Mac Pro 2011 Specs

[chrismacguy]

Ok, am I then wrong to say the reason why I got the mac pro is because I thought it was as upgradable as when I got a Power Mac G5 back in the day? In other words, when the bulk of consumers bought the power mac towers back in the day?

You don't see 90 percent of the consumers buying mac pros like they did the Power Mac G4 or G5, Right?

err 90 percent of consumers didn't ever buy the PowerMac G5s... 90% of prosumers may've done, but most consumers bought the iMac - hence it being a runaway success. - Back in the era of G4s when the low-end machines truly were cheaper, then some consumers may've done, but still not 90% - and you don't see them buying Mac Pros because
1) The iMac is even more capable than before, especially at the high-end and
2) The Mac Pro is more expensive, and is specifically designed for professional uses. Not consumer uses. Certainly not gaming/nearly all of your use. You are in a massive minority in that you could do all your computing on a Mac Mini/iMac, yet have a Mac Pro out of choice/hoping it'll last longer/etc etc. Most of us have them because we need all the storage expandability or the expansion slots right here, right now to get stuff done.

 

[gpzjock]

Prosumer, consumer, it's a grey area....

The iMac saved Apple's bacon in 1998, its Power Mac market was tiny and overpriced, only DTP companies bought them in serious numbers.
The iMac G3 came into a home user market and generated a massive liquidity boost by outselling the beige PM boxes many times over.
This in turn allowed investment in the iPod and iPhone markets over the next decade.
Apple's Pro market is still small compared to consumer sales.
Every Pro that moves off the shelf is a tiny fraction of Apple's revenue today this has not changed very much since 2000.
The move to Intel allowed the iMac to grow in power and ability but it will always be consumer product while the Mac Pro continues to be a workstation to be desired.

My personal view is generated by my ownership of iMac models from the original G3 Bondi, through the G4 lampstand model, to a 2 Ghz G5 20".
I made the switch to Intel in 2008 with a Mac Pro, why not an iMac? I didn't want a glossy screen. Never will want one either. Till Apple make an anti-glare iMac I'm a Pro user by default, despite the heaviest work it gets being Photoshop, the rest of the time WoW keeps it warm.....

 

[chrismacguy]

My personal view is generated by my ownership of iMac models from the original G3 Bondi, through the G4 lampstand model, to a 2 Ghz G5 20".
I made the switch to Intel in 2008 with a Mac Pro, why not an iMac? I didn't want a glossy screen. Never will want one either. Till Apple make an anti-glare iMac I'm a Pro user by default, despite the heaviest work it gets being Photoshop, the rest of the time WoW keeps it warm.....

Apple really should have a Matte option, certainly on the high-end iMac. I wouldn't mind one on the cinema display too... then I wouldn't have to find even more money for an external setup to do color correction on.. but then again, Apple never will do this because everyone knows that the most important thing people do on Macs is look at their holiday snaps in Quad-HD.. which is one of the only times Glossy actually looks good....

 

[Transporteur]

And what mac pro do you have? Just that nano told me that its not going to be really a significant upgrade which would warrant those with high end mac pros(12 and 6 core) to abandon them.

I don't have a Mac Pro. The Mini provides all the processing power I need.

Anyhow, I'm pretty sure that is not what nanofrog told you.
Again, it all depends on the specific usage, you can't project YOUR usage to all others! If one needs the processing power, SB will certainly be an option since the new architecture is stupid fast compared to Westmere/Nehalem.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Personally, those with 2009/2010 mac pros, esp 6-core and 12-core most likely won't go with the next refresh, and neither will I because all I need is ESATA and I can match thunderbolt.. But why bother? I have absolutely no need for such speed.

Except that a lot of new periphs, besides HDs, are going to have TB ports, not eSATA. Also I don't know any MP users that doesn't want all the speed they can afford. eSATA is limited on the the MP unless you give up the 2nd internal Superdrive bay or buy a card and use a PCI slot. It's also not always hot swappable. OTOH TB will be internal, daisy chain-able, and carries video and data signals and is always hot swappable.

TB is the future, especially Apple's. We know how Apple works and will tease users to get them to upgrade. Don't be surprised when Apple releases some amazing s/w feature that requires TB. You may not need TB speed now, but you don't know what Apple has up it's sleeve either, and history would suggest it's more than a bunny rabbit.

 

[chrismacguy]

Except that a lot of new periphs, besides HDs, are going to have TB ports, not eSATA. Also I don't know any MP users that doesn't want all the speed they can afford. eSATA is limited on the the MP unless you give up the 2nd internal Superdrive bay or buy a card and use a PCI slot. It's also not always hot swappable. OTOH TB will be internal, daisy chain-able, and carries video and data signals and is always hot swappable.

TB is the future, especially Apple's. We know how Apple works and will tease users to get them to upgrade. Don't be surprised when Apple releases some amazing s/w feature that requires TB. You may not need TB speed now, but you don't know what Apple has up it's sleeve either, and history would suggest it's more than a bunny rabbit.

Personally I'm waiting for the iMac which has just power and a single TB port or 2, and a headphone jack.

 

[Tonepoet]

The only updates worthwhile from what I have learned will be the followwing, and please note - one of these can be already added to the existing mac pros:

SATA III - Can easily be added with a PCIe card
Thunderbolt isn't going to happen as the X79 chipset does not support thunderbolt, so I don't see this happening at all.. Hellhamer made a point that all one has to do is add ESATA which is going to be twice as fast as thunderbolt.

The next advantage is only for those with specialized software - the addition of additional cores.

And FINALLY.. memory - 1600 mhz DDR3 memory which isn't that much faster than 1333 mhz. Unless you have a use for weather related software, or very heavy scientific software, you won't notice much of a difference between 1333 DDR3 which you and I have now versus 1600 DDR3. So, really the only benefit I see is onboard SATA III and thats all.

Personally, those with 2009/2010 mac pros, esp 6-core and 12-core most likely won't go with the next refresh, and neither will I because all I need is ESATA and I can match thunderbolt.. But why bother? I have absolutely no need for such speed.

Uh, eSATA only pushes through 6Gbps, max because that's what SATA III pushes. How could it ever be faster than the 10Gbps PCIE connection Thunderbolt provides? They're both based upon the foundation of low level high speed internal connections, just stuck on an external port?

Secondly I think when it comes to revising computers, I think both Apple and Intel would prefer to revise the design of the board to push their new high speed port. This is partially because professional users are the ones who'll be most interested in the bandwidth. If they can't sell it to the pro market, nobody'll buy it. More importantly perhaps they don't want to snub early adopters at this stage, the people who Thunderbolt devices like like the Lacie Little Bigdisk, the Pegasus DAS or the Blackmagic Ultrastudio 3D look to be a little too expensive for the casual user. Not only would people not be buying thunderbolt devices to marry their future setups to the port but it'd have the chilling effect of showing that Apple isn't really commited tot he tech, despite their key role in its development. If the developer of something isn't supporting it, why would any third party?

It'd just be too big of a marketing blunder. They'll just snub the professional/enterprise market again with a late update before realeasing a new Mac without a Thunderbolt port and I can't especially see them dropping it in favor of another less vested port they never officially offered on any Mac before.

 

[gpzjock]

Apple have championed external ports in the past too.

Apple threw out all the legacy parallel and serial ports in 1998 with the iMac and adopted USB when there were only a dozen peripherals that used it.
They adopted Firewire 400 when only Digital Video cameras and expensive external drives used it.
Microsoft struggled to make USB as effective in Windows till XP was released, anyone remember "Plug and Pray" with Windows 98/ME *shudders*.
USB 2.0 was ignored by Apple and that was to support the Firewire 400 standard they were tied to with all their models by then.
I suspect eSATA got the Jobsian cold shoulder possibly because Lightpeak was only round the corner......
Thunderbolt will be championed in the same manner, I reckon.
*Ques up "Thunderstruck" by AC/DC in iTunes.*