Is the new Mac Pro a failure?

[996085]

BIased, Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)#Thunderbolt_2

4K capture devices on TB Chassis work as well as on PCIe bus period, 4K video capture hasn't enough bandwidth to jamm a Thunderbol 2 bus (TB in nMP is the TB2 variety).

What about 8K? Or 16K? Will these standards work well with TB Chassis? Yes, that last one is a little far fetched right now but I'm including it to illustrate the problem with the nMP...it may work fine for contemporary workloads of its time but what about future tasks? The cMP has been able to adapt with the times because of its ability to expand / upgrade. For example the cMP shipped with USB 2.0...the contemporary USB standard at the time. However today I can install a USB 3.0 card to use higher speed devices. I can even install a Thunderbolt card and take advantage of Thunderbolt. Or use Thunderbolt 2. Or even Thunderbolt 3 should it be available as an add on card. How do I add TB3 to the nMP? Plug it into two, or more, TB2 ports? This is the problem with the nMP...in order to get TB3 I need to buy a new Mac Pro. With the cMP I can buy a card and have the updated speed in a matter of minutes and for a lot less cost.

For storage, the card you quoted uses full 16 PCIe lanes to host 4 m.2 SSD, actually you can host 2 m.2 SSD on a single TB2 port (the nMP has 6), so the nMP actually can host 12 m.2 SSD., the updated nMP will have TB3 with double bandwidth, so with current offering I can install on my nMP 6TB of SSD M.2 storage (12x512GB).

The problem with hosting 12 m.2 SSDs across six TB2 ports is each TB2 port is limited to 2.5GB/sec. Merely plugging in six devices into six TB2 ports does not aggregate the bandwidth across all ports. You'd need to provide a software RAID configuration in order to obtain anything above 2.5GB/sec. Contrast this with PCIe 2.0 x 16 which provides 8GB/sec without the need to perform any software based RAID. If Apple would have updated the cMP to PCIe 3.0 then you'd have 16GB/sec per card...one card providing all the capabilities of six TB2 ports.

Further on TB2 you have Flexibility to daisy chain more than that, when not using one storage device you can use another on the daisy chain, you can't do that on PCIe, also I can Link My TB2 devices using Optical Fiber cable at 100 ft (and more as long there is a optical fiber cable as long as required) from my mac, actually isolating the capture device form any electronic noise source, try that on PCIe.

I could easily achieve the same result by installing any number of add on storage cards. Things like fiber cards to USB cards to even Thunderbolt cards. See, the nice thing about PCIe is I can use it to provide all the functionality of TB and more. The same cannot be said for the reverse case. What's even better about PCIe is I can add a TB3 card to the system when / if one should become available. How would one add TB3 to a nMP?

 

[996085]

Biased, also the new iMac has an faster SSD than the nMP, what about external SSDs? I can Install 12 LaCie LBD TB2 with 1.5GB/s can you do that on the cMP, what about the NVMe SSD which will replace current PCIe SSD o the upcoming updated nMP (2.5GB/s).

Sure...install a PCIe Thuderbolt 2 card (if one is available). That's the beauty of the cMP...you can add these things post purchase. Yes, at some point technology will reach the point where even the PCIe expansion capability of the cMP will be insufficient. But one will have got a good run for their money out of the cMP. Unfortunately one will not be able to add TB3 to the nMP.

 

[996085]

Most u'nMP will replace cMP at end of life cycle not the current nMP, those exploiting the nMP will not need the nMP new features for a while and those with pockets will purchase a new system instead upgrade as usual and sell the old nMP or give it to an less demanding teammate.

What is a "u'nMP"?

 

[rubecube]

How many nMP have been sold? From my perspective: I know hundreds of mac owners, and NONE who bought the nMP (while there are many who own a cMP). I am pretty sure that the numbers worldwide reflect the same proportions.

It's a failure.

 

[lowendlinux]

How many nMP have been sold? From my perspective: I know hundreds of mac owners, and NONE who bought the nMP (while there are many who own a cMP). I am pretty sure that the numbers worldwide reflect the same proportions.

It's a failure.

But that could be because they pretty inexpensive second hand.

 

[996085]

But that could be because they pretty inexpensive second hand.

And available for a lot longer.

 

[rubecube]

The nMP has been "around" for more than 2 years now: no trace of it anywhere. Most people I know who own a cMP bought it new... and still keep it going, because it's a great machine.

If it doesn't sell it's a failure, whatever justification you find for it.

 

[lowendlinux]

The nMP has been "around" for more than 2 years now, no trace of it anywhere. Most people I know who own a cMP bought it new... and still keep it going, because it's a great machine.

If it doesn't sell it's a failure, whatever justification you find for it.

How am I now justifying it?

I politely expressed an opinion all you really needed to say was: " Most people I know who own a cMP bought it new"

We don't know if it sells in any quantity because Apple doesn't release numbers.

 

[996085]

The nMP has been "around" for more than 2 years now: no trace of it anywhere. Most people I know who own a cMP bought it new... and still keep it going, because it's a great machine.

If it doesn't sell it's a failure, whatever justification you find for it.

The cMP has been around for almost 10 years...considerably longer than the nMP. I've seen the nMP in a number of places...even saw a few advertised for sale on Craigs List. Casual observation is not a means to determine if it's selling well or not. The only way we can do that is to look at sales numbers and compare them to previous sales. Without that information we're merely speculating.

 

[996085]

Only well argumented response. With an simple answer:

The cMP form factor is power and space inefficient and most of its goodies actually worth to an small minority of users, I concede Apple would have saved few dollars with the cMP form factor and actually deliver the same capabilities also more, thanks God this doesn't happen (and thank to EPA).

Of course the cMP is power and space inefficient compared to the nMP...that's because Apple moved it all to the outside of the system. That's the beauty of the nMP...Apple can claim a power, size, and noise friendly system because all that has been moved to the external devices one needs to add if they want similar capability to that of the cMP. For example if you want hard disk expansion that's going to require an external disk enclosure. That enclosure is going to take up space, it's going to require its own power, and it's going to generate its own noise. But Apple can legitimately say the Mac Pro doesn't use as much power, space, and noise. Now instead of having one power supply wasting power I've got two...one for the nMP and one for the hard disk enclosure.

Regarding your minority comment...well, there seem to be a lot of people who have an issue with the removal of the cMP expandability / upgradability. In the PC market systems with this capability sell well and there's an entire market which supports this need.

 

[996085]

You should write the only Mac with internal hdd bays, the only "expandable" dismisses the nMP allows external expansion beyond the cMP possibilities, the only "limitation" (which actually only worries to DIY and gamers no to corporate pros) is about the GPU you have to choice it carefully for its lifespan, beyond that you can upgrade or expand cpu memory and internal ssd (still pending to see if AMD releases update or upgrade GPU packs for the nMP when the u'nMP is released.

Can you please elaborate? The cMP provides the means to have all the capability the nMP has. Perhaps I'm missing a use case so please let me know if I am and what it is.

 

[Mago]

Can you please elaborate? The cMP provides the means to have all the capability the nMP has. Perhaps I'm missing a use case so please let me know if I am and what it is.

A.E. Can you link PCIe peripherals at 100 ft from your cMP thru Optical Fiber TB2 cable?

Just one example, not to mention you can hook 36 TB2 peripheral total, cMP is restricted to few PCIe Slots

 

[merlinmage]

You can expand the cMP with PCIE expander cases.

 

[linuxcooldude]

How many nMP have been sold? From my perspective: I know hundreds of mac owners, and NONE who bought the nMP (while there are many who own a cMP). I am pretty sure that the numbers worldwide reflect the same proportions.

It's a failure.

Our own personal experience does not take in account the hundreds or thousands of users we don't know about. In any case, not a good representation for all the users out there.

It's pretty flip & dismissive to suggest anyone that criticizes the new design is just some wayward dreamer. I think the nMP is an amazing looking machine, and for a moment in time, it had really powerful components.

My dislike of it stems from the simple, irrefutable fact that for something that was marketed as a Pro Desktop, the machine has no longevity whatsoever. If you want to upgrade the 2011-era graphics, add I/O such as USB-C or 3.1, or make any other type of updates to try and keep your $3000-$10000 piece of art somewhat current, nMP owners have one solution

I don't think Apple is interested in the longevity based on enthusiasts or power users would normally do it. But based on how enterprise/business handle repair & replacement cycles.

2) Place nMP into dumpster (or recycling bin if you feel particularly green)

People don't do it to their iMacs or MacBook Pro because they can't upgrade them. They normally sell them as they have a higher resell value. Lets not let semantics get in the way of rational thought.

 

[996085]

A.E. Can you link PCIe peripherals at 100 ft from your cMP thru Optical Fiber TB2 cable?

Just one example, not to mention you can hook 36 TB2 peripheral total, cMP is restricted to few PCIe Slots

Sure. Why would you not be able to?

 

[996085]

I don't think Apple is interested in the longevity based on enthusiasts or power users would normally do it. But based on how enterprise/business handle repair & replacement cycles.

You were doing so well up until here.

 

[linuxcooldude]

You were doing so well up until here.

Actually I meant to say how MacRumor forum members normally do it.

 

[Arron Rouse]

"Use a NAS" - lol, that one really gave me a good laugh.

You LOLed? Awesome. That means you can teach me something new.

The workflow here is that current video projects and active VMs (clients' Windows builds, etc.) reside on internal SSD. Completed video projects and old VMs are archived off to the NAS. Documents, MP4 videos, photos, audio, Time Machine backups and pretty much everything else that works happily below 1Gbps all sit on the NAS (RAID 5 so it saturates that in either direction). There are six machines with access to the NAS but most of the work is done on three of those; two Apples and one PC. One of the Apples is a MacBook Air that accesses the NAS through the built-in VPN while on customer site.

So what have I missed? What new technology is there that makes this LOL-worthy?

So, basically, the cMP is better.

For you and some others. For me and some others, the nMP is better.

Resolve whatever, any benchmark is a benchmark...
at the top of each models performance metrics, the CPUs are basically even.

No, benchmarks using old software just tell you how well the old software works. Newer software often uses newer compilers and libraries leading to significant performance changes. Which is why that benchmark that I linked is more relevant even though it's still not the current version. It shows a 6 core nMP with D500s beating a 6 core cMP with a 980Ti. The 980Ti is, according to MVC and others, as good as dual D700s so the cMP has an advantage but still loses.

Geekbench shows that the 12 core nMP is about 16% faster than the official 12 core cMP (which equates to about 10% faster the a 12c@3.46) despite the lower clock speed. Yes the cMP is an awesome performer and it will bet the crap out of the vast majority of machines for years to come but it's not faster than an nMP for anything that needs 12 cores.

Hope that you have a Merry Christmas.

There you go again confusing what it is with what it could have been. Imagine how impressive a new Mac Pro would have been had Apple... Who the hell put you in charge of deciding others peoples wants / needs? ... The issue isn't the nMP per se but rather how the nMP eliminated the only expandable Mac left.

Imagine how impressive winning the lottery would have been. Sigh. But it didn't happen so neither of us got what we imagined. Nobody put me in charge but I smelled the change when the nMP was released. I changed the company's workflow and I think we're better for it. If my cMP died tomorrow, I could drop an nMP in its place and be running again in a few hours. You seem to think Apple has made a Lemon. Fair enough. But can I politely suggest you consider trying to make lemonade before giving up on it completely? Hope that you have a Merry Christmas.

...

This will be my last post for a week. Sorry that I haven't had time to reply to everyone who took the time to reply to me. Hope that everyone else here has a Merry Christmas too.

 

[996085]

Actually I meant to say how MacRumor forum members normally do it.

I'm not sure that's any better.

 

[Arron Rouse]

Sure ... but now kindly tell us just which NAS (make/model & price) can at least match what the cMP could provide in terms of I/O bandwidth performance. Specifically, something between 200 MB/s and 500 MB/s would be a start.

Sorry, one more post. We're looking at getting something like this for the office: https://www.qnap.com/solution/thunderbolt-nas/en-us/

But the old NAS is still holding up so it'll probably be a year or two and a newer model.

 

[996085]

No, benchmarks using old software just tell you how well the old software works. Newer software often uses newer compilers and libraries leading to significant performance changes. Which is why that benchmark that I linked is more relevant even though it's still not the current version. It shows a 6 core nMP with D500s beating a 6 core cMP with a 980Ti. The 980Ti is, according to MVC and others, as good as dual D700s so the cMP has an advantage but still loses.

Geekbench shows that the 12 core nMP is about 16% faster than the official 12 core cMP (which equates to about 10% faster the a 12c@3.46) despite the lower clock speed. Yes the cMP is an awesome performer and it will bet the crap out of the vast majority of machines for years to come but it's not faster than an nMP for anything that needs 12 cores.

Just imagine how much faster a dual 6-core processor configured nMP would be compared to a single 12-core nMP if the Mac Pro would have retained the cMP configuration. Instead of a single 12-core processor operating at 2.7GHz you'd have dual 6-core processors operating at 3.5GHz. That's a 30% increase in clock speed using the dual processor configuration. And you'd receive double the memory and PCIe capacity. A win-win situation.

Imagine how impressive winning the lottery would have been. Sigh. But it didn't happen so neither of us got what we imagined. Nobody put me in charge but I smelled the change when the nMP was released. I changed the company's workflow and I think we're better for it. If my cMP died tomorrow, I could drop an nMP in its place and be running again in a few hours. You seem to think Apple has made a Lemon. Fair enough. But can I politely suggest you consider trying to make lemonade before giving up on it completely? Hope that you have a Merry Christmas.

WRONG! I happen to like the nMP. What I don't like about "it" is the fact there's no cMP offering. If Apple would have released the nMP along side an upgraded cMP I doubt anyone would be complaining about the nMP.

 

[996085]

Sorry, one more post. We're looking at getting something like this for the office: https://www.qnap.com/solution/thunderbolt-nas/en-us/

But the old NAS is still holding up so it'll probably be a year or two and a newer model.

With that addition so much for the size, power, and noise savings offered by the form factor of the nMP.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Incredible to continue to watch people trying to convince people that the nMP is a proper cMP replacement. It isn't, probably never will be. And also incredible to see some people arguing that price isn't an argument, "because Apple has never been cheap", or "because a real pro won't care". I give up, you people just can't accept that the nMP is not as well suited as the old one for some/many pro applications. "Use a NAS" - lol, that one really gave me a good laugh.

I think its because you want to focus on the group who thinks that way. Some of us think its using their tool of choice to get the job done is more important.

The nMP was competitively priced at the time which was in fact cheaper then the PC equivalent. The market will ultimately decide pricing. By either people not buying the nMP because its too expensive to what people want to pay or competition for comparative alternatives. But either way most workstations ARE more expensive then the average consumer versions.

 

[996085]

I think its because you want to focus on the group who thinks that way. Some of us think its using their tool of choice to get the job done is more important.

The "group that thinks that way" has no choice. The "group that thinks that way" recognizes the nMP meets a number of peoples needs just fine. Is anyone saying otherwise? However it doesn't meet the needs of all the previous cMP owners because it sacrifices functionality for form. The cMP configuration could easily accommodate all the needs of a nMP user. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the nMP configuration.

 

[linuxcooldude]

The "group that thinks that way" has no choice. The "group that thinks that way" recognizes the nMP meets a number of peoples needs just fine. Is anyone saying otherwise? However it doesn't meet the needs of all the previous cMP owners because it sacrifices functionality for form. The cMP configuration could easily accommodate all the needs of a nMP user. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the nMP configuration.

Ok, so your basically repeating what you said in this entire thread and others, but not sure if your really bringing anything new in context to what I've said.