Just bring back the Cheese grater tower! - update it and release it. The Darth vader trash can is an abomination.
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.
It's like we're waiting for...
- Thread starter aaronhead14
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac pro
- Sort by reaction score
But everything considered, there are actually a very small handful of people who need more than a 12 core 3.46Ghz westmere.
How many people more than a 12 core ivy bridge?
Does the new chip versions run better?
Obviously.
But *how much* do we need them?
How much extra time is wasted because of the these old westmere amd ivy bridge?
How much money is this extra time worth??
Or is this just one of our ego-kind-of upgrade? <--- Yes, I am provoking here
How much do you need 12 core Westmere? Is it really NEEDED compared to a G3 tower?
apple dose not care about the tower market, i assume they think the imac is as fast as needed for the widest market and the tower market is now to small to be worth there time & to be fair compared to there laptops/phones/ishops id gess there correct.
relay the currant top imac is ok for most low to mid end pro work (overpriced but sufficient), if you need more apple wants you to use windows.
windows may be less fun but it's not so bad now and you can get nice PC's now, it's not like the old days + your using the same apps so
50/50 my next computer will be hack or imac id gess
relay the currant top imac is ok for most low to mid end pro work (overpriced but sufficient), if you need more apple wants you to use windows
.windows may be less fun but it's not so bad now and you can get nice PC's now, it's not like the old days + your using the same apps so
50/50 my next computer will be hack or imac id gess
I was expecting xeon macbooks in the last november update along with external gpus. They went all in on usb-c but didn't release any equipment that utilizes usb-c. Its 5 months later and they still haven't. I would have bought a macbook pro with xeon and apple external graphics. They say pro users are not profitable enough anymore but I don't understand that when I was ready to drop $$$$. I don't know what apple is doing with this strategy but it is clear they have abandoned pro users. Apple has billions of dollars, you would think they would continue the pro line because mac pro users typically make a lot of money and buy all the other apple stuff for their families not to mention being able to upsell a mac pro to rich people who only need a mac mini. Apple is leaving money on the table and turning away decade+ long customers from all of their products.
Every single person that renders 3D.
Unless you've got banks of PCs network rendering, (i.e. your personal mini render farm) there isn't a single workstation made today by any manufacturer that is "fast enough".
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner.
It isn't just the pro folks. The hobbyist end of the market is in the same boat. All of our software (even the free stuff) is based around Cores/Ram and increasingly, CUDA. My workflow will use every single core and scrap of ram I can throw at it.
But everything considered, there are actually a very small handful of people who need more than a 12 core 3.46Ghz westmere.
How many people more than a 12 core ivy bridge?
Does the new chip versions run better?
Obviously.
But *how much* do we need them?
How much extra time is wasted because of the these old westmere amd ivy bridge?
How much money is this extra time worth??
Or is this just one of our ego-kind-of upgrade? <--- Yes, I am provoking here
The extra time gained is worth every penny.
It all comes down to how productive you can be with your time. Faster components give you more flexibility to create more / better content than you could before.
I don't know anyone with a workstation that would turn down a faster machine, or pick the slower machine unless the overall budget was a deciding factor.
More cores, more GPU's, more RAM. Max it out.
But everything considered, there are actually a very small handful of people who need more than a 12 core 3.46Ghz westmere.
How many people more than a 12 core ivy bridge?
Does the new chip versions run better?
Obviously.
But *how much* do we need them?
How much extra time is wasted because of the these old westmere amd ivy bridge?
How much money is this extra time worth??
Or is this just one of our ego-kind-of upgrade? <--- Yes, I am provoking here
Does the new chip versions run better?
Obviously.
But *how much* do we need them?
How much extra time is wasted because of the these old westmere amd ivy bridge?
How much money is this extra time worth??
Or is this just one of our ego-kind-of upgrade? <--- Yes, I am provoking here
A simple point is that you are already paying the price of the newer, faster, more capable processors if you buy the latest 2013 nMP.
The problem, is that although you are paying a premium price that reflects the latest state of the art microprocessors, you are in fact getting outdated, obsolete, slower processors from 4 years ago.
It's not about whether it's worth paying more for faster chips. Right now we are paying more, and getting old technology.
Now if the new Mac Pro were updated to use current technology, and people wanted faster versions of the newer CPUs, or CPUs with more cores, then yes they would have to evaluate a cost vs performance gain.
As it stands right now, the equation is whether it makes sense to pay the extreme price of modern technology and get a machine with generations old technology inside it.
Now, if Apple said that they didn't feel that there was a great need for the latest technology to be added, and they said we realize our current design is no longer the most modern technology, so we are reducing the price of the Mac Pro to reflect its age.... then we might be looking at things differently.
If the new Mac Pro had gone through price reductions over the years as its specs stagnated, then yes I would consider whether the newer technology was worth the additional price.
But, since the price and configuration has remained unchanged since 2013, that isn't the case.
If you're selling a machine for top dollar, it better be current technology.
Not only "current" technology, but it should be the best of the current technology.
The MP6,1 did debut with the latest CPU generation (way out of date now, but at the end of 2013 it was the newest).
However, it was still horribly crippled at introduction. Much cheaper workstations at the time supported 8 or 12 DIMM slots, and 2 to 3 times the max RAM of the MP6,1 (and it got even worse as the others supported higher density DIMMs).
Other systems supported dual CPUs, and the nearly doubling of PCIe slots as a result. Double the cores, nearly double the PCIe slots - what's not to like?
Not to mention doubling the number of DIMM slots. Apple - max support for 64 GiB. PC - 384 to 768 GiB.
And today, a commodity dual socket x64 server or workstation supports up to 3 TiB of RAM. And the MP6,1 is still stuck at 64 GiB.
Last edited:
It wouldn't be right if Apple didn't charge you full price right up to the point that they EOL the product.
Which I totally understand, but how many people render 3D AND are time constrained, AND need the fastest render times?
To put it in other words, if you need it, earn with it and have the money, go for a render farm.
If you need it, earn with it, but don't have the money, go for a (or a cluster) of current max'ed out cMP.
My point being, those who REALLY need an upgrade are a handful.
Those who WANT an upgrade are the majority, me included. But for most of us it's only a "nice to have".
I am willingly not considering price here, because if you are at that point where you need the best of the best, I assume you also can pay for it.
I really really think we need to divide the two.
Performance is one thing. And with cMP or nMP you can reach decent/good performance. For example, the cMP can have multiple of the second-last generation cards, and nMP can have multiple external GPU. And CPU wise, the newer architectures are objectively only marginally better.
Sure, there are loads of even better solutions. But the current available solutions are OK for most of us.
As regards price, I really believe this is a non issue.
I you don't make enough money to buy a top spec'ed cMP, or one or more top nMP + external gpus, chances are you don't need this kind of performance.
And if you indeed make enough money to buy one or more top nMP + external gpus, chances are price is not an issue.
So, i hear you. The situation could be better. I understand why some people brag about the lack of a nnMP but I don't understand why so many do, as if everybody needed something even more powerful than what we have
I'll assume you are not trolling.
You say, because I make good money I should give it to Apple without asking any questions.
nMP at this moment is only competitive for FCPX. Well, FCPX is OSX only SW. Maybe same is true for Logic Pro, but I have no exposure to LPX.
All other video editing/rendering/color correction SW works far better on equally priced non apple HW.
If it wasn't the ProRes, the ship jumping would've happened much faster.
...and I thought apologetics was only religion related
You say, because I make good money I should give it to Apple without asking any questions.
nMP at this moment is only competitive for FCPX. Well, FCPX is OSX only SW. Maybe same is true for Logic Pro, but I have no exposure to LPX.
All other video editing/rendering/color correction SW works far better on equally priced non apple HW.
If it wasn't the ProRes, the ship jumping would've happened much faster.
...and I thought apologetics was only religion related
I really really think we need to divide the two.
Performance is one thing. And with cMP or nMP you can reach decent/good performance. For example, the cMP can have multiple of the second-last generation cards, and nMP can have multiple external GPU. And CPU wise, the newer architectures are objectively only marginally better.
Sure, there are loads of even better solutions. But the current available solutions are OK for most of us.
As regards price, I really believe this is a non issue.
I you don't make enough money to buy a top spec'ed cMP, or one or more top nMP + external gpus, chances are you don't need this kind of performance.
And if you indeed make enough money to buy one or more top nMP + external gpus, chances are price is not an issue.
So, i hear you. The situation could be better. I understand why some people brag about the lack of a nnMP but I don't understand why so many do, as if everybody needed something even more powerful than what we have
$6000 (or more) is an issue for every single computer jock slaving behind a desk.
So, i hear you. The situation could be better. I understand why some people brag about the lack of a nnMP but I don't understand why so many do, as if everybody needed something even more powerful than what we have
You are in a forum for mac pro and wondering why so many need powerful desktops?
I really really think we need to divide the two.
Performance is one thing. And with cMP or nMP you can reach decent/good performance. For example, the cMP can have multiple of the second-last generation cards, and nMP can have multiple external GPU. And CPU wise, the newer architectures are objectively only marginally better.
Sure, there are loads of even better solutions. But the current available solutions are OK for most of us.
As regards price, I really believe this is a non issue.
I you don't make enough money to buy a top spec'ed cMP, or one or more top nMP + external gpus, chances are you don't need this kind of performance.
And if you indeed make enough money to buy one or more top nMP + external gpus, chances are price is not an issue.
So, i hear you. The situation could be better. I understand why some people brag about the lack of a nnMP but I don't understand why so many do, as if everybody needed something even more powerful than what we have
I guess nobody needs new high end workstations anymore. The old ones are good enough.
Is that you Tim Cook?
To anybody that hasn't done so already, I strongly recommend looking into / educating yourself on Linux. There's a reason why web servers everywhere, Google, IBM, Cisco, Amazon, Governments, Banks, Schools, Stock Exchanges, CERN, the scientific community, businesses and professionals all over use it. It's extremely reliable, secure, customizable, and it's not at all difficult to learn / use (if you want a pretty, user-friendly GUI with an app store-like interface to handle package management, and never want to touch a terminal window, then you can use a distro like Ubuntu or Linux Mint).
Both OS X and Linux are unix-based / POSIX compliant, and the majority of professional software available for OS X is also available for Linux. I'm not sure where it stems from, but amongst the general population, there is a whole lot of misinformation / ignorance regarding Linux. As OS X continue to shift their focus away from the professional / toward the mainstream, and Windows 10 more resembling of malware than an operating system, Linux is more viable now than ever.
Creative Suite for Linux? As soon as they make it, I'll run it.
Hear hear!
[doublepost=1490226062][/doublepost]
I really really think we need to divide the two.
Performance is one thing. And with cMP or nMP you can reach decent/good performance. For example, the cMP can have multiple of the second-last generation cards, and nMP can have multiple external GPU. And CPU wise, the newer architectures are objectively only marginally better.
Sure, there are loads of even better solutions. But the current available solutions are OK for most of us.
As regards price, I really believe this is a non issue.
I you don't make enough money to buy a top spec'ed cMP, or one or more top nMP + external gpus, chances are you don't need this kind of performance.
And if you indeed make enough money to buy one or more top nMP + external gpus, chances are price is not an issue.
So, i hear you. The situation could be better. I understand why some people brag about the lack of a nnMP but I don't understand why so many do, as if everybody needed something even more powerful than what we have
I think you're missing the fact that many of us can afford the old 2013 Mac Pro, we just don't want to waste our money on old hardware that doesn't meet our needs. The fact is, even a totally specced out current Mac Pro does not meet the needs of a high-end video editor / colorist in 2017. Try grading 8K R3Ds (or heck, even 4.6K ProRes) in DaVinci Resolve w/ 10+ nodes. It's soooo sluggish. Bottom line, we need NVIDIA Pascal cards in our Mac Pro, and we need an enclosure that doesn't overheat upon strenuous use.
Also, might I just add that your profile pic of a Mac Pro-like computer is freaking legit? Something like that is what I'd love to see in a Mac Pro.
You can always run a Windows / OS X virtual machine on Linux using VMware Workstation for any applications you can't get on Linux. Virtual machines get near-native performance these days, as they can get direct access to hardware (just get a CPU with VT-x / VT-d, which I believe all Xeons have). I know of several people doing just this with Photoshop (you can download a free trial of VMware workstation and test it out).
But then you'd have to deal with the annoyances of Windows.... The point of running Linux would be NOT having to do that...
You can run an OS X VM as well. If an application is only available for Windows though, I'd much prefer running a Windows VM on a Linux system over running Windows natively (at least you can keep Windows quarantined / only use it for the stuff you can't run on Linux / OS X). Plus, VMware Workstation has a unity view where the guest programs / windows are integrated right into the host system (i.e. you don't have to deal with Windows a whole lot anyway).
As I mentioned though, you can set this all up in a few minutes and try it for yourself. Just download a live iso of any Linux distro, throw VMware Workstation on it (which you can download / test out for free), and toy around a bit / see if it works for you.
VM comes with performance hit and in most case sub par GPU acceleration if any. And since video drivers on Linux are already so so, I don't really see Linux as a viable alternative in the graphics dept. As a server plateform or as development system yes, but for an end user there are too many hoops to jump through.
The only way I see Linux getting more marketshare is if they drop their silly open source or die attitude.
I hear what you people are saying, especially aaronhead14, which made a concrete example.
I also wish for the Mac Pro I have as a profile pic.
I think I have been misunderstood, but it's OK, because I have provoked, and you answered
..and we are all mad at Apple for not giving us a nnMP.
I guess the only thing I am trying to say is that a lot of people have setups which are crazy and overkill for their needs.
I also wish for the Mac Pro I have as a profile pic.
I think I have been misunderstood, but it's OK, because I have provoked, and you answered
..and we are all mad at Apple for not giving us a nnMP.
I guess the only thing I am trying to say is that a lot of people have setups which are crazy and overkill for their needs.