Is the new Mac Pro a failure?

[merlinmage]

Except that those CPUs have a maximum of 8 cores. So the cMP or any nMP with decent Xeon 10-18 Cores would beat those CPUs in multi threaded tasks. But why even bother, seems that some people here don't want the Nvidia GPU for computing, instead they want to game on it. Jeez.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Nothing with wanting to game on the thing; Nvidia has been on top for a while, now.

 

[Roykor]

Except that those CPUs have a maximum of 8 cores. So the cMP or any nMP with decent Xeon 10-18 Cores would beat those CPUs in multi threaded tasks. But why even bother, seems that some people here don't want the Nvidia GPU for computing, instead they want to game on it. Jeez.

8 cores with HT = 16 tasks on a high clock speed. Like I mention before. Not everybody (and i think a lot of us) are not in the need for an expensive Xeon CPU and expensive ECC memory. A very fast high end i7 6-core or i7 8-core + tons of DDR4 will do a awesome job and cost less than fits perfect in the middle of the Mac mini (normal) <--- this machine --> mac pro (extreme). Well, i made my point.. its not going to happen anyway. Have a nice day folks.

 

[gpzjock]

Over a month and 41 pages of argument later; we still have an unconvincing poll result either way.
I wrote this in 2013 when the nMP arrived. I think the statement still stands and leads me to conclude that the nMP is a definite success for Apple. For creative professionals? The jury is still out. I think.

The nMP fits Apple's hardware blueprint.

I think Apple have moved the nMP into the same propriety territory as the iMac and iPad. They control the hardware and OS software completely and that is how they want it.
I'm pretty sure all the lost revenue, having folks buy a Mac OS PCI-e based tower, then fill it with their own RAM, drives and PC GPUs at a fraction of Apple's rates for those upgrades, must have soured Apple's love for the big box MP.

Exactly the reason I bought a MP 3,1, good base spec 8 core model in 2008, affordable plus £500 tricked it out with RAM, HDDs and a GFX card which Apple would have stuck me on £1500 for if I'd asked for it all at point of purchase.....

With one stroke Apple have cornered the market for their own top spec machine, no more cheap PC parts fitted aftermarket and all the profit to Cupertino. I suspect we won't see another Mac exhibiting off the shelf compatibility with PC parts again.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

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

I don't have to check to know youre stretching knowing darn well it doesnt work as well.

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).

That's irrelevant, latency is higher. And overshooting the bandwidth requirements always makes for a better experience than just fitting within it. It's a designs pretext, and if you don't know it, I do.

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).

Ludicrous. Hey, another solution is to RAID things together through the USB3 ports. And you know what, it's pretty much as asstastic a solution as you propose above. Plain and simple, the nMP is slower.

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.

The true sign of a losing argument. Thanks mr goalpost mover.

Message to the friend Arron Rouse dont care this poll, just check those who voted negative how many coments have made (most <20) they are most clones working for some body out there selling WorkStations (actually trying to dell workstations)

The best way for you to prove you dont care, is to eject yourself from this thread. Go ahead, prove it to me.

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).

So basically th nMP is faster, smaller, uses much less power, indeed its much better than the cMP

LOL you fail to see that the new iMac itself is better than the nMP.

This CPU on the cMP was n CTO option or an DIY upgrade? if this was an DIY upgrade you should then compare a CMP with an nMP with DIY upgaded CPU.

Fair point, please point out what is faster than the 2.7GHz 12 core that is available for upgrade on the nMP.

The language tells me here where exactly the arrogance resides.

Trust me, youre deserving of far worse.

Benchmarking a System on specific applications its un fair, since those application may not have all the optimization to take advantage of the new hardware, for this is what std benchmark test are made, I rely on GeekBeench it doesn't lies on which machine sis superior (either single thread and multi-thread, single or double precision the nMP is superior

WAHHHH it's unfair because the nMP loses, WAHHHH.

I wanna see the arguments against the updated nMP when it launched in April.

LOL, way to go goalpost mover!

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

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

This. This is totally a fair position. I agree.

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.

So in a real world app that people still use, the cMP does the same or better and in an artificial benchmark, it does 10% worse, to my eye, it's a wash. You're clearly entitled to your opinion.

Hope that you have a Merry Christmas.

You too man. Hope santa brought you goodies you wanted!

 

[-hh]

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

Thanks for this. It's an interesting capability that's a bit different (& better in some ways) than a Promise Pegasus style cabinet ... although it too illustrates my point about the value paradigm erosion of the nMP versus its predecessor.

Case in point, as per a quick read of B&H, it looks like a bare (no drives) copy of this 8-bay NAS runs $3200, which on an (overly)simplistic view means that the lost four (4) internal bays of the cMP were a consumer value worth $1600.

------

FWIW, a side comment on several other posts' comparisons, for which I'm going to use the above comparison's hardware mismatch as an illustration:

Part of the reason why I dentified the above as an over simplistic comparison is because it looks like that NAS is using 10Gbit Ethernet, whereas both MP's are single GBbit Ethernet. True, but let's also not forget that technology ... and the cost thereof ... marches on: Apple is pretty much overdue to bump up from Gb to 10Gbit for awhile - especially on highest end gear. And this is my allusion to other post comments: we should recognize that a notional cMP "do-over" (let's call it a '2016 cMP') would use the appropriate technologies of the day and not let it be stuck with what the 2012 shipped with. This is where 'cMP with TB' statements are coming from, plus let's also not neglect history either: the 2012 cMP was a strongly panned 'update' for all of the contemporarily-available updates that it lacked - two big examples noted st the time were the lack of updates ...back in 2012... to SATA-3 and USB3...because it literally wasn't a new machine, but merely a CPU plug-in on the old motherboard.

To that end, any notional exercise of a 'do-over 2016 cMP' would certainly do better than be still using that old ~2009 vintage motherboard. For what this could entail is a reasonable debate, but the long & short is that even stuff like TB isn't out of the question, because Apple was a development partner, so if they really wanted it to happen, it would --- just like SATA3 and USB3, its configuration constraints is a business policy barrier, not a physics one: just like the decisions for which ports to delete from the MacBook, which video adapters to not design/sell, etc....

-hh

 

[Macsonic]

LOL you fail to see that the new iMac itself is better than the nMP.

Yep the retina is just as fast or faster than the new Mac Pro. A guy in this video made an actual comparison using real world performance between the 5k iMac and a 6 core 3.5 new Mac Pro.
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/82724

The author of the video decided to sell the new Mac Pro and kept his 5K iMac. I could not find the link where he mentioned about this but I read that sometime ago.

So in a real world app that people still use, the cMP does the same or better and in an artificial benchmark, it does 10% worse, to my eye, it's a wash. You're clearly entitled to your opinion.

I usually don't rely too much on benchmarks specially when making purchasing decisions. Real world performances are better. I have used both the classic Mac Pros and new Mac Pros including iMacs as I am not just commenting based on what's "written on paper." In certain graphic rendering and editing tasks, there was not much noticeable speed difference. Another factor is the long term cost of repairs after the Apple Care warranty expires. One of my clients, a design firm told me when their new Mac Pro's AppleCare is about to expire, they will sell off the new Mac Pro. The downtime of bringing the new Mac Pro in case of needed repairs specially the GPUs. The source of the GPUs is limited to getting it as brand new at full prices from Apple or from a third party store. Not sure if there are second hand, used nMac Pro GPUs available for a lower cost in the future. From a business financial viewpoint, the classic Mac Pro can get the job done at the end of the day at a lower cost. Personally, I would just continue using the cMac Pro. I know that both the cMac Pro and new Mac Pro works fine to various users' preferences.

Aside from hardware specs, we also need to consider software-hardware performances. Some problems occur like glitches on video rendering on the new Mac Pro in this article http://appleinsider.com/articles/14...nues-to-cause-problems-for-professional-users

If you're managing a motion graphics design business, you'll need to bring the new Mac Pro to the service centre so theres the downtime factor. And you're limited to one type of GPU to troubleshoot the problem.

Some companies prefer to use Nvidia GPUs which the new Mac Pro does not offer. Pixar Studios also uses Nvidia GPUs. I know this does not represent the general overall market. And if I recall, Pixar Studios had a demo on using the new Mac Pro on a certain character rendering on the second Monsters animated movie. There was a comment in this thread that the new Mac Pro was not a hit. http://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/p...logy-for-accelerating-feature-film-production

 

[goMac]

Some companies prefer to use Nvidia GPUs which the new Mac Pro does not offer. Pixar Studios also uses Nvidia GPUs. I know this does not represent the general overall market. And if I recall, Pixar Studios had a demo on using the new Mac Pro on a certain character rendering on the second Monsters animated movie. There was a comment in this thread that the new Mac Pro was not a hit. http://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/p...logy-for-accelerating-feature-film-production

I don't know what Pixar uses, but this deal you're talking about is mostly around software, not around hardware. Ray tracing would probably run on any hardware platform.

 

[linuxcooldude]

I don't know what Pixar uses, but this deal you're talking about is mostly around software, not around hardware. Ray tracing would probably run on any hardware platform.

In the past Pixar used classic Mac Pro's with Linux render farm. Now, it still seems they continue to use the New 2013 Mac Pro's for making the animation with the software/Nvidia solution would have to do more with their rendering of the final product on Linux.

 

[AidenShaw]

In the past Pixar used classic Mac Pro's with Linux render farm. Now, it still seems they continue to use the New 2013 Mac Pro's for making the animation with the software/Nvidia solution would have to do more with their rendering of the final product on Linux.

Pixar animators use Red Hat Linux workstations with (possibly multiple) Nvidia cards.

http://www.hardwarezone.com.my/feature-nvidia-gtc-2014-day-2-keynote-pixar-software-rd

Note the upper left corner of the animator's control screen:

View a big chunk of the demo at:

 

[Macsonic]

I don't know what Pixar uses, but this deal you're talking about is mostly around software, not around hardware. Ray tracing would probably run on any hardware platform.

I also have no idea what type of hardware Pixar Studios uses on its animation production. There is these comments that says Pixar Studios is not likely using the new Mac Pro for its final productions. https://www.quora.com/Which-Disney-or-Pixar-animations-have-been-rendered-on-the-2013-Mac-Pro Probably they may be using various hardwares which may also include the new Mac Pro and PC hardwares.

 

[996085]

There is a reason why they haven't done it, and it isn't that TB is expensive at all. From your answer then I am reading as you don't know why they haven't done it. If you know then why answer ...for whatever the reason, then go into a stereotypical response of why TB isn't needed by most people. ( personally I agree Thunderbolt isn't needed by everyone and for a lot of people USB is good enough. FW800 is still good enough for me! )

Intel laid out the requirements for TB AIC cards. I did put those requirements in there. Read them carefully and you will see what I am saying.

Asus tried and failed as didn't meet the Thunderbolt specification as laid out by Intel. You will have to change the goalposts and get Intel to change the specification so that could add Thunderbolt into the cMP.

Or are you trying to say that the Specification laid out could have been done differently so would be easier to add into any board

I'm saying if someone really wanted to they could add Thunderbolt to the cMP however they've probably determined it's not worth the expense given there is an easier, somewhat comparable alternative (USB 3.0/3.1). Let me give you an extreme example: Someone could build an entire system onto a card which would then plug into a PCIe slot. Would this be overkill? Certainly. Would it be cost effect? Most likely not. But it is possible.

 

[996085]

A nMP with an high end i7 (5820K / 5930K / 5960X) and DDR4 memory + Nvidia powered gpu.. that would be an very interesting powerhouse for a lot of users here. I am in!

HP's Z240 comes very close to this.

 

[flat five]

I also have no idea what type of hardware Pixar Studios uses on its animation production. There is these comments that says Pixar Studios is not likely using the new Mac Pro for its final productions. https://www.quora.com/Which-Disney-or-Pixar-animations-have-been-rendered-on-the-2013-Mac-Pro Probably they may be using various hardwares which may also include the new Mac Pro and PC hardwares.

heh.. it would take maybe 5000 years to render a pixar film on a single mac pro.
and i doubt pixar has a cluster of 5000 mac pros for cutting render times down to one year.

i doubt pixar has a cluster of 5000 any type of personal computer to do their rendering on.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Pixar animators use Red Hat Linux workstations with (possibly multiple) Nvidia cards.

Pixar uses a multitude of software and systems for its animations. Its likely they use both the new Mac Pro as well as Linux.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pixar-uses-apples-mac-pro-to-make-films-2014-1

I also have no idea what type of hardware Pixar Studios uses on its animation production. There is these comments that says Pixar Studios is not likely using the new Mac Pro for its final productions. https://www.quora.com/Which-Disney-or-Pixar-animations-have-been-rendered-on-the-2013-Mac-Pro Probably they may be using various hardwares which may also include the new Mac Pro and PC hardwares.

Random posts from some website is not definitive proof of what they use.

 

[Roykor]

HP's Z240 comes very close to this.

Nah, those are almost all Xeon based machines. Only Quadro card options too. What i know from the Z240 options (and almost all other options at HP and Dell) that its no X99 platform machines.

 

[AidenShaw]

Pixar uses a multitude of software and systems for its animations. Its likely they use both the new Mac Pro as well as Linux.

True, although the example in your link is a painter using a tool that runs on OSX, Windows and Linux - but since it was for WWDC the MP6,1 was shown.

The example in my videos involved animation, not painting.

 

[AidenShaw]

Nah, those are almost all Xeon based machines. Only Quadro card options too. What i know from the Z240 options (and almost all other options at HP and Dell) that its no X99 platform machines.

Z240 supports i7-6700, i5-6600 and i5-6500 ( http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/GetPDF.aspx/c04760707.pdf http://store.hp.com/us/en/Configure...1&storeId=10151&catEntryId=1138654&quantity=1 )

The graphics card options range from $0 (HD530) to $900 (Quadro M4000) and include NVS and FirePro options.

 

[flat five]

True, although the example in your link is a painter using a tool that runs on OSX, Windows and Linux - but since it was for WWDC the MP6,1 was shown.

The example in my videos involved animation, not painting.

right.. but what i think you're trying to imply just isn't the case.. all of the 'work', the creation etc of the underlying geometry is cpu based stuff.. single core cpu operations.. just like all of the other cad/3D modeling software out there.

the tesselation and whatnot is openGL based (i believe the guy even mentions this in the video [edit] around the 8:45 mark [/edit]).

point being, all the hard stuff is intel cpu based.. all the 'beautification' is openGL and pixar's subD algorithms..
none of it is specific to, nor requiring, nvidia gpus ..like- there's no cuda involved in these examples shown on the video..

it could run perfectly fine on mac pro with amd if the software was written for mac.

 

[996085]

Nah, those are almost all Xeon based machines. Only Quadro card options too. What i know from the Z240 options (and almost all other options at HP and Dell) that its no X99 platform machines.

Almost all does not mean all. There are three non Xeon processors available. Two Core i5 and one Core i7. Several NVIDIA graphics cards are available:

http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/GetPDF.aspx/c04760707.pdf

 

[12CoreMP]

I think that the old Mac Pro is still much sought after by enthusiasts and as far as professionals go they just see a new Mac Pro as tools for the job.

 

[flat five]

i think you're right

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

I think that the old Mac Pro is still much sought after by enthusiasts and as far as professionals go they just see a new Mac Pro as tools for the job.

I disagree. It depends, I guess, on what you define on as professional. Some here are delusional that the only thing that counts as professional is Pixar. Apple was selling to pros before Pixar existed. Further, I'd say most of the professional market for apple was traditionally the freelancer and small shop, which will have very different resources and needs than Pixar.

I suspect you have a fair number of enthusiasts seeking both the CMP an NMP.

 

[Roykor]

Almost all does not mean all. There are three non Xeon processors available. Two Core i5 and one Core i7. Several NVIDIA graphics cards are available:

http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/GetPDF.aspx/c04760707.pdf

Yes, but those are 4-core cpu's. And the several nvidia cards are non GTX types. Thanks anyway pl595

for me personaly , its going to be a self made system with hand picked components if it will not be a apple machine.