Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How will the d300 effect 4k video playback in quicktime?

We won't know for sure until people get it in their hands with a 4K screen, and 4K footage.

Although I recall a 4K video floating around when the Retina MacBookPro launched and it played fine on the NIVIDA gt650m. That was using VLC player though.


The prices on the Irish Apple site have been posted and well....

Base model is €3,099, and Hex core €4,099. I can't help but feel we're being gipped here, specially considering Apple's nice tax rates here in Ireland. :'(
 
Last edited:
We won't know for sure until people get it in their hands with a 4K screen, and 4K footage.

Although I recall a 4K video floating around when the Retina MacBookPro launched and it played fine on the NIVIDA gt650m. That was using VLC player though.


The prices on the Irish Apple site have been posted and well....

Base model is €3,099, and Hex core €4,099. I can't help but feel we're being gipped here, specially considering Apple's nice tax rates here in Ireland. :'(

Im planning to use vlc as well to watch 4k movies, tax is truly a killer i know what ya mean :(

Hopefully the start of dec we get to see it
 
For business owners or users managing video editing design companies using multiple Macs the high pricing and benefits of the new Mac Pro may not be enticing. My cousin who works in a video Post Production company with 15 Mac Pros and 15 30" Apple Cinema Displays said that management decided they will just continue with their current tower Mac Pros. Upgrading to the new cylinder Mac Pro would mean their expenses multiplied 15 times that's too costly for the company. They are happy with their tower Mac Pros, a mix of 2009 and 2008 models and still meets their needs adequately

With the base price of $2999 your expenses does not end there and with a small 256g storage, comes out expensive.
 
For business owners or users managing video editing design companies using multiple Macs the high pricing and benefits of the new Mac Pro may not be enticing. My cousin who works in a video Post Production company with 15 Mac Pros and 15 30" Apple Cinema Displays said that management decided they will just continue with their current tower Mac Pros. Upgrading to the new cylinder Mac Pro would mean their expenses multiplied 15 times that's too costly for the company. They are happy with their tower Mac Pros, a mix of 2009 and 2008 models and still meets their needs adequately

(emphasis added). Frankly, they probably were not going to by new Mac Pros regardless of what Apple announced right now. It is nice, convenient justification of they are "too different" or "too high priced" . Even if Apple came out with another tower Mac Pro it would be cheaper and lower impact just to maybe roll out a set of new video cards or storage upgrades.

If their increased workload demands have gone stagnant then the need for newest devices tends to go stagnant also. That is far more what is happening at the customer's site than anything going on inside of Apple.
 
I'd stay well clear of the D300's at any rate.

Here's some very informative info for 4K, editing and FirePros

http://fireuser.com/blog/autodesk_is_/amd.com/amd.com/afds/P30/gdconf.com/

The lowest card I see really mentioned with working with 4K is the W7000/D500

Who says the W7000 matches up with the D500?

They don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#FirePro_Workstation_Series


The W7000 has 1280 steam processors , about 2.4 TFLOPs , 153 Gb/s bandwidth , and 256 bit memory path.

Apple's spec page says that the D300 has

1280 stream processors , 2 TFLOPs , 256 bit memory path , 160 GB/s bandwidth , and 256 bit memory path.

That is a far, far, better match than the W5000's

768 processors , 102 GB/s bandwidth , and 256 bit memory path.

The only match there is the memory path. The rest are way off.


The only time the W5000/D300 is mentioned is for SolidWorks,

The fundamental flaw here is whether Apple is using the W5000 at all. So it not being mentioned is irrelevant.

Roughly it is

W7000 -> D300 [ stripped of 2GB of VRAM ]
W8000 (approximately ) -> D500 [ down 1 GB of VRAM and some stream processors ]

W9000 -> D700

P.S. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's D500 are really the same GPU chip as the D700 with some processors disabled for a cheaper cost. Apple designs one board for both D500 and D700 with some VRAM mounting points left unpopulated on the D500 variant but otherwise the layout basically the same.
 
Last edited:
D300 specs are a perfect match for v7900.

I tried plugging in a 6950 but it wasn't a driver match. Maybe a 6970 or something else from Cayman.

I also tried 6870, but it is Barts

Well know for sure when enough people try these cards in Mavericks, one core will match like how I found D700 and sheep found D500.

People are going to be thrilled to find their nMP carries a 3 year old Cayman chip if that turns out to match.
 
D300 specs are a perfect match for v7900.

No they are not. (this was already blown up in another or this thread. Can't seem to find at the moment. )


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#FirePro_Series

The TFLOPs are substantively lower. The V7900 is even older and stuck on PCIe v2. (that will be even worse real world OpenCL performance where the data has to be transported to the card. ). Finally, it doesn't even do 4K.

"... Max Resolution: 2560x1600 @ 60Hz ... "
http://www.amd.com/us/products/workstation/graphics/ati-firepro-3d/v7900/Pages/v7900.aspx#4

It also doesn't make particularly much sense since the v7900 is the highest point in that generation's line up whereas the D300 is obviously not the highest point in that technology that Apple is deploying now.
 
I think both the iPads and the New Mac Pro's are priced to high. Like many others I was expecting entry price to be $2499. $2999 starting is just ridiculous.
 
No they are not. (this was already blown up in another or this thread. Can't seem to find at the moment. )


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#FirePro_Series

The TFLOPs are substantively lower. The V7900 is even older and stuck on PCIe v2. (that will be even worse real world OpenCL performance where the data has to be transported to the card. ). Finally, it doesn't even do 4K.

"... Max Resolution: 2560x1600 @ 60Hz ... "
http://www.amd.com/us/products/workstation/graphics/ati-firepro-3d/v7900/Pages/v7900.aspx#4

It also doesn't make particularly much sense since the v7900 is the highest point in that generation's line up whereas the D300 is obviously not the highest point in that technology that Apple is deploying now.

Memory bandwidth and stream processors are a perfect match.

All we need is folks with various AMD cards to try them in Mavericks.

One of them is going to show up as D300.

Or someone can take the extension I mention in D500 thread apart and find what device id it matches too. Family will be obvious, only final nibble changes in family.

When GT120 came out was similar confusion as it was OEM only. Changing 4 bytes in 9500gt rom turns it into GT120, even same device id.

Gt120 sure sounded better than 9500GT. Same game here.
 
Actually I wouldn't put it past Apple to have a deal with AMD for some semi custom products. Much like they have with Intel for some CPU's.

If the D300 is the old V7900, with just some changes ( die shrink to current process) and slight upgrades it would be rather weak still. The old V line of cards weren't all that great.
 
Memory bandwidth and stream processors are a perfect match.

The W7000 has 4GB of VRAM. If stripping away some ranked VRAM gets back to the same 160Gb/s as this earlier part than Apple may have done it. If charging W7000 kind of prices with 2GB less VRAM on the card that is just even more money in Apple's pocket in exchange for very slightly better spec porn ( very likely very little real world performance difference).


But it make extremely little common sense for Apple to pass up a perfectly capable 2012 part for a 2011 part for almost 2014 system. This older part is only a closer match if stand on your head and myopically squint at the overall issues. Or have some disinformation campaign you are actively engaged in.
 
Im really tempted to sell off my current mac pro and purchase a 6 core mac pro with d500 gpus. The only problem I have which is kind of stopping me is being stuck with those gpus for the life of the computer:mad:
 
I'll wait to see how this new platform matures a bit, at least two iterations before I make a judgement call on price. I am not sure they are totally out of line right now even, will have to see some benchmarks / comparisons. I just went back and looked at what I paid for my current 5,1 6 core 3.33 back in 3/2011. It came with one 1TB Sata drive, 3GB of ram and a 5770 for $3,379. I think I have about 8K in it now with all the upgrades, external RAID, 30" ACD, etc.

It's the cost of doing business, it is a tax write off and having a capable machine saves time and time is money and your life. For those who are hardware enthusiasts, not sure what to say other than save your dough for your hobby and buy the new toy when you can.

All in all, the prices do not surprise me, these are not going to sell like iMacs so there is a crap load of R/D to offset. I think it is going to be at least two years before we see what these systems can do in totality and that includes 3rd party expansion options, external systems that are cleanly setup, etc.

I'm good to go with my current setup and can wait.
 
At $3K base price, it's a tough decision. They certainly didn't price it to bring in people on the fence. The economy is crap and $3K is a ton of money for me and my wife.

This may be naive, but:

If you're a power-user and therefore need a power-computer, wouldn't that also make you a power-earner who isn't concerned about $3000?

If you're a student or someone not making a lot of money, doesn't a nice $1000-$1500 iMac or macbook pro suffice?
 
And it is £2000 if I buy it through my company. Are you really this blind that this argument makes no financial sense? Cars are also more expensive in the UK. Think for a moment about it.

You do realise most people here are buying for personal use and don't understand company/corporate tax right? If you're buying it for personal use it is cheaper go to America and pick one up while you're out there (providing you were already planning on flying out)..that's how I bought my 5d mark III.

Just don't get caught in customs lol.
 
It's new so it may come down to $2299 or something in a year. The new iPhone started out way to high but came down to earth in what you got for what you paid.

Apple usually has a habit of going high on totally new stuff like first iPhone, Cube, TiBook, and small round Mac Pro. When form factor has been around for some time they don't go quite as high.
 
This may be naive, but:

If you're a power-user and therefore need a power-computer, wouldn't that also make you a power-earner who isn't concerned about $3000?

If you're a student or someone not making a lot of money, doesn't a nice $1000-$1500 iMac or macbook pro suffice?

It isn't that black and white. There are a number of things that make the Mac Pro different than a $1,000 box that could give many users the same level of performance within their workflow, but for many users those things just don't add up to being worth the extra over alternatives. From a performance level the Mac Pro is going to fall in to consideration as it starts on the level high-end consumer stuff is at. Of course the price is for professional users and that is going to piss people off and they are going to comment.

Being a professional who needs a powerful computer to work efficiently doesn't mean any purchase can be justified or that the features are worth it over alternative products.
 
I'm in for one. I don't understand why everyone is shocked at the $2999 starting price.

My top-spec non-Retina mid-2012 MBP was $2650 with only 8GB memory and no SSD. I've since gone to 16GB and a 512GB SSD, so I'm in it over $3k (Not including the ATD).

The new MP has more memory, MUCH better GPUs, better CPU, more ports, and an SSD...for less money than I have in my cMBP. And people are complaining? Seriously? I was thinking the base would start around $4k, $3k is great.

Specing a new iMac similar to the new MP is only $250 less, granted you also get a 27" display with the iMac but you also take a hit on CPU and GPU.

Would it have been NICE for the new MP to be priced lower? Of course, everyone would love to pay less for something. However, EXPECTING it to be less and feeling upset because it's not is just not realistic, IMO. It's a great piece of hardware. For less than $1k I'll be able to upgrade from my cMBP to a new MP, provided I don't go for any MP upgrades right off the bat.

Putting it into a different perspective, it would be dumb of me to buy an iMac when I can get a new MP for just a little bit more. I think Apple priced the base MP just right, all things considered.
 
I'd be using the nMac Pro for music creation and possibly recording. It comes down to those dual GPUs and the possibility of my plugin libraries and effects developers adopting OpenCL.

I would need to see some progress or any good evidence that there will be an adoption of OpenCL before investing in a computer where the GPUs are a large part of the $3000 base price.
 
And a lot more in external enclosure/PCIe chassis costs. And latency when it comes to the audio production market that uses ProTools and the like, since the PCIe card must go through a PCIe->Thunderbolt bridge, and face some pretty horrible overhead due to the PCIe 2.0 x4 link width they get for their throughput. And that's assuming nothing else is taking any of that bandwidth from the Falcon Crest controller (it looks like two ports per FC controller here).



If you game, an iMac will fare better so long as you get the top of the line iMac. If you do compute work, the GPUs will work overtime for you and then some. But unless you deal primarily in compute (OpenCL or another GPU specific API) work, the value is definitely not there in these TrashCan Pros.



For the first time ever, I've gotten myself parts for a Hackintosh. Mine is a Hackwell Pro. I'm utilising a Z87 chipset instead of a modified X79 chipset, which is what Apple is using here (Sandy Bridge-E/Ivy Bridge-E), but the Xeons aren't necessarily more powerful clock for clock, they just have more cache. Their real strength comes in the extra PCIe lanes compared to Haswell's 16 lanes.



Follow guides like you see on tonymacx86.com for the parts and you can then choose to follow instructions from here, InsanelyMac, or use the UniBeast/MultiBeast installers on tonymacx86.com.

It's a lot easier to build a Hackie today than it was two years ago, by far.



Just a clarification here: Enthusiasts won't touch these machines. Enthusiasts are the type that fiddle with their hardware, upgrade as paths open up to them, and go for the most power with the best longevity they can get.

These machines fulfill none of those roles.



See above.



You're comparing Apples to Oranges (no pun intended). The 2010/12 Mac Pros used the Nehalem/Westmere architecture, a full two "tock" cycles behind the current Ivy Bridge-E Xeons. Comparing CPUs whose architecture is four years apart isn't really viable.



It's going to come down to latency due to bridging a PCIe card to Thunderbolt, bandwidth limitations (2 GB/sec max for a Falcon Crest controller before overhead), and the cost of moving drives to enclosures.

The biggest problem is that instead of being completely internal with faster overall capability (especially for RAIDs), you're using a PCIe -> TB and then having to hope your other TB ports (one of the other two FC controllers) are enough bandwidth for what you need to do.

Video production will suffer in this regard especially as it has already been demonstrated by a review of a fairly good Thunderbolt to PCIe chassis. Heavy track counts for audio production would suffer similarly.



The W9000s by themselves are $3500. Each. Assuming anywhere near those specs for the top of the line card, and $1500 per card, even as an "upgrade" option price, would be pie in the sky dreaming.



Input lag has little to do with video cards (for the most part). It has more to do with your display's processing. This is being partly addressed in the near future by nVidia's G-Sync hardware solution. But that will be costly and impractical for many people, especially those that use large TVs as their displays, since even 32" "computer" dispays cost far more than a decent 55" or 60" TV would.

For some, the tradeoff of high price for almost zero lag is worth it. For others, until competition makes the tech widely available for as many users as possible, it's just not worth it as the value isn't there.

As for the pricing of the TrashCan Pro, I pegged it pretty close when I figured the entry level to be $2800 by sourcing prices of components. Factoring in a markup, I was pretty much spot on.

The prices listed aren't unreasonable given the particular hardware being used (FirePros aren't cheap and neither are >4-core Xeon 26xx CPUs). The SSDs are overpriced as usual, and the RAM presented is downright pitiful, as I managed to get 32 GB RAM for $280 vs. the 12 GB RAM Apple gives you for much more than that.

That said, given that the machine is aimed at data analysis, video rendering (in a very cold room mind you, since the machine is going to thermally throttle itself otherwise), and medical imaging, there just isn't any real value to most of the people that really want a newer and more powerful machine with expandability.

And the "cost of ownership" goes far beyond the initial sticker shock - you pay through the nose for TB accessories, and if you have any real need for PCIe cards, you'll pay $300 minimum for a PCIe bridge enclosure. And that's pretty much the cost per PCIe slot. And multiple PCIe slot enclosures are still subject to the same 2 GB/sec limitations just like a single PCIe slot enclosure. To put that in perspective, 2 GB/sec is PCIe 1.0 x8, before overhead. And that bandwidth is shared across all devices on the same Falcon Crest controller. So a 4K display means you can't put anything else on the TB chain for that particular controller. So such a display means both ports on that controller are effectively "taken". Falcon Crest controls two ports per controller and there are six ports, for a total of three controllers per MP.

Unless you're a business owner that determines that the cost/performance ratio is there for these machines or can just outright afford to buy anything in the world, these machines aren't really for you and you'll regret getting one in the long run.

And for those of you drooling over the Turbo Boost clock frequencies, those are for single core operations. Once more than one core reaches a certain utilization percentage, the CPUs will not Boost unless they're in a motherboard whose UEFI BIOS specifically allows full unlocking of the Turbo function for all cores. That. Is. Not. Happening. With. Apple. Ever.

(And it won't happen in this machine anyway due to its thermal dissipation limitations).

Unless you're afraid of building a system or just have no skills at doing so, avoid these and save yourself $1k or more and build a Hackwell Pro. There are guides with fully compatible hardware "out of the box" requiring no DSDTs, SSDTs, or other major surgery. Just some simple installers and BAM, you're up and running. And you get to choose the level of cooling you want for your system so it never throttles on you even if you try running Prime95 for days on end.

Wow, Squishy Tia. Thanks for the time to write all that. Food for thought. Need time to digest now. #
 
Specing a new iMac similar to the new MP is only $250 less, granted you also get a 27" display with the iMac but you also take a hit on CPU and GPU.

CPU is going to be VERY similar there. GPU might be too, much more than you think. You are ignoring the way things are optimized. What do you pay for with a notebook? You pay for a portable machine. In raw computing power the difference used to be magnitudes apart compared to what it is today. Really the specs are not far off from what was used in the $2500 model adjusted for hardware generation. I wouldn't tell you not to buy it, but it is a price hike.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.