that baby with it's 4Ux1 and 1Ux4 rack computers, 1/10GbE switch and UPS up to the tow ball on the back of my F-150 and we're totally mobile, ready to roll.

Nice, lol

 

[d-m-a-x]

Location work: That's what the quad 15" and 17" MBPs are for....

That would be why those are offered in Matte screen.

Not Thunderbolt displays/iMacs.

and what about several monitors on c-stands - like for the client, talent, wardrobe?

MBP's are fine for smaller jobs. Glossy displays are useless to me on bigger jobs

 

[deconstruct60]

Sandy Bridge E5 based?

There are two major "flavors" of E5. The 1600 and 2600 series.

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/2011050402_Intel_Xeon_E5-1600_and_E5-2600_processor_details.html

The 'single package' Mac Pro can be implemented with a 1600 and the dual package with a 2600. Both are E5's and have 40 PCI-e v3.0 lanes per package. The descendant of the Xeon 3500 and 3600 series is the E5 1600 series not the E3 models.

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

Two major problems with that.

1. The E3 package only has 20 PCI-e lanes. Even if the the Ivy Bridge version matches the twice as fast v3.0 implementation it is still 20 lanes short in bandwidth. That is a substantial bandwidth loss. If all you need is one 16x card perhaps that isn't a loss, but for a 4 slot machine that is a major drop in value ( if 4 slot present they are highly switched/shared. )

2. Q2 is awfully late. If Apple doesn't launch a new Mac Pro by Feb the "doom and gloom" rumors are going to spin out of control. There are lots of folks waiting on the sidelines right now. However, those folks have work to do. At some point people are going to buy whats available. The other PC vendors are going to launch E5 boxes. Apple passing up E5 to wait another 2-3 months to launch a box with substantially less bandwidth ..... don't see it at all.


3. The "core i7" version of the E3 will also be out in Q2 and the iMac will get it. Again why? hold up the Mac Pro for an iMac part? Cost isn't a major issue since the 1600 parts are likely in substantially the same range at the entry levels .



http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/..._and_prices_for_Xeon_E3-1200_series_CPUs.html


http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/2011091901_Prices_of_Intel_Xeon_E5-1600_series_CPUs.html

E3 1225 --> $280 ( 3.1 GHz & 4 cores 8MB L3 cache )
E3 1235 --> $336 ( 3.2 GHz & 4 cores 8MB L3 cache )

E5 1620 --> $294 ( 3.6 GHz & 4 cores 10MB L3 cache )

There is not substantive difference in pricing and if just chasing clock speed the E5 is a better value.

The E5 1650 jumps to $583 but also get two more cores (and are drifting into 'apples and oranges' comparisons ). However, the $583 1650 should allow the 6 core Mac Pro model to shift from the current $3699 price point down to $2899. That will be approximately "$1,000" drop that many folks a grumbling for.

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

The only reason to do a E3 box would be to come out with a shorter , one 16x PCI-e slot model that was priced at the $2K price border shared with the iMac. They could but that would not need to remove the E5 options being sold at higher ( above $2,300 ) price points.

Apple going to introduce at xMac box that carves into the sweet spot of the iMac price range ? .... keep drinking that kool-aid .

 

[Fandongo]

and what about several monitors on c-stands - like for the client, talent, wardrobe?

MBP's are fine for smaller jobs. Glossy displays are useless to me on bigger jobs

In that case I'd strongly recommend the teredek cube,
http://cube.teradek.com/
Stream HDMI wirelessly to as many overbearing producers/talent with ipads or matte monitors across the country as you want.

Several monitors on c-stands?
I hope you're NOT using 27" iMacs for that!!!

I'm down for the matte, hopefully the 17" ivy MBP will still have the expresscard and space for 2x SSDs so i can justify dropping 2.5k.

I just think it's funny to see the influx of hatred generated by bashing the melodramatic matte crowd.

I don't know why matte isn't an option, it's simple enough...

 

[d-m-a-x]

In that case I'd strongly recommend the teredek cube,
http://cube.teradek.com/
Stream HDMI wirelessly to as many overbearing producers/talent with ipads or matte monitors across the country as you want.

Several monitors on c-stands?
I hope you're NOT using 27" iMacs for that!!!

I'm down for the matte, hopefully the 17" ivy MBP will still have the expresscard and space for 2x SSDs so i can justify dropping 2.5k.

I just think it's funny to see the influx of hatred generated by bashing the melodramatic matte crowd.

I don't know why matte isn't an option, it's simple enough...

i've done that before. Big headache if they are computer illiterate. I like to use middle of the road matte displays, like nec, dell or hp (Ips). I test the gear out the day before, that way i just set up real quick and get to work

 

[kendall69]

If it's all about profits...then.

OK some have indicated Apple makes "less profit" on the Desktops. So why not make it use based configurable.

Sell us a general box that will last a decade or two, then make all the components plug and play. As new technology comes out, switch out MB's as easy as installing ram, pop in new drives, open a door and replace the CD/DVD player burner.

Who cares what the box looks like, my feet don't have eye's any way.

Think of the money they can make. No need to store huge boxes in the stores, they can actually charge a higher price for the components.

We all would change out MB three or four times before we would currently buy a new complete computer.

Every time we buy a new computer the case is still perfect, the hard drives are good the fans, CS/DVD are all working. We just want more speed from the MB and more ram, that's it.

 

[goMac]

Sell us a general box that will last a decade or two, then make all the components plug and play.

A decade or two?

Does anyone know anyone who still uses an LC II as their primary machine?

I mean, the case is the cheapest part of the machine. Why should I care if the case stays the same if I've got to drop $3k on new parts anyway?

 

[deconstruct60]

OK some have indicated Apple makes "less profit" on the Desktops. So why not make it use based configurable.

Sell us a general box that will last a decade or two, then make all the components plug and play.

The problem is not "less profit" it is "less profit growth" than alternative Macs with higher profit growth potential. Buying boxes only every 10 years or so is even worse profit growth. That is exactly the wrong direction.

The Mac Pro problem is that it needs to growth at a similar pace to the other Mac models. If the growth doesn't exist, it will get cut. People squatting on boxes for 7-10 years is part of the core problem. That's zero revenue for up to a decade. That means zero profit for up to a decade. That's being a non customer for up to a decade. Guess what... not a customer ... stop making things for you.

Apple is a systems company. They sell a hardware/software combination that is a completed system. Selling boards, cases , power supplies , etc. is a component business. That's not what they do.

 

[goMac]

I'm not sure I buy that. The Mac Mini has all the signs of also being a slow growth system, yet it got a redesign.

Meantime, the Macbook has all the signs of being a high growth system and it got cut.

 

[heisetax]

If it wasnt for the insanely low price i got my 15" 2011 macbook pro (high res, 750gb, matte screen) for $1200, I'd still be on my 2007 Mac Pro.

I'll easily sell the macbook pro in exchange for a Mac Pro and get back to using a real machine for real work. Laptops are nice, but theyre too limiting for professionals.

I'm still using my delivered to me on Sep 12, 2006 Mac Pro to run my 5 large displays, 3 30", 1 28" & 1 47". My mid 2010 Mac Book Pro can only run its 17" screen plus one 30" display. While the laptop does a very good job it greatly lacks in display area.

I wanted to wait for the next generation processor, but since the Mac Pro line in behind by at least one generation it could be 1.5 - 2 years before an update will be available. I'm hoping for the longest list of updates that have been mentioned to be the one that they build.

----------

Mac Pro on the MR front page. Whatever next!

I thought that the name was changed to Apple Rumors or was that iToy Rumors. Does this mean I still have a change to update my 5 1/4 year old Mac Pro?

----------

I have a newfound interest in desktop-class GPU drivers, even though I’ll likely never buy a Mac Pro: I want a Thunderbolt expansion chassis (as some companies have announced) to house a destkop-class GPU for my Air! (I assume it won't support cards other than the ones Apple has their own drivers for: the ones for the Pro.) Then I can have just ONE computer for all purposes.

This is an interesting deal with the external chassis. But the nice ones cost more than a Mac Pro. That kind of takes away the incentive.

 

[goMac]

This is an interesting deal with the external chassis. But the nice ones cost more than a Mac Pro. That kind of takes away the incentive.

Also Thunderbolt is nowhere near fast enough to support a card like the 7950.

 

[heisetax]

Apple has given up the large display market

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?

I use a couple of HP ZR30w Displays along with my Apple Cinema Display plus a Viewsonic 28" & Westinghouse 47" on my Aug/Sep 2006 Mac Pro. Meaning that it came from 1st day orders but took a couple weeks longer for the ATI video card.

The HP ZR30w Displays are ones that I am talking about. Each has 1 DVI port & 1 displayport. The advantage here is that a $5 cable that goes from displayport to mini displayport can be used for those video cards that need that port. I like them better than the Apple display. Most people tell me that they have better color than the Apple display as well. This means something to me from my photographer son. These displays are still 16:10 ratio displays thus giving the standard computer 2560 X 1600 resolution. Anything less makes a wasted display. As expected of a screen like this it has a matte finish.

 

[deconstruct60]

I'm not sure I buy that. The Mac Mini has all the signs of also being a slow growth system, yet it got a redesign.

Where Apple announced a couple years back that Mac OS X Server sales were dramatically up after the introduction of the Mini Server combo? Not really. Where the mini was flat because the hardware components had gone stale. Perhaps. Apple doesn't kill things off the instant that growth falls off. They will tweak something but they aren't going to stick to a model forever just because it isn't a loss per unit.

As user workload needs plateau the Mini can soak up lots more market than units of the user workloads dropping "down" from above. There is no Mac workloads "above" the Mac Pro.

Meantime, the Macbook has all the signs of being a high growth system and it got cut.

Not really. The Macbook was boxed in by the $999 barrier and the MBP 13". For $200 more you could walk away with more than a Macbook. There was only one model (no good, better , best). If you wanted a "better" or "best" you picked up the MBP 13".

The Macbook price point was handed to the MBA 11" and the MBA category went from last (behind the Mac Pro) on the Apple store Mac "top 10" to above the mini . The price point ( "most affordable Mac laptop" ), not the hardware is what primarily drove MacBook volume. Any respectable laptop at the $999 price border is going to sell in volume because it is lowest cost Mac can snag.

If the MacBook had been allowed to drop down to $899 (into the reserved iPad zone) it would probably still be around selling seeing similar volume increases as it was.

 

[heisetax]

Are you kidding me? I would HATE to be tethered to a ball and chain Mac Pro again.

As a professional I have found my MBP to be the best at power and portability. I can take my work with me, work with clients at their location, and if I need anything extra (larger display, backup, raid, etc..) I can plug them in back at my office.

The days of having a flat/office with a big ole honking computer are gone. If you are not mobile and in the field your competitors are going to eat up your clients.

I don't care if you are a programmer, photographer, writer, teacher, video editor, etc... Being mobile in this economy is the key...

-P

To me either you do not need a lot of computing power or much in display space if you can get by with just a Mac Book Pro. I do accounting & tax prep work. I use 5 displays with my Mac Pro. But like you I also use a 17" Mac Book Pro for the times that I go to the customers office or other place of business. Like you I attach it to a 30" HP display. Even with that setup I find it too restricting for the way my customers expect me to do our business.

My answer is that having both is the only real answer. Laptop when one must leave the office or use a second computer with one customer & a large Mac Pro to handle 99% of the office work.

 

[d-m-a-x]

I use a couple of HP ZR30w Displays along with my Apple Cinema Display plus a Viewsonic 28" & Westinghouse 47" on my Aug/Sep 2006 Mac Pro. Meaning that it came from 1st day orders but took a couple weeks longer for the ATI video card.

The HP ZR30w Displays are ones that I am talking about. Each has 1 DVI port & 1 displayport. The advantage here is that a $5 cable that goes from displayport to mini displayport can be used for those video cards that need that port. I like them better than the Apple display. Most people tell me that they have better color than the Apple display as well. This means something to me from my photographer son. These displays are still 16:10 ratio displays thus giving the standard computer 2560 X 1600 resolution. Anything less makes a wasted display. As expected of a screen like this it has a matte finish.

I like the HP ZR's, have a couple of 24"'s

To me either you do not need a lot of computing power or much in display space if you can get by with just a Mac Book Pro. I do accounting & tax prep work. I use 5 displays with my Mac Pro. But like you I also use a 17" Mac Book Pro for the times that I go to the customers office or other place of business. Like you I attach it to a 30" HP display. Even with that setup I find it too restricting for the way my customers expect me to do our business.

My answer is that having both is the only real answer. Laptop when one must leave the office or use a second computer with one customer & a large Mac Pro to handle 99% of the office work.

using both laptop and desktops are ideal

 

[gazzared]

I for one am not listening to any of you "Doom Lords". I think a new mac pro model is likely, once intel sort out the production of the new xeon chips.

3 years ago I switched from dell workstations to mac pros, I don't want to have to switch back. My 2008 model has been flawless in all that time and my workflow is 100% concentrated on my applications rather than trying to sort out drivers, configuration set ups.

My only gripe is that Apple could give us better graphics card support towards the pro end, but other than that, I can't complain.

 

[kazmac]

really hoping they continue with the Mac Pro

and this is potentially good news.

 

[goMac]

Where Apple announced a couple years back that Mac OS X Server sales were dramatically up after the introduction of the Mini Server combo? Not really. Where the mini was flat because the hardware components had gone stale. Perhaps. Apple doesn't kill things off the instant that growth falls off. They will tweak something but they aren't going to stick to a model forever just because it isn't a loss per unit.

As user workload needs plateau the Mini can soak up lots more market than units of the user workloads dropping "down" from above. There is no Mac workloads "above" the Mac Pro.

I'm not sure I really buy that. How many Mac Pro users here would get a Mini over an iMac if the Pro was discontinued? The Mini doesn't even come in a quad core/discrete gpu combo flavor.

Not really. The Macbook was boxed in by the $999 barrier and the MBP 13". For $200 more you could walk away with more than a Macbook. There was only one model (no good, better , best). If you wanted a "better" or "best" you picked up the MBP 13".

The Macbook was HUGE in education where neither the Air or the MBP are suitable machines. (Air has no firewire or ethernet, which makes maintenance a challenge, both are not as durable.)

I knew a lot of consumers buying them as well just because they were on the lowest end, and had very good specs.

 

[ActionableMango]

I don't care if you are a programmer, photographer, writer, teacher, video editor, etc... Being mobile in this economy is the key...

I agree completely. This is why I've moved all my programming, photography, writing, teaching, and video editing efforts to my iPod nano!

 

[goMac]

I agree completely. This is why I've moved all my programming, photography, writing, teaching, and video editing efforts to my iPod nano!

Pfffff. I program on my iPod Shuffle. The Nano is just way too bulky.

 

[Misaki]

Where were the new MP's when the 6xxx series came out ?

It didn't align with Sandy Bridge. Check your Server/Workstation processor chip list.

The Xeon E3, E5, E7 with socket 2011 are likely what Apple was waiting for. These chips are only available starting with Ivy Bridge.

What's the point of Apple building a LGA 1567 socket when it's going to be replaced right away with LGA 2011

Even among computer enthusiasts, many skipped the first and second generation socket processors for i7 because USB3 isn't in those chipsets. Why buy stuff that is going to be used for only a few months.

Of course we can actually lay the blame for this on the B3 Sandy bridge chipsets for delaying everything by several months. The problem with the first sandy bridge chipsets was degradation with the SATA ports with the chipset. So Apple will miss the Christmas season for Mac Pro's, but you know what, when was the last time someone put a Mac Pro under the tree? The customer for Mac Pro's are the video professionals and photoshop'ers that work with large files.

 

[MacsRgr8]

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

Well.. not really.
That test is not even close to the real life performance you experience when actually flying X-Plane with lots of scenery.

As Laminar Research have stated: no system can run X-Plane 10 (or 9 for that matter) with all settings maxed out.
So, even the biggest and baddest PC gaming rig with Radeon 6990 can't handle it.

 

[umbilical]

The Current Mac Pro is still a BEAST!

yeap my macpro 08 still runs great, maybe i change if the new worth the change...

 

[ColeHarris]

Are you kidding me? I would HATE to be tethered to a ball and chain Mac Pro again.

As a professional I have found my MBP to be the best at power and portability. I can take my work with me, work with clients at their location, and if I need anything extra (larger display, backup, raid, etc..) I can plug them in back at my office.

The days of having a flat/office with a big ole honking computer are gone. If you are not mobile and in the field your competitors are going to eat up your clients.

I don't care if you are a programmer, photographer, writer, teacher, video editor, etc... Being mobile in this economy is the key...

-P

Well I'm a 3D artist and I just purchased a quad Macbook Pro 17in and while its definitely a powerful machine it barely cuts it for the kind of work I do. So yes there are people in this world that need something more powerful than a laptop, even a quad core laptop.

Yes mobility is key for many situations and thats why in many cases people have 2 machines (Mac Pro, Macbook Pro) but at the end of the day your not going to be in the field while your doing your final edit or rending a vfx sequence, most major work on a project is done in an office.

What clients appreciate more than mobility is speed and if there latest commercial is stuck rendering for days because all I have is a laptop they might be a little upset.