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

[itdk92]

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...

Did I legitimate Apple not updating the Mac Pro in any way?

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If the nMP was a capable machine, I'd have a stack of them on my desk tomorrow, but it is nothing more than an outdated, overpriced, FCPX dongle, and as true as that was in 2013, it's even more true in 2017.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

Yes, we do 3D, not exactly for a living, since our focus is video though.
We also configure workstation solutions for business customers on the side.

We designed many cMP systems with 12 core, 128GB RAM, SSD/pcieSSD, 2-3 GPU and more, with twin systems for backup or for small CGI render farms. You can easily put 2 x top of the line Maxwell or multiple Quadros in these systems and they run JUST FINE.

Some other customers were unlucky enough to have nMPs, so we configured solutions were the top end had multiple eGPUs also with Maxwells in them, mostly with 6 and 8 cores CPUs.

No problem for now, whatsoever, and the customers have been incredibly happy about.


Would they be better off by a new, modern, all in one Mac Pro solution from Apple? Probably, but not necessarily.
Am I legitimating the lack of a new Mac Pro? NO!

I am just saying that if you need the power, these crappy old machines can still deliver, in 98% of the scenarios.

Hell, if you wanted you can even run 8 GPUs on 8 x4 lanes in the cMP or 4 x M4000 internally



Do I wish the concept Mac Pro in my pic profile? Yes, I still do.

 

[Ethosik]

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.



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.

No. My 2015 custom built system is the same clock speed, same cores as the 2010 Mac Pro. Newer processor generations (like what people here yelled about "where is kaby lake....") does not always mean better performance.

And no I did not confuse jeff's post. "4k video post". I can do that on my GTX 980. And 4K gaming? Even the GTX 1080 is not 4K at 60fps complete yet. 4K gaming is not perfect at this time.

What I do not understand is, why are people afraid of choice? Need quad SLI, 20+ cores? Get a Dell workstation.

 

[JMacHack]

What I do not understand is, why are people afraid of choice? Need quad SLI, 20+ cores? Get a Dell workstation.

Go figure, an Apple fan site has people who want to stay in the Apple ecosystem, and lament that Apple has been ignoring us.

 

[Ethosik]

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.

And 20+ cores will make things FASTER for me. But it is not practical. Why doesn't Intel just stop selling anything but 20-core processors? Why do they still over quad cores? NOBODY should EVER get a quad core, they should ONLY get a 20 core system huh?

You.....buy....what....you....NEED. Why is this so difficult to understand? I can get by with 6-cores VERY WELL. Does that mean I will turn down a free 20-core system? No. The 20-cores will benefit ANYONE. But you buy what you need.

And faster CPU's is debatable. Intel themselves states that Kaby Lake processors were only 25% faster than ones three and a half years ago. Stop treating it like it is the late 1990s where even a 1 year old processor can't do anything.
[doublepost=1490369024][/doublepost]

Go figure, an Apple fan site has people who want to stay in the Apple ecosystem, and lament that Apple has been ignoring us.

Apple is a business. They exist to make money. That is all. Do you have sales figures of how many dual cpu configurations sold in the 2010 systems? Apple would not commit suicide if EVERYONE was buying dual processor systems.

 

[JMacHack]

And 20+ cores will make things FASTER for me. But it is not practical. Why doesn't Intel just stop selling anything but 20-core processors? Why do they still over quad cores? NOBODY should EVER get a quad core, they should ONLY get a 20 core system huh?

You.....buy....what....you....NEED. Why is this so difficult to understand? I can get by with 6-cores VERY WELL. Does that mean I will turn down a free 20-core system? No. The 20-cores will benefit ANYONE. But you buy what you need.

And faster CPU's is debatable. Intel themselves states that Kaby Lake processors were only 25% faster than ones three and a half years ago. Stop treating it like it is the late 1990s where even a 1 year old processor can't do anything.

It's practical for people who do 3D and high-res video. Just like the i3m is practical for people who browse Facebook and Youtube.

Besides, it's not the processors that are the achilles' heel of the nMP. It's the GPUs, which HAVE had massive performance increases year after year.

 

[Ethosik]

It's practical for people who do 3D and high-res video. Just like the i3m is practical for people who browse Facebook and Youtube.

Besides, it's not the processors that are the achilles' heel of the nMP. It's the GPUs, which HAVE had massive performance increases year after year.

Why is it practical of me to spend $20,000 on a system when a $2,000 system does just fine? Why do I NEED to get a 20-core system if my 6-cores is fine?

Would you guys stop making this sound like putting 6-cores will make EVERYTHING run at a snails pace please? I get it. You NEED 20-cores. I DO NOT. Give me $20,000 and I will get the best of the best. Otherwise, it is not practical for me to spend $18,000 extra for "OMG A FEW MINUTES SAVED RENDERING!!!!"

Also, regarding GPUs. My workflow when dealing with 1080p footage is still fine under the GTX 680.

 

[JMacHack]

Apple is a business. They exist to make money. That is all. Do you have sales figures of how many dual cpu configurations sold in the 2010 systems? Apple would not commit suicide if EVERYONE was buying dual processor systems.

Apple is a business with fanatically loyal customers (us).

But we have needs beyond what their current lineup offers. We are willing to pay premium prices for Apple products because we like them.

Apple ignores our needs, we go somewhere else, no more fanatically loyal customers. Without that, Apple is just another business instead of a company people come to love.

 

[Ethosik]

Apple is a business with fanatically loyal customers (us).

But we have needs beyond what their current lineup offers. We are willing to pay premium prices for Apple products because we like them.

Apple ignores our needs, we go somewhere else, no more fanatically loyal customers. Without that, Apple is just another business instead of a company people come to love.

That has always been the case. Back in 2010, the absolute BEST Mac Pro could be easily beaten by a Dell workstation or a custom built one. There was always a configuration better than the absolute BEST Mac Pro.

 

[grad]

Both the fanless G4 Cube & the fan cooled TrashCan were Steve's idea and both ended up having cooling issues. Perhaps Apple now has learned that you can't cram "high performance" into a minuscule enclosure and expect everything to be all hunky dory.

Where did you see G4 Cube cooling issues ? None of my 3 Cubes had an issue.

Should I note that I hate noise ?

 

[Jack Burton]

No. My 2015 custom built system is the same clock speed, same cores as the 2010 Mac Pro. Newer processor generations (like what people here yelled about "where is kaby lake....") does not always mean better performance.

You mention you have six cores, but help me out here. You have a 2010 Mac Pro with 6 cores - westmere, right? 3.33 Ghz? What's the 2015 skylake 6 core processor with the same clock speed that you are using?

The best I could come up with was this comparison with a 3.33 Ghz 4 core i7 6600. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-W3680-vs-Intel-Core-i5-6600/m12335vs3514

In this case, the Mac Pro only wins out in multithreaded CPU tasks like offline rendering in 3d (not gaming). And that's only because the Xeon has 2 more cores. If you look at single core speed - the skylake is 28% faster at the same clock.

And no I did not confuse jeff's post. "4k video post".

I think you've done a good job confusing everyone.

I can do that on my GTX 980.

Sure, you can do computing tasks or 4k editing on your 980 and your 2010 xeon processor.

You just do them slower.

And 4K gaming? Even the GTX 1080 is not 4K at 60fps complete yet. 4K gaming is not perfect at this time.

You keep bringing up 4k gaming. Let's just say we both agree that if 4k gaming is your goal, that the PC should be your platform.

What I do not understand is, why are people afraid of choice? Need quad SLI, 20+ cores? Get a Dell workstation.

We aren't afraid of choice, most of the people you disagree with here run both platforms out of love for the Mac. We just don't quite get your statements on performance.

And faster CPU's is debatable.

No, it isn't. Faster processors compute faster. Please tell me we agree on this!

That has always been the case. Back in 2010, the absolute BEST Mac Pro could be easily beaten by a Dell workstation or a custom built one. There was always a configuration better than the absolute BEST Mac Pro.

My mind may be fuzzy, but I want to say that the cheese graters were pretty darn competitive on price vs Dell at one point. The problems arose when Apple wouldn't update as often as Dell and Apple wouldn't drop the price.

 

[grad]

The problem with the Mac Pro is that Apple didn't market/build/price it correctly.

I guess that, no matter how silly it might have sounded a couple of years ago, Professional Youtuber, Vlogger, Unboxer, Benchmarker, Modder, Gamer are considered real jobs nowadays, but I doubt they are the only ones. And I find it hard to believe there are no people who want something more powerful/functional than an iPad, something with a better screen/keyboard/etc than a MacBook or iMac etc.

If you really want storage for a big project it is not wise to rely on internal HDs or you are just asking for trouble. If you really want to crunch numbers you won't beat a set of noisy racks in a cabinet. Running Linux of course. Not the HP/Dell Windows workstations. Did I mention that Adobe Premiere editor is not the only "pro" job around ?

 

[jeff7117]

Lots of nMP users ready to go down with the ship.

Let's hope for their sake Apple doesn't EOL FCPX like they did with the xServe and Aperture.

 

[pat500000]

Lots of nMP users ready to go down with the ship.

Let's hope for their sake Apple doesn't EOL FCPX like they did with the xServe and Aperture.

Fcpx will keep going thanks to alternative platform ...mbp.

 

[Ethosik]

You mention you have six cores, but help me out here. You have a 2010 Mac Pro with 6 cores - westmere, right? 3.33 Ghz? What's the 2015 skylake 6 core processor with the same clock speed that you are using?

The best I could come up with was this comparison with a 3.33 Ghz 4 core i7 6600. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-W3680-vs-Intel-Core-i5-6600/m12335vs3514

In this case, the Mac Pro only wins out in multithreaded CPU tasks like offline rendering in 3d (not gaming). And that's only because the Xeon has 2 more cores. If you look at single core speed - the skylake is 28% faster at the same clock.



I think you've done a good job confusing everyone.



Sure, you can do computing tasks or 4k editing on your 980 and your 2010 xeon processor.

You just do them slower.



You keep bringing up 4k gaming. Let's just say we both agree that if 4k gaming is your goal, that the PC should be your platform.



We aren't afraid of choice, most of the people you disagree with here run both platforms out of love for the Mac. We just don't quite get your statements on performance.



No, it isn't. Faster processors compute faster. Please tell me we agree on this!



My mind may be fuzzy, but I want to say that the cheese graters were pretty darn competitive on price vs Dell at one point. The problems arose when Apple wouldn't update as often as Dell and Apple wouldn't drop the price.

When I first ordered my 2010 Mac Pro, I could easily find a much better Dell system for the same price. Maybe the top end models were more competitive, but not my model. And my work needed NVIDIA cards, and I did not have the choice when I ordered it. It was only AMD. However, I much much MUCH preferred OS X at the time, so I spent more money for the Mac Pro.

I didn't say my 2015 system had a Skylake. I said it had a NEWER generation processor than the 2010 Mac Pro. The processor I have is Haswell-E. i7-5820K to be exact. On paper and benchmarks it looks great. But in practice, it does not perform much better than my 2010 Mac Pro. My point is, newer processor generations is not an automatic performance boost.

Explain why Intel themselves stated that Kaby Lake is only 25% better than processors three and a half years ago. 3.3Ghz is 3.3Ghz. I absolutely regret spending $2,500 on my 2015 system. Looks great on benchmarks, not great in practice. Of course it performs a LITTLE better. But barely worth anything. Now it is just a severely overpriced gaming machine because the GTX 1080 is awesome.

My workflow focuses more on higher clock speed than cores. So a faster clock speed quad is better than the 3.3Ghz hex.

I didn't initially bring up 4K gaming.

My statement on performance is that it is subjective. Why can't we agree on that? If all you need a 6-cores (or a quad/12 cores even) how is the Mac Pro bad? The only thing I agree with regarding the complaints is that the price is too high. But looking at newegg/amazon/ebay at the actual components, the price is pretty reasonable. It is still $1,500 on average for the 6-core processor found in the 2013 Mac Pro. Even today.

I get that the Mac Pro is "bad" if you need 20 cores or quad SLI or some of these ultra specced machines. But my entire argument is that people here just say in a blanket statement "The 2013 Mac Pros suck/are bad/don't perform well anymore/...".

Also, regarding "newer and better GPUs are available". I notice NO difference when editing with a GTX 680 on my 2010 Mac Pro vs editing with a GTX 1080 on my 2015 system when dealing with 1080p footage. 4K footage? My 680 won't even touch it due to the memory. But the 1080 does.

So if I was JUST dealing with 1080p footage, why would I spend $700 on the GTX 1080 just because it is NEWER?

 

[tuxon86]

When I first ordered my 2010 Mac Pro, I could easily find a much better Dell system for the same price. Maybe the top end models were more competitive, but not my model. And my work needed NVIDIA cards, and I did not have the choice when I ordered it. It was only AMD. However, I much much MUCH preferred OS X at the time, so I spent more money for the Mac Pro.

I didn't say my 2015 system had a Skylake. I said it had a NEWER generation processor than the 2010 Mac Pro. The processor I have is Haswell-E. i7-5820K to be exact. On paper and benchmarks it looks great. But in practice, it does not perform much better than my 2010 Mac Pro. My point is, newer processor generations is not an automatic performance boost.

Explain why Intel themselves stated that Kaby Lake is only 25% better than processors three and a half years ago. 3.3Ghz is 3.3Ghz. I absolutely regret spending $2,500 on my 2015 system. Looks great on benchmarks, not great in practice. Of course it performs a LITTLE better. But barely worth anything. Now it is just a severely overpriced gaming machine because the GTX 1080 is awesome.

My workflow focuses more on higher clock speed than cores. So a faster clock speed quad is better than the 3.3Ghz hex.

I didn't initially bring up 4K gaming.

My statement on performance is that it is subjective. Why can't we agree on that? If all you need a 6-cores (or a quad/12 cores even) how is the Mac Pro bad? The only thing I agree with regarding the complaints is that the price is too high. But looking at newegg/amazon/ebay at the actual components, the price is pretty reasonable. It is still $1,500 on average for the 6-core processor found in the 2013 Mac Pro. Even today.

I get that the Mac Pro is "bad" if you need 20 cores or quad SLI or some of these ultra specced machines. But my entire argument is that people here just say in a blanket statement "The 2013 Mac Pros suck/are bad/don't perform well anymore/...".

Also, regarding "newer and better GPUs are available". I notice NO difference when editing with a GTX 680 on my 2010 Mac Pro vs editing with a GTX 1080 on my 2015 system when dealing with 1080p footage. 4K footage? My 680 won't even touch it due to the memory. But the 1080 does.

So if I was JUST dealing with 1080p footage, why would I spend $700 on the GTX 1080 just because it is NEWER?

Performance is measurable so it ain't subjective.

 

[Ethosik]

Performance is measurable so it ain't subjective.

Um. Yes it is. I am referring to real world usage not benchmarks. If I only play video games at 1280x720 (or heck, lets say 800x600), and all I play is lets say Terraria, how is a GTX 1080 better than a GTX 680? It benchmarks better, but it is not better in that scenario I mentioned.

The ONLY reason I got a GTX 1080 instead of the GTX 980 was that it absolutely destroys everything and makes games run at 100 FPS+. If I did not have a high hz display, or I did not care about reaching those hz, it would be no different than my GTX 980 was. And it was $700. It kills it in benchmarks. But real-world usage does not always reflect benchmarks.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Wi

Fcpx will keep going thanks to alternative platform ...mbp.

without fully supported, plug & play eGPU it will die an even quicker death (thankfully).

 

[pat500000]

Wi

without fully supported, plug & play eGPU it will die an even quicker death (thankfully).

Fcpx doesnt need egpu. It just need whatever updated gpu is given from amd.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Fcpx doesnt need egpu. It just need whatever updated gpu is given from amd.

The best of which (d700) is based on late 2011 technology!!!

 

[pat500000]

The best of which (d700) is based on late 2011 technology!!!

Yeah. But if we are including gpu from mbp then.....

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple is a business with fanatically loyal customers (us).

Apple's business is not finding fanatical people to sell things too.

Apple's business is selling system that primarily just work. Users don't want an mostly empty box that they will tinker around inside of. The vast majority of Apple customers want some thing the can simply plug and start using in a couple of minutes.

Because the customers find the products useful they buy them. Not simply because Apple is Apple but because the tool is useful. Most of the customers like the products alot primarily out of the utility not because they have some fetish for the logo. ( yes there are some "brand first" folks, but most folks just want a useful tool. )

Apple business is also not trying to sell everything to everyday. Some people they choose not to sell anything to. They never sold netbooks. They never sold 'big iron' computers.

But we have needs beyond what their current lineup offers. We are willing to pay premium prices for Apple products because we like them.

Apple has also never particularly been in the "build by customer edict" company. Building relatively extremely specialized machines for narrow niches. And when do try to do that it is usually a bust. It is a balanced mix of volume/scale and focus. Big enough focus groups to get substantive scale but not chasing down narrowing rabbit holes.

Apple ignores our needs, we go somewhere else, no more fanatically loyal customers. Without that, Apple is just another business instead of a company people come to love.

Apple is a business. They need paying customers. not the exact same customers just enough customers to stay comfortably in business. So if 10K leave and 11K new ones come in they haven't lost much.

"... Introduced in 2009, the SFF workstation has grown to become the highest growth segment in the market, already accounting for nearly a third of all entry-class workstation shipments. .."
http://gfxspeak.com/2015/10/18/triggers-industry-workstation/
( yes some of the smaller is cheaper is driving part of that which is a partially mismatch with Mac Pro pricing, but the 'size and power at all costs" isn't the driver of the market anymore. )


The reality is that is a substantive market for "sit on top of the desk" workstation computers that are "fast enough" to cover the workload demands of an expanding set of people. That doesn't mean the other workstation segments have completely disappeared, but they are not particularly showing signs of growth.

Trying to sell to the exact same set of people who are buying at flat-to-negative rates of growth isn't tractable for the Mac. Longer buying cycles is driving growth rates down in many of these segments. You can see it evidenced in several places in this thread where boiled down to the essence people are saying they just want a container to put other stuff into (e.g., GPU cards). They buy a small subset of components but buy substantially less of everything else. For a system vendor that is not a path to profitability.

 

[shoehornhands]

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.

Ha ha, yeah, Linus can certainly be a bit stubborn. That said, his anger toward Nvidia isn't completely unwarranted.

Most companies either provide their own open source drivers, or at the very least, provide the Linux community / developers with hardware specs to aid them in driver development. Various Linux developers have offered up their time to develop an open-source Nvidia driver (essentially doing Nvidia's job for them for free), and Nvidia refused to give them anything to go off of. So the Linux developers were left attempting to reverse engineer an open-source driver for Linux (an extremely difficult, tedious, time-consuming process).

Now consider this (from Linus's perspective). While Nvidia was refusing to aid the Linux community, they are developing / profiting off of chips / drivers created for embedded solutions running on Linux. So if you were Linus, and you see Nvidia happily profiting as a result of Linux, while refusing to give anything back (even as little as providing some basic specs), wouldn't you be just little ticked off?

Throw in that it's long been suspected that Nvidia intentionally cripples their video cards / hardware via the driver, as a means of product differentiation, and this is the reason they don't want their drivers open-sourced (as people would quickly develop a driver that takes full advantage of the hardware / Nvidia would no longer be able to profit from this "strategy"). I don't think I need to explain why this garners Nvidia no sympathy in the Linux / open-source community.

Nvidia has been a bit more helpful / supportive of the Linux community as of late though, so hopefully we start to see improved driver support down the road.

 

[jeff7117]

Um. Yes it is. I am referring to real world usage not benchmarks. If I only play video games at 1280x720 (or heck, lets say 800x600), and all I play is lets say Terraria, how is a GTX 1080 better than a GTX 680? It benchmarks better, but it is not better in that scenario I mentioned.

Are you talking about gaming on your PC or Mac?

If I tell my client that a render will take 6 hours on one machine and 8 hours on another, in what world is that subjective? One is faster, and one is slower.

Here's some very recent Premiere benchmarks comparing the fastest machine Apple makes to a couple of standard fairly light weight NON Xeon workstations.

The performance gap in traditional 3D software is even worse.

The performance gap is a total cluster with CUDA acceleration (Rendering, NOT gaming) since you can't run any Nvidia cards on a nMP without external expansion, and you can't run any Pascal series cards at all. eGPU solutions are also not officially supported by Apple and they have intentionally made it this way.

So if we look at the benchmarks, those are actual numbers and almost every single benchmark shows that the nMP in some instances is almost twice the price, for much less performance.

Unless you never, ever, ever plan on working with any footage higher than 1080 that starts with a "K" in it, then yeah, the nMP will work ok. You'll be paying at least a $3000 premium for the OS, the "Apple ecosystem" and a slower experience when comparing the same software on the nMP vs a comparable PC workstation.

To recap a $6,500 PC will net you 52% faster export times, 43% faster render preview times, and 26% faster warp stabilization times and it's $3,000 less than the fastest nMP available. I fail to see in any measurable way how that substantial difference in price vs. performance is subjective.

If you just need to edit FCPX, Apple has you covered and they think you can get by just fine editing on a MBP instead of the trash can.

 

[owbp]

That has always been the case. Back in 2010...

Thats the case since they left PPC and went for Intel.
If you remember PPC conventions were, among other things, about showing us how much faster and cheaper are they compared to top of the line PC Workstations (showdowns of Photoshop, Media Cleaner etc...).
Then, with introduction of Intel CPUs they started comparing only prices (cMP vs Dell) and for the last decade all you can hear is how much faster it is to previous Apple products...

If you're someone who knows what's happening in hardware world, do you really care how much faster is this iMac to the previous one? That is the joke i don't get.

 

[Ethosik]

Are you talking about gaming on your PC or Mac?

If I tell my client that a render will take 6 hours on one machine and 8 hours on another, in what world is that subjective? One is faster, and one is slower.

Here's some very recent Premiere benchmarks comparing the fastest machine Apple makes to a couple of standard fairly light weight NON Xeon workstations.

The performance gap in traditional 3D software is even worse.

The performance gap is a total cluster with CUDA acceleration (Rendering, NOT gaming) since you can't run any Nvidia cards on a nMP without external expansion, and you can't run any Pascal series cards at all. eGPU solutions are also not officially supported by Apple and they have intentionally made it this way.

So if we look at the benchmarks, those are actual numbers and almost every single benchmark shows that the nMP in some instances is almost twice the price, for much less performance.

Unless you never, ever, ever plan on working with any footage higher than 1080 that starts with a "K" in it, then yeah, the nMP will work ok. You'll be paying at least a $3000 premium for the OS, the "Apple ecosystem" and a slower experience when comparing the same software on the nMP vs a comparable PC workstation.

To recap a $6,500 PC will net you 52% faster export times, 43% faster render preview times, and 26% faster warp stabilization times and it's $3,000 less than the fastest nMP available. I fail to see in any measurable way how that substantial difference in price vs. performance is subjective.

If you just need to edit FCPX, Apple has you covered and they think you can get by just fine editing on a MBP instead of the trash can.

It will be many years before 4K is the standard everywhere. I even need to produce some 1280x720 footage for people.

"Never ever ever ever plan to work on *K footage"? What does that mean? 10 years from now I will obviously have a new computer. 4K might be the standard by then. There is NO 4K footage. There are no discs yet that have 4K.
[doublepost=1490537696][/doublepost]

Thats the case since they left PPC and went for Intel.
If you remember PPC conventions were, among other things, about showing us how much faster and cheaper are they compared to top of the line PC Workstations (showdowns of Photoshop, Media Cleaner etc...).
Then, with introduction of Intel CPUs they started comparing only prices (cMP vs Dell) and for the last decade all you can hear is how much faster it is to previous Apple products...

If you're someone who knows what's happening in hardware world, do you really care how much faster is this iMac to the previous one? That is the joke i don't get.

Well yeah that is what I meant when I stated the 2010 Mac Pro could be beaten by a Dell at the time.