It's like we're waiting for...

[Ethosik]

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.

Um. My core i7 can run 3D software.

Like I have been saying. You can't just make a blanket statement that the "Mac Pro sucks". Just like I cannot make a statement saying that "anyone that buys a GTX 1080 is a fool" or the "GTX 1080 sucks". And my reasoning for that is because the "Quadro m6000 has 24GB of VRAM and the GTX 1080 fails at only having 6GB.

You get what you need. I am able to perform some video editing on a first generation i7. Is it slower? Yes. Will a 16-core processor be faster? Obviously.

It sucks that the Mac Pro does not fit your needs. This is why we have a choice people. Get a Dell instead. The Mac Pro fits my needs. I do not need more than what it offers without it just be a literal "throwing away money".

I custom built a PC in 2015. Same basic specs as my 2010 Mac Pro ~3.4 Ghz and 6-cores. Newer processor generations does not automatically mean remarkable performance difference. I noticed no real difference in performance. The price came out to be $2,500. It was literally a waste of money.

I didn't realize 3ds Max required 16-cores to even function, how can my desktop class core i7 run it then? Would you guys just chill out.

Guess what? After Effects is designed to use every core and RAM I throw at it too. Does that mean 128 GB of RAM is absolutely a requirement? No. If I use 32GB and tell the program to use 29GB of it, it WILL use 29GB of it. If I install 128GB of RAM and tell it to use 122GB of RAM. It WILL use 122GB of RAM. Same project!

 

[itdk92]

Um. My core i7 can run 3D software.

Like I have been saying. You can't just make a blanket statement that the "Mac Pro sucks". Just like I cannot make a statement saying that "anyone that buys a GTX 1080 is a fool" or the "GTX 1080 sucks". And my reasoning for that is because the "Quadro m6000 has 24GB of VRAM and the GTX 1080 fails at only having 6GB.

You get what you need. I am able to perform some video editing on a first generation i7. Is it slower? Yes. Will a 16-core processor be faster? Obviously.

It sucks that the Mac Pro does not fit your needs. This is why we have a choice people. Get a Dell instead. The Mac Pro fits my needs. I do not need more than what it offers without it just be a literal "throwing away money".

I custom built a PC in 2015. Same basic specs as my 2010 Mac Pro ~3.4 Ghz and 6-cores. Newer processor generations does not automatically mean remarkable performance difference. I noticed no real difference in performance. The price came out to be $2,500. It was literally a waste of money.

I didn't realize 3ds Max required 16-cores to even function, how can my desktop class core i7 run it then? Would you guys just chill out.

Guess what? After Effects is designed to use every core and RAM I throw at it too. Does that mean 128 GB of RAM is absolutely a requirement? No. If I use 32GB and tell the program to use 29GB of it, it WILL use 29GB of it. If I install 128GB of RAM and tell it to use 122GB of RAM. It WILL use 122GB of RAM. Same project!

^This

 

[Ethosik]

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.

Okay, lets go with this discussion here. Why stop at one computer? Why not get two computers and render two things at the same time? Why stop there? Get 10 $10,000 computers and render 10 things at once.

 

[joebclash]

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.

Alot of people that drive big trunks really don't need them. Toyota should stop making big trucks and piss off the people that really need them...

 

[FeliApple]

Um. My core i7 can run 3D software.

Like I have been saying. You can't just make a blanket statement that the "Mac Pro sucks". Just like I cannot make a statement saying that "anyone that buys a GTX 1080 is a fool" or the "GTX 1080 sucks". And my reasoning for that is because the "Quadro m6000 has 24GB of VRAM and the GTX 1080 fails at only having 6GB.

You get what you need. I am able to perform some video editing on a first generation i7. Is it slower? Yes. Will a 16-core processor be faster? Obviously.

It sucks that the Mac Pro does not fit your needs. This is why we have a choice people. Get a Dell instead. The Mac Pro fits my needs. I do not need more than what it offers without it just be a literal "throwing away money".

I custom built a PC in 2015. Same basic specs as my 2010 Mac Pro ~3.4 Ghz and 6-cores. Newer processor generations does not automatically mean remarkable performance difference. I noticed no real difference in performance. The price came out to be $2,500. It was literally a waste of money.

I didn't realize 3ds Max required 16-cores to even function, how can my desktop class core i7 run it then? Would you guys just chill out.

Guess what? After Effects is designed to use every core and RAM I throw at it too. Does that mean 128 GB of RAM is absolutely a requirement? No. If I use 32GB and tell the program to use 29GB of it, it WILL use 29GB of it. If I install 128GB of RAM and tell it to use 122GB of RAM. It WILL use 122GB of RAM. Same project!

I don't know a single thing about this topic but I'd like to ask -out of sheer ignorance- do these types of work really need that much power? (That a 2013 top-of-the-line nMP cannot provide?). If they do, would an updated nMP with a bit more power suffice? (I don't think that a new one would beat the 2013 ten-fold for example... Or can it?) Again, I do not know a single thing about this but I am curious and would like to know a bit more. Sorry for bothering.

 

[Ethosik]

I don't know a single thing about this topic but I'd like to ask -out of sheer ignorance- do these types of work really need that much power? (That a 2013 top-of-the-line nMP cannot provide?). If they do, would an updated nMP with a bit more power suffice? (I don't think that a new one would beat the 2013 ten-fold for example... Or can it?) Again, I do not know a single thing about this but I am curious and would like to know a bit more. Sorry for bothering.

That is my point. There are people here that just say "nMP is horrible". My 2010 Mac Pro with 6-cores is still good enough for my video production, game creation, 3D modeling work.

If you are someone that needs a 16-core Xeon and a Qaudro m6000, I am sorry the Mac Pro does not offer that. But to generically state "The nMP sucks" or "People who buy the nMP are insane" is just as ridiculous as me stating that "The GTX 1080 is a horrible graphics card". If I ONLY need 6-cores, why is it bad? My 2015 custom built PC with a 6-core processor is not much better than my 2010 Mac Pro with a 6-core processor. Being "old" does not mean much these days. You could NOT do this 10 years ago. I could not use a computer made in 2000 in 2007. But, I can run a computer made in 2010 RIGHT NOW. People do not seem to realize that the desktop/laptop market has plateaued in terms of performance. We now get less power consumption and better integrated graphics in our processors more than we get raw performance.

 

[shoehornhands]

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.

What's silly about Linux being open source? Open source is at the very foundation of Linux / the reason it's been so successful, robust, stable, secure, widely adopted. What benefit would there be to abandoning this? I suspect some confusion regarding the details of "open source" (check out the GPLv2).

 

[jeff7117]

Okay, lets go with this discussion here. Why stop at one computer? Why not get two computers and render two things at the same time? Why stop there? Get 10 $10,000 computers and render 10 things at once.

As a matter of fact, I do have two computers. One is a backup / rendering machine and one is my primary workstation.

If I had enough work that required 10 machines, I would invest in the hardware.

Deadlines and the kind of work you produce often determine the hardware you need. Two fast workstations are enough for my workload and my budget.

 

[Ethosik]

As a matter of fact, I do have two computers. One is a backup / rendering machine and one is my primary workstation.

If I had enough work that required 10 machines, I would invest in the hardware.

Deadlines and the kind of work you produce often determine the hardware you need. Two fast workstations are enough for my workload and my budget.

I have three computers doing work. One custom built Windows PC, one 2010 Mac Pro, and one 2016 MacBook Pro. Sometimes all three will be rendering videos (the two macs use FCPX, my Windows PC uses Premiere Pro).

Would a $10,000 system make things faster? Obviously. But it is not worth it to me. If a rendering takes too long, I just do that at night after my work and I am sleeping.

I find it absolutely irritating that people scream "The nMP is dead" or "The nMP sucks". If I only need 6-cores, 32GB of RAM, how is it bad?

 

[jeff7117]

That is my point. There are people here that just say "nMP is horrible". My 2010 Mac Pro with 6-cores is still good enough for my video production, game creation, 3D modeling work.

If you are someone that needs a 16-core Xeon and a Qaudro m6000, I am sorry the Mac Pro does not offer that. But to generically state "The nMP sucks" or "People who buy the nMP are insane" is just as ridiculous as me stating that "The GTX 1080 is a horrible graphics card". If I ONLY need 6-cores, why is it bad? My 2015 custom built PC with a 6-core processor is not much better than my 2010 Mac Pro with a 6-core processor. Being "old" does not mean much these days. You could NOT do this 10 years ago. I could not use a computer made in 2000 in 2007. But, I can run a computer made in 2010 RIGHT NOW. People do not seem to realize that the desktop/laptop market has plateaued in terms of performance. We now get less power consumption and better integrated graphics in our processors more than we get raw performance.

60% of my workload is GPU based and rendered on a 4x980ti workstation. Many former cMP users would render on the 2xXeon cpu's.

nMP is made for Apple software and not a wise investment if you need pure CPU horsepower or CUDA based rendering or GPU acceleration.

Look, if your machine gets 1200 or whatever in cinebench and you're ok with rendering slower or even farming it out, that's a decision you have every right to make. However, if you need a machine that scores in the mid 2000's or higher in CB and saving that time in production is important then you are going look at other hardware. This is not a "nMP" sucks statement. It's a "nMP doesn't make good financial sense" statement if you can live outside the Apple ecosystem and need real horsepower. Or CUDA. Or dual CPU's. Or PCI slots.

 

[FeliApple]

That is my point. There are people here that just say "nMP is horrible". My 2010 Mac Pro with 6-cores is still good enough for my video production, game creation, 3D modeling work.

If you are someone that needs a 16-core Xeon and a Qaudro m6000, I am sorry the Mac Pro does not offer that. But to generically state "The nMP sucks" or "People who buy the nMP are insane" is just as ridiculous as me stating that "The GTX 1080 is a horrible graphics card". If I ONLY need 6-cores, why is it bad? My 2015 custom built PC with a 6-core processor is not much better than my 2010 Mac Pro with a 6-core processor. Being "old" does not mean much these days. You could NOT do this 10 years ago. I could not use a computer made in 2000 in 2007. But, I can run a computer made in 2010 RIGHT NOW. People do not seem to realize that the desktop/laptop market has plateaued in terms of performance. We now get less power consumption and better integrated graphics in our processors more than we get raw performance.

Is there any workflow that requires -irreplaceably- that much power. (i.e, a 16-core Xeon?)

 

[Ethosik]

60% of my workload is GPU based and rendered on a 4x980ti workstation. Many former cMP users would render on the 2xXeon cpu's.

nMP is made for Apple software and not a wise investment if you need pure CPU horsepower or CUDA based rendering or GPU acceleration.

Look, if your machine gets 1200 or whatever in cinebench and you're ok with rendering slower or even farming it out, that's a decision you have every right to make. However, if you need a machine that scores in the mid 2000's or higher in CB and saving that time in production is important then you are going look at other hardware. This is not a "nMP" sucks statement. It's a "nMP doesn't make good financial sense" statement if you can live outside the Apple ecosystem and need real horsepower. Or CUDA. Or dual CPU's. Or PCI slots.

Did the 2010 Mac Pro even support quad SLI?

"nMP is made for Apple software" - Um, so? Do you expect Apple to release a product BUILT for their competitor? Premiere Pro is a competitor to FCPX. And "Built for Apple Software" does that mean NOTHING from Adobe will even run or run "well"? No. It is not Apple's fault Adobe decided to use the proprietary CUDA instead of OpenCL.
[doublepost=1490293582][/doublepost]

Is there any workflow that requires -irreplaceably- that much power. (i.e, a 16-core Xeon?)

Apparently some people need 20-cores or more around here! Or quad SLI. Anything less than that, their programs just fail to launch I guess?

I am not denying that more cores, or more graphics cards, or a Quadro 24GB VRAM card is better in some workflows. My point is, stating that "nMP sucks!" or "nMP is ONLY good for Apple Software" is just wrong. Does After Effects even run on the nMP? Does it just run slower than a system with NVIDIA and CUDA? I notice NO difference with what I do between my 2010 Mac Pro running an AMD card and using Adobe CC 2017 and my 2015 custom built PC with the GTX 1080.

 

[jeff7117]

Is there any workflow that requires -irreplaceably- that much power. (i.e, a 16-core Xeon?)

3D.

4K or higher resolution video post would use it.

Resolve. Although that would depend on your GPU setup as well.

 

[Ethosik]

3D.

4K or higher resolution video post would use it.

Resolve. Although that would depend on your GPU setup as well.

Sorry. I do 3D modeling for video games and it can work with a desktop class i7 and a SINGLE GTX 1080. Even my 2010 Mac Pro with the AMD card runs okay.

4K does require at least a GTX 980, but it does NOT require quad SLI. I am able to work on 4K videos with a SINGLE GTX 1080.

 

[jeff7117]

I find it absolutely irritating that people scream "The nMP is dead" or "The nMP sucks". If I only need 6-cores, 32GB of RAM, how is it bad?

It's not bad, it's just as you said "not worth the money" to spend 6k on the hardware in the nMP. That is, unless you are tied to the Apple ecosystem. I would argue that the folks complaining about the nMP don't want to spend the what Apple is asking for old hardware.

 

[Ethosik]

It's not bad, it's just as you said "not worth the money" to spend 6k on the hardware in the nMP. That is, unless you are tied to the Apple ecosystem. I would argue that the folks complaining about the nMP don't want to spend the what Apple is asking for old hardware.

You can't really blame Apple here TOO much. It is not like Intel cuts their older processors in price by a lot. I can still find older Xeons and i7 chips that cost the same as they did when they RTM.

 

[jeff7117]

Sorry. I do 3D modeling for video games and it can work with a desktop class i7 and a SINGLE GTX 1080. Even my 2010 Mac Pro with the AMD card runs okay.

4K does require at least a GTX 980, but it does NOT require quad SLI. I am able to work on 4K videos with a SINGLE GTX 1080.

Hey that's great. I do 3D for post production. I use octane for rendering. It scales linearly, so 4 cards are 4x faster than 1 card. Some guys use 7gpus.
[doublepost=1490294373][/doublepost]

You can't really blame Apple here TOO much. It is not like Intel cuts their older processors in price by a lot. I can still find older Xeons and i7 chips that cost the same as they did when they RTM.

Apple is the one with their name on the product.

 

[Ethosik]

Hey that's great. I do 3D for post production. I use octane for rendering. It scales linearly, so 4 cards are 4x faster than 1 card. Some guys use 7gpus.

And that is exactly my point. Did the 2010 Mac Pros even have the ability to run 7 GPUs? You buy what you need. If you need Quad SLI, obviously a Windows Workstation is better. Apple never really offered the kind of performance you guys need. I could never put in three or four Quadro graphics cards. The cards that Apple officially supported in the 2010 Mac Pro were absolutely crap. That AMD card (even in the 2010 system) built for Apple software. The last "official" NVIDIA card for the 2010 Mac Pro was the GTX 680. I do have a GTX 980 that I use in mine. But I also have that AMD card that is a bit better with FCPX.
[doublepost=1490294603][/doublepost]

Hey that's great. I do 3D for post production. I use octane for rendering. It scales linearly, so 4 cards are 4x faster than 1 card. Some guys use 7gpus.
[doublepost=1490294373][/doublepost]
Apple is the one with their name on the product.

You can't expect Apple to get their processors for $1,000 but only sell for $100. Heck, even selling for $900 is unrealistic. Apple is a business. Businesses exist to make money. THAT IS ALL. They would never sell a product at a loss.

The 6-core processor found in the 2013 Mac Pro ranges from $1,500 to $1,900 today.

The AMD W9000 (equivalent to the D700) is $1,565 refurbished for ONE. And you wonder why the Mac Pro is expensive?

 

[tuxon86]

What's silly about Linux being open source? Open source is at the very foundation of Linux / the reason it's been so successful, robust, stable, secure, widely adopted. What benefit would there be to abandoning this? I suspect some confusion regarding the details of "open source" (check out the GPLv2).

It's not up to an OS maker to dictate under what term an hardware manufacturer or software producer has to license its IP. Having people like Torvald giving the finger to NVidia and other hardware maker because of binary only release is the main reason why we get piss poor drivers support and in the case of internal HD video capture board none worth mentioning. Multi-function printer support is also lacking unless you like going through hoops to make them work with about half the feature of win/osx.

 

[Larry-K]

It's like we're waiting for The Messiah or something. Seriously, why the heck is Apple taking so long to release a new freaking Mac Pro?? This situation is beyond ridiculous!
Tim, just make it already. It's really not that hard. Hackintoshers do it all the time. But I want a real Mac Pro!

If the Messiah does show up, you can bet his first question will be "Where the hell is the new MacPro?"

 

[jeff7117]

And that is exactly my point. Did the 2010 Mac Pros even have the ability to run 7 GPUs? You buy what you need. If you need Quad SLI, obviously a Windows Workstation is better. Apple never really offered the kind of performance you guys need. I could never put in three or four Quadro graphics cards. The cards that Apple officially supported in the 2010 Mac Pro were absolutely crap. That AMD card (even in the 2010 system) built for Apple software. The last "official" NVIDIA card for the 2010 Mac Pro was the GTX 680. I do have a GTX 980 that I use in mine. But I also have that AMD card that is a bit better with FCPX.
[doublepost=1490294603][/doublepost]

You can't expect Apple to get their processors for $1,000 but only sell for $100. Heck, even selling for $900 is unrealistic. Apple is a business. Businesses exist to make money. THAT IS ALL. They would never sell a product at a loss.

The 6-core processor found in the 2013 Mac Pro ranges from $1,500 to $1,900 today.

The AMD W9000 (equivalent to the D700) is $1,565 refurbished for ONE. And you wonder why the Mac Pro is expensive?

Yes, 2013 product in 2013 was worth the money.

It's 2017. We have faster RAM, faster CPU's and faster GPU's.

Again, if it fits your workflow, that's great. But for many of us, it just doesn't make good financial sense to invest in a closed system of old hardware.

I realize you can do 3D on a i7 system that's a 1/4 of the price of a nMP and that's my point. If 2k buys a machine that is on par with a nMP, imagine how much more you get for the other 4k.

That's the market Apple is losing by not keeping up with current tech and by putting form over function.

 

[Jack Burton]

Does After Effects even run on the nMP? Does it just run slower than a system with NVIDIA and CUDA? I notice NO difference with what I do between my 2010 Mac Pro running an AMD card and using Adobe CC 2017 and my 2015 custom built PC with the GTX 1080.

I think you are overselling the old Mac Pro quite a bit.

After Effects CC 2017 is almost entirely single threaded as they rebuild the core of the app. There should be a significant difference between the slower single core clock speed of an old 2010 Mac Pro and a 2015 i7. I have an old cheese grater Mac Pro and my 2011 Sandy Bridge system leaves it in the dust in AE. No contest. A system from 2015 should eat my Mac Pro - and your Mac Pro - for lunch in AE.

4K does require at least a GTX 980, but it does NOT require quad SLI. I am able to work on 4K videos with a SINGLE GTX 1080.

I think you are confusing editing jeff7117's post about editing 4k video with 4k gaming. I keep seeing SLI popup in posts. That's not applicable to octane or to GPU bound video editing/compression.

 

[JMacHack]

Alot of people that drive big trunks really don't need them. Toyota should stop making big trucks and piss off the people that really need them...

Toyota should quit making trucks that are not the Taco.

It's not up to an OS maker to dictate under what term an hardware manufacturer or software producer has to license its IP. Having people like Torvald giving the finger to NVidia and other hardware maker because of binary only release is the main reason why we get piss poor drivers support and in the case of internal HD video capture board none worth mentioning. Multi-function printer support is also lacking unless you like going through hoops to make them work with about half the feature of win/osx.

And then someone who is capable of writing drivers forks and does it. Linux is a viable alternative for the average content consumer today, whereas 5 years ago it was pretty much a tech-geek only thing. Give it another 5 years and we're likely to see even greater abilities.

That's the point of open source software, since anyone can contribute the development time is shortened.

 

[ssgbryan]

I don't know a single thing about this topic but I'd like to ask -out of sheer ignorance- do these types of work really need that much power? (That a 2013 top-of-the-line nMP cannot provide?). If they do, would an updated nMP with a bit more power suffice? (I don't think that a new one would beat the 2013 ten-fold for example... Or can it?) Again, I do not know a single thing about this but I am curious and would like to know a bit more. Sorry for bothering.

It isn't just power. It is TCO (Total Cost of Ownership)

I looked at what I would need to move to the iCan.

2 4-bay external thunderbolt ($600 each) 1 for the missing internal bays; 1 for my backup (at the time, there were no esata to thunderbolt cables).

1 Thunderbolt dock ($250) - not enough connecters. I am not going to constantly be fumbling behind the iCan to connect my USB devices.

How many additional points of failure have been introduced?

If ANYTHING in the iCan goes down, I'm screwed - very different from when my video card died in my 4,1.

My workflow is based on cores & ram - the iCan doesn't justify the cost of moving ($6,000 for a 750Mhz boost).

I can't run CUDA on AMD video cards; and that is where rendering engines are today.

The iCan is a dongle for FCPX.
[doublepost=1490313773][/doublepost]

Um. My core i7 can run 3D software.

Yes, you can run 3D software on an i7 - especially if your time isn't valuable.
[doublepost=1490313881][/doublepost]

I find it absolutely irritating that people scream "The nMP is dead" or "The nMP sucks". If I only need 6-cores, 32GB of RAM, how is it bad?

If that is all you need, then it isn't bad - some of us want more.

 

[Larry-K]

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.

Have you ever actually done 3D for a living? There's a lot more to it than pushing a "Render" button, and I don't recall ever NOT being "time-constrained". I would suspect that "Handful" are the same people who could afford an nMP if they wanted one, and that handful is what's left of what was a pretty vibrant creative community that used MacPros.

Paying for the "Best of the Best" is one thing, paying that same price for the "Least of the Last", is something else.

We've got a dozen people in this little office complex alone, moaning about nMPs. Most have moved on to PCs, a few of us have 12 core 3.46 MacPros, and the saddest lot are the ones with the 12-core nMPs they paid way too much for, that never lived up to their expectations, especially in their lackluster single-core performance.

If the nMP was a capable machine, I'd have a stack of them on my desk tomorrow, but it is nothing more than an outdated, overpriced, FCPX dongle, and as true as that was in 2013, it's even more true in 2017.

Time is money, these days, I refuse to waste either on Apple.