Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
People always want more cores. I don't, but I don't require a workstation-level motherboard for my purposes, either, nor do I pay workstation prices. If I did, perhaps I'd expect dual processor capability. Apple is going to enter the Xeon workstation arena without dual processors at least as an option. Maybe the MP wont be priced as such, but I expect that it will, and it'll be a joke.

Hopefully the new Ivy bridge has a 12 core model and not a 6 actual + 6 virtual. I think most users aren't bothered by this, but it will deter some from purchasing the machine.

I think we can stop even considering the possibility that the new MP will top out at 6 real cores. This would pretty much be MP marketing suicide, as almost everyone would consider Apple stating "up to 12 cores" as an almost complete lie. Furthermore, if Apple were to count virtual cores in their core count, they would be promoting the 13" MBPs as quad core, and the 15" MBPs as 8-core. They don't.

Finally, considering the likely cost of the system is going to start at 2 grand (or even 2.5K), a large portion of the potential MP customer base won't be able to justify spending $2K+ on a system that will still be in the same performance ballpark as a much cheaper iMac; that also comes with a $1000 screen, for free.

Let alone the idea of buying 2-4 quad Minis, and building a micro-cluster...

Some people would prefer to pay the rather small sum to get a gaming GPU and then boot into Windows for games. This as opposed to paying for dual fireGL cards which are ridiculously expensive. The w9000 are $3,300 each and are only as good as a 7970 ($370) for games.

Agreed. Also, there's the high probability that the w9000 won't be all that much faster than a 7970 in ALL pro applications. For example, they both have similar SP/DP FlOp/s, so they should have similar performance in many GPGPU tasks, especially if one is writing their own code. For example, scientific computing, or research-based engineering applications, where the vast scale of a simulation requires a lot of horsepower, but the complexity of the algorithms isn't really all that much more than matrix multiplication. In that case, an extra 5-6 grand for a few extra percent in performance is certainly not justifiable.

If, by some miracle, they manage to price the new MP with dual w9000 for < $4,000, I will be impressed. However, I'm guessing that if they even offer a model like that, it's going to be > $7,000.

Well, I think it's safe to say they WILL offer a model like that, but that the price of such a config could be ANYTHING.

$4K isn't impossible, because as far as I can tell, the 3K premium is because the extra application/driver support required by the workstation GPUs is expensive; but really should be the same for purchasing 1 or 2 cards, and if Apple sells a lot of these, that cost should be able to be driven down to a small fraction.

Then again, I wouldn't be TOO surprised it the cost was more like $7K either, because it IS Apple we're talking about here. :rolleyes:

All I can say is from anecdotal evidence, I think Apple would be best trying to price their at least close to top-spec machine at around $4K, because they will sell far more at such a price. I know this because I think if there is one that will burn through any C++/OpenCL code I write for it, AND play any modern game at 1440p @ maximum graphics settings, all for under $5K inc. Apple Display, I will probably buy one.

YES, I know I could just build a gaming PC for a lot less, but I don't want to. After all, if you spend 2K on a nice gaming PC, plus buy a nice MBP to do work on, you might as well have just bought the darn $5K MP to begin with. :cool:
 
Last edited:
I am super excited about the new Mac Pro. My current Mac Pro with its big UPS and external SAS disk system take up about 6 sq ft of floor space. Below is part of my current cable mess--and I am excited to reduce that a bit by putting a TB RAID and the Pro behind my monitors, up on the desk, reduce dust in the machines, and get some of the floor space back.

Only bummer is that I think we lost some RAM slots, but we don't have specs yet.

9042822832_6102524236_z.jpg
 
considering the likely cost of the system is going to start at 2 grand (or even 2.5K), a large portion of the potential MP customer base won't be able to justify spending $2K+ on a system that will still be in the same performance ballpark as a much cheaper iMac; that also comes with a $1000 screen, for free.

You have no idea if the new yet to be released Mac Pro will be comparable to the iMac in performance. It would be better to wait for the new Mac Pro to be released rather than spreading mistruths about it.

Since the screen of the iMac is included in the price it is not free.
 
Only bummer is that I think we lost some RAM slots, but we don't have specs yet.

Image

Cool pic.

But yes, we have those specs already. There are 4 DIMM slots. So the reasonable limit is 64GB. You pay a tiny bit more for 16GB DIMMs (per GB price) but 8GB and 4GB are currently priced pretty much the same so for 16GB or 32GB the price per gig is the same. And then like 10% increase for the 16GB modules. At least that what I see from checking MP6,1 specific RAM type on-line. I'm sure there will be dumbasses like OWC and such who charge double for typing the word "Apple" into their ads.

Anyway, here's what we currently know about the new MacPro 6,1 as shown at WWDC:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/17406352/


,
 
You have no idea if the new yet to be released Mac Pro will be comparable to the iMac in performance. It would be better to wait for the new Mac Pro to be released rather than spreading mistruths about it.

Since the screen of the iMac is included in the price it is not free.

My point was in direct correlation to the Mac Pro topping out at 6 physical cores: which is not going to be true, and providing reasons WHY it won't be true. It's not a mistruth to state that the performance of a six-core CPU is going to be around 50% faster than a quad-core CPU (such as in the iMac), which is clearly far less than what almost everyone is hoping/expecting, ie 200% faster, or 3 times as fast, at a rough approximation; 12 cores vs 4.

As the screen is included in the price of the iMac, it IS free, when compared to a Mac Pro, where the quoted price is sans screen. An equivalent 27" screen, ie. Apple Display, is an extra $1K. This is why I would expect Apple to at least be able to price a low-end Mac Pro at, or less than, the price of the top iMac, even with greater performance. Clearly we have to wait for full specs and prices to find out whether they do or not, although it seems unlikely.
 
As the screen is included in the price of the iMac, it IS free, when compared to a Mac Pro, where the quoted price is sans screen.

The screen is not free, it is part of the computer and included in the price. Just because part of the price comes from the screen does not mean that the screen is free.
 
The screen is not free, it is part of the computer and included in the price. Just because part of the price comes from the screen does not mean that the screen is free.

*sigh*

This is an argument over semantics and point of view.

Can we just agree that because a $2K iMac comes with a screen, included in the price, the Mac Pro does not, and an equivalent screen is $1K, then it is logical that a baseline Mac Pro, which is likely to cost in excess of $2K without the screen, really needs to be significantly faster than the iMac to justify its existence, especially as they now seem to have similar expandability?
 
That's what I was talking about too - SATA III over TB. The benchmarks are already available:


And that's TB1 on a Mac Laptop.


So I guess TB2 will be faster. ;)

What's your setup? Would it be faster than 10 x 6gbps SATA III ports (included on the new ASUS Z87 Mobo) ?

----------

What's your setup? Would it be faster than 10 x 6gbps SATA III ports (included on the new ASUS Z87 Mobo) ?

That's not any faster than this RAID 0 with 2 SATA drives on this Azrock board. (you'd have to compare the drives themselves to see if it's an even comparison).

raid.png

http://www.4d.com/blog/4d-ssd-watch-august-31.html
 
What's your setup? Would it be faster than 10 x 6gbps SATA III ports (included on the new ASUS Z87 Mobo) ?

----------



That's not any faster than this RAID 0 with 2 SATA drives on this Azrock board. (you'd have to compare the drives themselves to see if it's an even comparison).

Image
http://www.4d.com/blog/4d-ssd-watch-august-31.html

What'd you do, quote yourself? Confusing...

Anyway, no, we're not testing drive speed. The kit used is capable of 3 or 4 times what the SpeedTest is showing so very able to saturate the TB1 bus.

As far as 10 SSD SATA drives it would totally depend on how they're hooked up and what the specs are of what they're hooked up to.

About 3 or 4 years ago some guy hooked up 24 SSDs across 3 or 4 RAID controllers and got 2GB/s out of it... You remember this:


And so on and so forth. I'm sure if you try hard and get all the right cards & drives you can beat TB2 speeds. I'm not sure if it's actually worth doing presently - in the middle of 2013. I certainly don't have any use for something like that. I get a max of about 700MB/s from my 4-drive RAID0 using 3TB Seagate HDDs and that's plenty for me. I suppose with 3 or 4 SSDs in each TB2 enclosure and a total of 3 enclosures on the MP6,1 you could probably get close to 5GB/s or a little over maybe. I guess you could do that while also having three 4K monitors connected. <shrug>
 
The Mac Pro is a workstation class computer and is not in the same class as a PC desktop. It is not uncommon for workstation class computers to have external audio/video devices and DAS. Apple realized this and designed the new Mac Pro accordingly.


My iPad has fewer cables than the new Mac Pro. :eek: Similar comparison.

Are you for real??
 
Sounds like a good plan - me too.

I am super excited about the new Mac Pro. My current Mac Pro with its big UPS and external SAS disk system take up about 6 sq ft of floor space. Below is part of my current cable mess--and I am excited to reduce that a bit by putting a TB RAID and the Pro behind my monitors, up on the desk, reduce dust in the machines, and get some of the floor space back.

Only bummer is that I think we lost some RAM slots, but we don't have specs yet.

Image

I'm tired of all of the "clutter my desk" posts.
Those posters should buy an iMac.
 
I'm tired of all of the "clutter my desk" posts.

Then stop reading them.
Even at 6-cores the Mac Pro will put the hurt on an iMac. Apple has never advertised hyperthreaded cores as being actual 'cores' so it will most definitely not top out at 6+6. Do they advertise the latest Mac Pro 2012 as having 24 cores? No they don't. it'll be 12+12 with 6-core options most likely. May not be 4-core option anymore which would make sense to my mind and help define the lines.
 
*sigh*

This is an argument over semantics and point of view.

Can we just agree that because a $2K iMac comes with a screen, included in the price, the Mac Pro does not, and an equivalent screen is $1K, then it is logical that a baseline Mac Pro, which is likely to cost in excess of $2K without the screen, really needs to be significantly faster than the iMac to justify its existence, especially as they now seem to have similar expandability?

The Mac Pro also includes the option to use any display, while the iMac locks the buyer into using Apple's display. It's not hard to find a better display than the iMac's for considerably less than $1000.
 
I am super excited about the new Mac Pro. My current Mac Pro with its big UPS and external SAS disk system take up about 6 sq ft of floor space. Below is part of my current cable mess--and I am excited to reduce that a bit by putting a TB RAID and the Pro behind my monitors, up on the desk, reduce dust in the machines, and get some of the floor space back.

Only bummer is that I think we lost some RAM slots, but we don't have specs yet.

Image

It's still going to look a lot like that.
 
The Mac Pro is designed and sold as a workstation computer by Apple and consists of workstation class components.

Believe it or not there is a difference between a workstation and a desktop.

Can I get another glass of that? Really starting to enjoy the taste. Is that "Raspberry Rainbow or "Gratuitous Grape"?
 
Can I get another glass of that? Really starting to enjoy the taste. Is that "Raspberry Rainbow or "Gratuitous Grape"?

Just substitute everything you know about computing architecture for tons of money to burn and just enough knowledge to sound totally ridiculous, then you can guzzle down the Solar Strawberry-Starfruit and enjoy this new trash-bucket with us!
 
Can I get another glass of that? Really starting to enjoy the taste. Is that "Raspberry Rainbow or "Gratuitous Grape"?

I'm going to assume this is a Kool-Aid joke.

Only Kool-Aid drinkers think Kool-Aid jokes are funny. :p

The 95.5% of people who DON'T live in the USA don't get it. :rolleyes:
 
I have two thunderbolt displays plugged into a mini right now and will definitely upgrade to the new Mac Pro when it is available. The thing is so powerful, small, and cool looking, how could I not?
 
First, I have two monitors, only one of which is DisplayPort. Next, what does the OP suggest I do with the four internal disk drives?

Not sure I understand the first bit. You can connect a display port monitor via thunderbolt.

You can put your drives into a DAS or a NAS.

I'll be getting one - probably a 6 or 8 core option. The wording during the keynote made it clear that there will be different bto options.
 
In case you don't know, USB 3.0 speed for a hard drive is nothing I would call excellent. SATA II and or III are much faster than the paultry speed of USB 3.0.

Thunderbolt is too expensive to even consider.. and in my Mac Pro I have 4 HDDS and they would run HORRIBLY SLOW under USB 3.0


Count me in. I generally upgrade my desktop every 4 years, and while my 2009 is still working just fine, this new machine seems like the ideal time to upgrade. So I'll be among the first to pre-order.

Configuration wise, since I mainly work on photography, I'll look for a high-clock quad core with entry level GPU's, 16GB of RAM, and max out the internal SSD (which is the best part of this machine IMHO).

I'll get a USB3 enclosure to house my spinning disk archives and one (4K) or two 27" ACD displays depending on what Apple launches at the same time (or even stick with my dual 24" ACDs if there's nothing new on the display front).

Can't wait.
 
In case you don't know, USB 3.0 speed for a hard drive is nothing I would call excellent. SATA II and or III are much faster than the paultry speed of USB 3.0.

Thunderbolt is too expensive to even consider.. and in my Mac Pro I have 4 HDDS and they would run HORRIBLY SLOW under USB 3.0

Are you sure you're not thinking of USB 2?

USB 3 seems to top out at about 400MB/s which is a bit slower but in the same ballpark as SATA3. However, both are a few times faster than the fastest spinning disks. USB 3 is actually perfectly suited for 2 disk arrays IMHO. I currently use a 3TB USB 3 HD for offsite backups and the drive doesnt come close to saturating the connection.

SSDs are a different story, and that's one of the exciting new aspects of the new Mac Pro... Those 1200MB/s PCIe SSDs! :D. Adding even more SSD storage is also easily accomplished with a $380 TB expansion chassis from Promise (J4).
 
Last edited:
Ok, I thought that SATA II or even SATA III were faster than USB 3.0 - Ok, here is my dilemma.. If I am to get the new iCan Mac Pro, I currently have 4 1TB HDD's in my 2010 6-core. All I need is a CHEAP and REASONABLE USB 3.0 enclosure to house all 4 of my drives.. Thunderbolt is out of the question and seriously, out of the realm of most people's pockets. TB is still stratespherically expensive and its a damn shame too.

So, would USB 3.0 enclosure for all 4 of my HDD's solve the problem?

Are you sure you're not thinking of USB 2?

USB 3 tops out at about 500MB/s which is in the same ballpark as SATA3 which are both a few times faster than the fastest spinning disks. USB 3 is actually perfectly suited for 2 disk arrays. I currently use a 3TB USB 3 HD for offsite backups and the drive doesnt come close to saturating the connection.

SSDs are a different story, and that's one of the exciting new aspects of the new Mac Pro... Those 1200MB/s PCIe SSDs! :D. Adding even more SSD storage is also easily accomplished with a $380 TB expansion chassis from Promise (J4).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.