Actually what I need is a better Mac mini. Now depends how configurable this new machine will be and the entry spec and price I might get one.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If the Mac Pro comes out in 2018, will you buy one?
- Thread starter fourthtunz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
More like this:
If this happens, we would have the best of both worlds.
I really like the mobility of a base unit to work on the go and the power of a complete system to more demanding, careful and finishing projects.
Let's hope you're right!
i honestly don't think you're going to notice any change in the computer's performance by disabling spotlight.. but, whatever:
Code:
sudo launchctl unload -w /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.metadata.mds.plistheh, that model isn't even what i use in my work
..and my (computer based) work would be more likened to designing and modeling those machines.. which, i'm sure you know, is far less taxing to a computer than doing something like particle simulations.. (but likewise, probably requires more skill/talent as a user
2GB of raw CAD data? what the heck are you working on, a Boeing 727 emergency scenario or something?
ya dig?
I'm sure your full of talent and skills as opposed to me. Not to shy on modesty either. 2GB of raw CAD data is nothing more than a machine(can't tell you what) with 100 sub assemblies. I'm sure a Boeing is a 'bit' more than this. And yea, this idiot designs machines too, not just animates them.
[doublepost=1492786414][/doublepost]
My current Dell has 2x14 cores and two Quadro K5200 cards. A single v4 2683 renders faster than twice the best 12 core mac pro. Just for my look dev workflow i can render on the fly while adapting shaders. I have deadlines and i'm sure Apple is wonderful but i am using CUDA witch is not available on Apple. So again, Apple is waaaaay behind this and even though i used macs 20 years i am now past them. All i have left from my Apple days are an old mac mini and my iPhone. I just completed my transition to windows in the past 2 years and i will not go back to Apple. I'm sure they will come up with a wonderful machine and it will be so great that the world will sigh on wonder. That's lovely but i moved on, to do actual work you know? Not all of us are skilled and talented engineers designing coffee grinders and vacuum cleaners on 4 years old tech. Some of us are dumb animators doing stupid movies and animations that don't require any skills what so ever. Maybe this is why Apple designed such a wonderful 'pro' machine in the first place, to get rid of all this unskilled workers like me and be left with wonder boys like you. No offence, ok? Just some thoughts from an unskilled idiot....
I can't think of any laptop that gets significantly better battery life under load. Every pro laptop from what I can tell gets between 3-5 hours under heavy load, and the new MBP isn't different in that regard.
As soon as you drive any laptop hard enough for the fans to really spin up - kiss the battery life goodbye.
There have been a lot of "power efficiency" improvements, but almost all of them have been focused on reducing the power draw under light or idle loads. Once you drive that 35 watt CPU hard, it's going to pull 35 watts.
Last edited:
It depends on a few factors tbh.
If it's a proper Mac Pro with USB3 ports, lots of PCIe sockets, internal storage expansion, replaceable GPU's and a half reasonable price tag then I'm a definite purchaser.
It'd have to be reasonably quiet too as I use mine in a music studio.
If Apple make the ridiculous mistake of making me use USB-C ports and price it from £3000 or something horrendously expensive like the current Mac Pro's, then there's not a cat in hells chance I'd buy one.
My current 2009 Mac Pro (now flashed to a 2010 12 core), was originally an 8 core Mac and I got it new for £1799.
The current entry level Mac Pro is £3,000 - that's utterly ridiculous for a computer in 2017.
It's far too expensive for most and not in line with the price of the previous Mac Pros when they were introduced.
A 20' G5 iMac when launched in £2008 cost $1899
The Current 27" iMac cost $1799 - a $100 less and the 21" just $1099.
An 8 core Mac Pro in 2008 cost $2799 and a 6 core Mac Pro in 2017 costs $2999.
So even despite the recent price drop, the current Mac Pro costs $200 more than it used to - it's simply over priced.
If Apple's next Mac Pro is as over priced as their current offerings, then it'll meet the same fate as their current range IMO.
I and many like me simply couldn't afford it.
Aspirational pricing is one thing, unattainable pricing is another!!!
It's okay to say it's a flagship Pro model, but not everyone who buys Pro products is a professional.
If Canon relied on just Pro's to buy their DSLRs they'd sell far fewer than they do.
Aspiring professionals and keen enthusiasts like to use 'pro' equipment too, but they have to be able to attain it.
Apple need to introduce the new Mac Pro with a much lower entry price point.
A price starting from £2000 ($2500) or even lower for it to be in contention for the none pro.
Any more expensive than that and Apple will almost exclusively be relying on the 'Pro' market for sales and after their recent history there probably isn't as many of them left as they think.
The 'Prosumer' has to be able to afford the new Mac Pro too or it'll be doomed to fail...AGAIN!
Last edited:
hmm.. that wasn't meant as "I'm (personally) more talented/skilled than you (individually)".. didn't mean to trigger you like that. srry.
(ok, maybe just a little bit i meant to trigger ; ) )
ok, you're talking about shattered assemblies then i'm guessing.. not single 2GB files.. like, a single 2GB file containing raw CAD data could almost be likened to a 2GB excel file.. which is a crapton of information and almost an unheard of file size.. it just doesn't take a whole of MB to store the info which basically contains lists of 3 numbers (XYZ) describing points in 3D space.
but even if we're talking non-monolithic 2GB CAD files, it's still a helluva lot of work that went into creating the machine.. at least weeks worth of work.. and probably more than one person working on the assemblies.
the bulk of the computer work of the entire project was (or could be) done on 'average' pro computers.. fast quads or 6core with 'good' GPU.. and, the bulk of the work (which occurs prior to going to rendering stages) is where much of the real skill is happening.. it takes much more effort/learning/and yes, natural talent to become proficient at modeling than it does rendering.
you say you model as well.. so i don't even know why i'm attempting to make this point because you already know what i'm saying to be true.. right?
===
my point is this-
there's an absurd idea that floats around these parts of the interwebs that puts a direct correlation between how 'pro' someone is and what type of processes they run on their computers.. it's a trap many people seemingly fall into and it basically boils down to not being able to have any sort of decent conversation about what type of computers or advancements will be most beneficial to the pro community.
for example- let's say i need to convert a TIFF to JPG.. incredibly simple/fast, right? no skill involved other than a basic understand of computing.. now say i need to convert video codec.. pretty much the same thing and same amount of skill is required ,except, the second one requires much more computer processing.. and the thinking trap certain people fall into is that the person doing the video conversion is more pro because their software "can use as many cores as i can throw at it".. and that "iToys can't handle my serious work and apple doesn't care about my PRO needs and they only build web surfing machines for dumb people to see what their Facebook pals ate for lunch"
but meanwhile, they're not even doing anything difficult or requiring critical thinking to begin with. (which is, i think, the reason why people generally won't talk about what they're using the computers for and instead resort to "i need a PRO machine!!! thats all you need to know!!... if people spoke more honestly about their own particular usages, the whole veil would collapse)
---
for clarity, that's not aimed at you in particular pcd.. and, i most definitely know their are certain highly skilled/talented people who also happen to be doing things requiring a lot of processing power.. just that they certainly aren't in an elite field of computer user nor are there very many people like this anyway.. definitely much (much!) less than reading these forums about this elusive PRO!!! would lead one to believe..
i imagine you do have deadlines.. but keep it real would you?
the projects, at least as i'm understanding them, are months long.. the actual deadline is the whole project and your 'deadlines' are small fraction of that.. is that correct?
huh?
i thought you said you were using Houdini daily??
"My daily workflow requires to bring full CAD machines into Houdini and apply fluids and particles simulations."
srry but something isn't adding up here
but this...
that's what the whole rant is about earlier.
the implication that it's not possible to do actual work on macs
.whatever floats your boat i suppose but these types of statements just put holes in your spiel and doesn't strengthen your stance except to those who also think a geekBench score determines the amount or actuality of work capable on a particular computing platform.
Last edited:
^^^ flat five, if I could "double like" what you just said, I would! Last year I worked on a film that was entirely edited on an iMac 5K. I know the director very well, she's an experienced filmmaker within the "french canadian film industry", and she's no less "pro" than the guys working at Marvel... The thing is, there are pros who don't need a Mac Pro, they just need a very capable machine that will do what they want. Times have changed, a lot of "pros" don't need a Mac Pro, and yes many need one too. It's not a pissing contest.
I'm convinced Apple is very much aware of what's going on in the "pro community", and losing this market was never their goal. nMP was a miscalculation and probably a mistake, but it's always easier to judge after the fact. Yeah of course it took them quite a bit of time to "react", but that's where we're at now, and for me the glass is half full. I like the fact that the Mac Pro is *officially* not dead. The Mac Pro is like a supercar, it's a niche but the brand needs it.
In a studio where I work we needed a new Mac a couple weeks ago, and we bought a 6-core trashcan...the horror!!!! ;-) But it does exactly what we need it to do and that's all that matters. When the new one comes out, we'll see...as for me, my 5,1 is the best Mac I've ever had, and still very powerful *for what I do*.
I'm convinced Apple is very much aware of what's going on in the "pro community", and losing this market was never their goal. nMP was a miscalculation and probably a mistake, but it's always easier to judge after the fact. Yeah of course it took them quite a bit of time to "react", but that's where we're at now, and for me the glass is half full. I like the fact that the Mac Pro is *officially* not dead. The Mac Pro is like a supercar, it's a niche but the brand needs it.
In a studio where I work we needed a new Mac a couple weeks ago, and we bought a 6-core trashcan...the horror!!!! ;-) But it does exactly what we need it to do and that's all that matters. When the new one comes out, we'll see...as for me, my 5,1 is the best Mac I've ever had, and still very powerful *for what I do*.
The nMP wan't a bad machine 3 1/2 years ago.
Apple made some mistakes, correct me is I'm wrong on any of this:
1. The top end 12 Core 24 thread nMP offered Intel's top end Xeon E5-2697v2 processor. Intel EOLed the socket used, and never offered a faster version that would be pin compatible with the nMP. Leaving no room for Apple to spec bump the CPU.
2. Apple never spec bumped the FirerPro D700.
3. Apple used a non standard SSD interface rather than M.2, and didn't even offer a second SSD slot, or even room, or internal interface for a traditional HD.
4. Thunderbolt is yet another in a long line of interfaces backed by Apple, that has failed( ADC, SCSI, ADP, ADC, FW ) I mean it's hard to find a PC Motherboard that even supports TB, and Apple added more ports, than they had PCIE lanes to support. Meaning they had to share bandwidth.
4.5 Apple seriously miscalculated people's willingness to add things to an otherwise beautiful and quite machine via expensive, loud, and cluttering external TB solutions.
Apple has lots of money, they could have EOLed the nMP years ago. I'm sure they may have taken some loss on what they spent on R&D and manufacturing lead up, but when you make these kind of mistakes, it's not better to compound them by waiting 3 1/2 years to admit it, and another 1-2 years after that to correct it.
Apple made some mistakes, correct me is I'm wrong on any of this:
1. The top end 12 Core 24 thread nMP offered Intel's top end Xeon E5-2697v2 processor. Intel EOLed the socket used, and never offered a faster version that would be pin compatible with the nMP. Leaving no room for Apple to spec bump the CPU.
2. Apple never spec bumped the FirerPro D700.
3. Apple used a non standard SSD interface rather than M.2, and didn't even offer a second SSD slot, or even room, or internal interface for a traditional HD.
4. Thunderbolt is yet another in a long line of interfaces backed by Apple, that has failed( ADC, SCSI, ADP, ADC, FW ) I mean it's hard to find a PC Motherboard that even supports TB, and Apple added more ports, than they had PCIE lanes to support. Meaning they had to share bandwidth.
4.5 Apple seriously miscalculated people's willingness to add things to an otherwise beautiful and quite machine via expensive, loud, and cluttering external TB solutions.
Apple has lots of money, they could have EOLed the nMP years ago. I'm sure they may have taken some loss on what they spent on R&D and manufacturing lead up, but when you make these kind of mistakes, it's not better to compound them by waiting 3 1/2 years to admit it, and another 1-2 years after that to correct it.
a slight correction:
if you read through the nMP patents, they do describe the machine as having been designed for two SSDs.. one on each of the GPUs.
re: #4.
are you sure thunderbolt has failed?
i really don't know as i don't have any thunderbolt stuff as yet but i don't think it's a fail.. seems like it's progressing still and being adopted by all, or nearly all manufacturers.
?
Well, what would you rather have on the mMP, Thunderbolt 3 or USB-C?
Likely it will have both, and USB-C supports Thunderbolt, on some level, tho I'm not really sure at what speed, or how it works.
How many vendors are offering TB Displays?
If it weren't a failed technology, I would think most PC's would be supporting it by now. Like I said before, Apple has done this over and over again. While Firewire and SCSI weren't completely failed offerings, Apple still bet on the wrong horse and backed it way too long. ATA beat out SCSI, Ps2 beat out ADB, USB killed Firewire, and propitiatory display connectors were just another set of failed idea's.
Tho Apple, itself likely made money on most of these, at the expense of it's users.
1. Not a mistake. Apple just never updated to latest CPU/socket.
2. Yes - mistake that Apple never offered better graphics.
3. Partial mistake - Yes, they should have used M.2. Would have been nice for second SSD. Not a mistake to bypass HDD, but obviously that's just my opinion.
4. Not a mistake. TB is great, just like FW was great for certain usage in its time, and SCSI was in its time.
4.5. Not a mistake. For people that needed TB expansion, it's worked very well. What many posters here are simply incapable of understanding is that the vast, vast, vast majority of computers users, including Mac Pro users, do not need to "expand" or "upgrade" their Macs. And devices they do need to add, are largely going to be external anyway.
The big mistake Apple made, and that almost everyone can agree on, is that they should be updating the Mac Pro every year, regardless if it's a big spec bump or a little one. And they should do that for all their products.
hmm.. those are the same thing.
like, there isn't a thunderbolt 3 cable that uses the mini-display-port style plug (that i know of at least)
You don't understand the technology, but you're trying to make a case out of this. TB3 has USB as part of the spec... if it has TB3, it also works as USB. "Type-C" is a connector shape. Apple never offered Firewire to the exclusion of USB (actually, Apple got on the USB train pretty early) - FW was a complementary technology for those that needed it. Do a little history reading before dismissing SCSI.
Does Apple sometimes go proprietary for no good reason other than they want to lock stuff down? Yes. But you're basically asking Apple to be something other than Apple.
What so many of these threads and posts get down to are posters here wanting Apple to be something it's not and never was.
Yeah they could have kept it at least competitive by developing updated graphics cards for the nMP. It's a shame they did not realise this or do not want to.
Does Thunderbolt 3 support DP 1.4?
Can a nMP or a yet to be release mMP support 8k displays via Thunderbolt 3?
No.
So Apple will have to admit that routing the Displays via Thunderbolt is not a practical solution. I'm not saying that USB-C will support DP 1.4, or we will start seeing USB-C displays, I am saying that Thunderbolt has limitations that will make it impractical for Apple to use it on the mMP as a primary display source.
Wouldn't it require a new Chipset, thus a new logic board design?
I'm not saying Apple made a mistake by adding TB, I am saying Apple miscalculated thinking people would be happy with TB as the only real source of upgradability. Look at the PC market, and all those users still clinging to their ancient cMP's. At some point you'll have to admit, that most of the world wants internal upgrades, not TB.
from what i gather, they wanted to and they tried to.. but it appears they original designed nMP under the assumption GPU technology would more quickly be seeing much more powerful GPUs generating a lot less heat.. but that isn't how things actually played out.. eventually, i imagine this will happen and we'll see the power of today's gpus in things like phones but it just hasn't happened yet nor as quickly as apple seemingly thought it might.
I'm aware of when Apple added USB and FW, but the first iPod's were FW only, and Apple at some point had to admit that it needed to switch to USB for the iPod. Do iDevices, where Apple makes most of it's money, use FW or USB?
- Since Thunderbolt 3 devices use discrete Thunderbolt chips to function, they will not function if plugged into a USB-C port.
idk, i think we might be talking about different things?
for clarity, just to see if we're even on the same page--
does 2016 MBP have ThunderBolt? or is it an example of apple 'killing off' thunderbolt since thunderbolt was a failure?
I never said Apple would kill off TB, right away, but when you consider that the PC world isn't using it, for the most part, manufactures, including Apple are not going to continue to develop TB devices that they can't sell to most of the world. This, in turn makes TB expensive, vs USB-C, because items are not mass produced for TB, the price never drops, and eventually no one want to pay intel the licensing fees, or buy the TB chipset.
TB dies.
Sorry, I can't keep up with your lack of understanding of the tech. I really don't mean for that to sound snarky, but if I had more time, I'd offer more explaination... maybe someone else can, or you can do some reading.
Yes, to some degree, there's some truth in that if you go by the way they framed it. Mostly, it's an after-the-fact b.s. excuse. They could have upgraded the GPUs or even switched to a single one, and obviously they could have just remade the same concept with a slightly larger form-factor. Apple had a concept for a Mac Pro "appliance" in the nMP... turned out there wasn't enough of a market for it... and they already knew there wasn't enough of a market for the cMP... so they sat on their hands and figured they'd see where that market went (i.e. iMac, MBP, Windows). Then they started to get nervous that they were losing the "mind share" on the pro end, and that might eventually hurt their consumer end where they make all their money.
yeah.. we're talking about something different i suppose.
because 2016 MBP only has USB-C ports (well, and a 3.5mm port)..
but it also has Thunderbolt capabilities.
but you're making it out to sound like it's an either/or scenario.. when it's not.
You don't get to act snarky, and offer no proof of what you are saying. USB-C and Thunderbolt share the same port, not really the same cables. TB requires expensive active cables for it's full throughput. PC are, and will, come equipped with USB-C, and you won't be able to plug your TB devices into them, and have them work, because Motherboard maufacures are not, and likely will not include TB Chips.
What market do you think manufactures will want to build products for?
If no one is mass producing TB products, the price will never drop, and it will simply fade away, as USB-C becomes the standard.
It has all the hallmarks of a failed interface. Come back in five years and tell me I don't understand things.
[doublepost=1492971231][/doublepost]
But it is, when you consider, as I keep pointing out, over and over, and others keep ignoring, they require two separate chipsets. PC manufactures are not including TB chips, TB devices won't work with PC's.
It's economies of scale, I don't want to build a product, and limit the users I can sell it too, that just doesn't make sense. Most of the world will use USB-C devices.
I'm talking about the overall limitations of TB, it is not going to replace PCIE expansion cards, or internal expansion cards in general. It is not going to replace USB-C, it is not going to replace MXM. It's not going to replace Display Port. It's not going to replace internal drive storage.
It's a niche market.
Apple banked on TB being able to use TB as a replacement for most of these things with the nMP, and they have admitted it was a mistake, it's time for apologist to see the light. You can't appeal to a niche market with a product like the nMP, when you're the most profitable company in the history of the world, and expect you are going to have success with that product.
So what is your point? Apple offers both TB and USB in TB. You're saying they should ONLY offer USB-C because TB3 isn't provided on every other computer?