Mac Pro alternatives

[d-m-a-x]

I'd be less worried if I was hearing things from inside Apple that weren't so focused on moving all resources to killing Google. I'm pretty sure the iOS/Android spat has driven Apple over the edge. I'm pretty sure Apple has the resources to both sustain pros and effectively fight Google, but they've kind of been blinded by the entire thing.

which is why i wish they would just forget it and stick to what they are good at. No flash on the i phone, no replaceable batteries, no replaceable media. When it came time for me to get a smartphone, I got an android.
But good lord, my MBP an MP are great computers

 

[goMac]

which is why i wish they would just forget it and stick to what they are good at. No flash on the i phone, no replaceable batteries, no replaceable media. When it came time for me to get a smartphone, I got an android.
But good lord, my MBP an MP are great computers

I like their iOS strategy (and I know that's a matter of opinion), but someone needs to throw them a copy of The Mythical Man Month.

 

[jpine]

I picked up a 2008 8 core for just under $1200 USD from macofalltrades dot com. The only down side with this model, at least for me, is that RAM is VERY expensive. But so far, 4 GBs is getting me by---just barely.

 

[vladi]

I picked up a 2008 8 core for just under $1200 USD from macofalltrades dot com. The only down side with this model, at least for me, is that RAM is VERY expensive. But so far, 4 GBs is getting me by---just barely.

RAM will be very expensive even if you get PC workstation, thats because it uses server memory which is different to consumer RAM and the sole reason why Mac Pros dont crash that much compared to ordinary consumer Win PC. It features error correction. Dont mind me you might know all of this already but most of the people don't.

When it comes to cores Apple made it sound just like "its all about the apps". Its really not, its about efficiency and so far prosumer software like Adobe, The Foundry, Avid is really bad when it comes to using all the cores available. Unless you are into some heavy duty and I mean heavy duty workflow like simultaneous 2K video editing on Avid while Nuke and Maya are running side by side then more cores might get you a working and stable computer, not necessarily faster but more stable.

When it comes to speed its all about SSD, RAM and GPU (if your thing is graphix/video). MP are really complicated when it comes to SSD something Apple might fix I truly hope and not get proprietary (every indication is leading to that unfortunately). GPU support is sad, its horrible and the biggest downside of owning a Mac.

True alternative to MP is configure it yourself PC with server components, kick ass GPU and SSD in RAID. It will cost you as much as MP btw.

 

[ArcaneDevice]

As far as pure desktop machines go the Mac Pro is the best built desktop ever made imho.

Except for upgradability. I rate the first tower G3's as some of the best hardware Apple ever made. You could rip out and update almost every part, overclock the processors using jumpers, use PC parts (including graphics cards) and it was built like a tank.

I've been waiting for an update to the Mac Pro for a year now. My work machine is in desperate need of replacement but all this endless "imminent" update talk has kept pushing me back. At this point I'll take any announcement even if it's cancellation news just so I can make a decision.

 

[Hellhammer]

Ivy bridge is right around the corner and will be faster clock for clock than sandy bridge. I quad core imac i7 ivy bridge or ivy bridge quad core Server Mini could be as fast as a Quad core Mac Pro with a Core i7-3820.

Mac Pro isn't just about CPU power. If you want the best bang for buck in terms of CPU power, Mac Pro isn't your choice. However, neither Mini or iMac can offer real expandability. Need a better GPU? No problem. Need USB 3.0 or anything PCIe? No problem.

With other Macs you are limited to the parts it ships with. Thunderbolt is cool and all but it's useless at the moment. If the prices drop enough, then it might start to be useful.

Ivy Bridge does not seem all that awesome right now. 5% increase maybe clock for clock. But higher clock overall so maybe 10%? Whatever is after Ivy will be even faster so really no quantum leap. The leap happened with i7. The rest is just little bumps.

Intel's graphs suggest around 12% improvement in CPU performance (i7-2600 vs i7-3770).

 

[derbothaus]

Intel's graphs suggest around 12% improvement in CPU performance (i7-2600 vs i7-3770).

OK. I was off 2%. Hopefully they get it around 15% by launch. But with no competition I see a 5-10% improvement pattern for quite a while with the releases. Tri-gate "should" have been another quantum leap.

 

[Hellhammer]

OK. I was off 2%. Hopefully they get it around 15% by launch. But with no competition I see a 5-10% improvement pattern for quite a while with the releases. Tri-gate "should" have been another quantum leap.

Well, you have to remember that i7-3770 is a 77W part whereas i7-2600 is a 95W part. Intel chose to save power instead of increasing the performance substantially. i7-3770S (3.2GHz/3.9GHz) provides ~20% faster performance on average when compared to i7-2600S (2.8GHz/3.8GHz) - both are 65W parts.

Of course, these figures are provided by Intel so expect unbiased tests to be a bit lower.

 

[jasonvp]

I have yet to see a software (besides MS Office) that runs better on Windows than Mac OS or Linux to be honest and I've tested a ton of software.

One example is Adobe's Premiere Pro NLE. Adobe's developers understand how to thread things better in Windows than they do on a standard *nix platform, it seems. There are probably a few other Windows-specific optimizations they've made to it as well.

jas

 

[jasonvp]

- Upgrade to better CPU within existing Xeon series

They can't do that and remain within their TDP envelope. The better Xeons are faster and more power hungry... not that that's a bad thing mind you. But it seems one of Apple's design goals with the Mac Pro was to squeeze out as much CPU grunt as they could while keeping chip power consumption below 200W (I think) total.

As those of us who've upgraded our Mac Pro CPUs have seen: the case, fans, heat sinks, etc, are all quite capable of dealing with hotter and faster chips. But Apple just didn't feel it worth the little extra noise.

- Replace entry-level single-core CPU with cheaper / more powerful i7 (lower price point)

That's anti-Mac Pro there. Why would they do that?

- Upgrade GPU
- Upgrade memory

Sure. End users can do the same thing for far less money in most cases.

- Upgrade Ethernet to 10GigE

No good application here until 10GigE switches become a bit more affordable and widespread.

- Add 3.5"/2.5" options for optical bay(s)
- Add SSD options / better SSD support (e.g. blade SSD's as found in the MBA, PCIe card or direkt slides for 2.5" drives)

Handy suggestions there, but I suspect they'd want to do some case reorganizing for that. And for that to happen, they'd want to release a new model including updated Xeon chips... which don't exist yet.

- Add internal Raid-5/6 options

Obviously the current "built-in" RAID solutions with the Mac are all software-based. So any RAID changes they made would also be software based and not involve the machine itself.

The available RAID add-in PCI card is another story, but it isn't clear you were referring to that.

- Make hard drive bays hot-swapable

Are you sure they're not? I thought part of the SATA spec was: hot swappable.

- Add high-power USB e.g. for iPad charging
- Add USB 3 (/eSata)

Meh. Want to fast-charge your iPad? Plug it into the wall and stop bitching. USB3 will eventually find its way to the Mac I'm sure, but it'll take a motherboard overhaul and that's not going to happen until we have new Xeons available.

jas

 

[iSayuSay]

This. People forget that Intel hasn't released new chips, hence no new Mac Pro.

Yeah .. you're right from CPU standpoint, but at least they can go upgrade the GPU option. Keeping the same old GPU and price tag is not nice you know?

Uh huh, sure MacPro is not just about gaming. But why not giving the best for the most expensive Mac line? As many said, MacPro is not about cost saving anymore. It's about the best workstation you can get.

And I think with current price, MacPro should've been sold with 27" ACD included. Oh please, a basic MacPro costs $2500 contains Xeon W3530 which cost merely $350? Not much of a difference compared to i7 2600.

I'd buy a MacPro if the price is $2500 with display. But it doesn't, so I settled with i7 iMac instead. Not bad, machine is great and fast, but it has quite problems with heat, smudged display, not expandable.

 

[Umbongo]

Yeah .. you're right from CPU standpoint, but at least they can go upgrade the GPU option. Keeping the same old GPU and price tag is not nice you know?

Uh huh, sure MacPro is not just about gaming. But why not giving the best for the most expensive Mac line?

Probably because the potential extra system sales and sales of stand alone cards wouldn't cover the cost of the driver development, retooling, re-certification and the losses from not being able to sell existing stock for full price. If they are considering ditching the line as it is, more updates are not going to help. The sales potential just isn't there on high-end hardware intended for productivity that is expected to last 3-6 years.

 

[Jake99]

I would love to get a Mac Pro, but it needs a refresh, until then its just too expensive for the current configuration.

I think Apple is going to cancel the Mac Pro line. Its not selling well, its really expensive, and the one sector that might breath new life into it (gamers) they don't seem willing to seriously go after.

As a high-end workstation for businesses, its an option but not many want to get them. There are too many other alternatives and cost is a factor. I see it all the time.

I am a huge Apple fan and I would love to see them come out with a desktop aimed more at also being attractive to gamers - the cool upgradable case of the Mac Pro is awesome, the engineering of the case is brilliant.

I think they are going to kill the Mac Pro desktop, its going to go the way of the white MacBook, and if you are an individual and you want something powerful you will have to get an amped up iMac.

I think Apple is going to focus more on small, thin laptops, mass-appeal iMacs, iPads, iPhones and (soon) TV's. It just does not feel like they give a crap about the Mac Pro anymore.

 

[goMac]

Probably because the potential extra system sales and sales of stand alone cards wouldn't cover the cost of the driver development, retooling, re-certification and the losses from not being able to sell existing stock for full price. If they are considering ditching the line as it is, more updates are not going to help. The sales potential just isn't there on high-end hardware intended for productivity that is expected to last 3-6 years.

The 6970 is also not significantly faster then the 5870. Not like the 7970 is, at least.

 

[jasonvp]

I think they are going to kill the Mac Pro desktop, its going to go the way of the white MacBook, and if you are an individual and you want something powerful you will have to get an amped up iMac.

I think Apple is going to focus more on small, thin laptops, mass-appeal iMacs, iPads, iPhones and (soon) TV's. It just does not feel like they give a crap about the Mac Pro anymore.

The death of the Mac Pro as been much-discussed here for a least 5 years now. Probably a lot longer. The reason it keeps coming up is the very long refresh cycle. As pointed out by myself and several others: it's mainly due to Intel's long refresh cycle for the Xeon chips.

Once the multi-processor SB-E Xeons ship this Spring, my bet is we'll see a new Mac Pro. And then in a year or so, we'll be talking about the line dying again.

jas

 

[Jake99]

The death of the Mac Pro as been much-discussed here for a least 5 years now. Probably a lot longer. The reason it keeps coming up is the very long refresh cycle. As pointed out by myself and several others: it's mainly due to Intel's long refresh cycle for the Xeon chips.

Once the multi-processor SB-E Xeons ship this Spring, my bet is we'll see a new Mac Pro. And then in a year or so, we'll be talking about the line dying again.

jas

So what is stopping them from at least making the Mac Pro just a little more competitive, why tie everything to Intel's stupid schedule? USB 2.0 could be upgraded to 3.0, add thunderbolt, add a blue-ray drive, make the GPU options more current. Why do they need to charge $1400 for a 512GB SSD that you can buy anywhere else for $700? Corporate america is viewing the Mac Pro as less and less relevant. And if you look at a graph of Mac Pro sales the past several years, it looks like a ski slope heading downwards. That is a fact.

For them to have a Mac Pro that is as successful as the rest of the products in the lineup they will have to change their approach. The Mac Pro seems like a product that has lost its way.

I don't want to see Apple get out of the high-end desktop sector but its completely puzzling to me why they are acting this way - the only thing that makes sense is that they are dropping it. I don't think the "we are waiting for Intel" answer makes much sense anymore, IMO. But I hope I am totally wrong and they come back with something awesome. Just doubtful of that.

 

[xgman]

For them to have a Mac Pro that is as successful as the rest of the products in the lineup they will have to change their approach. The Mac Pro seems like a product that has lost its way.

Apple is a stubborn company.

 

[Umbongo]

And if you look at a graph of Mac Pro sales the past several years, it looks like a ski slope heading downwards. That is a fact.

Post a link to that graph please.

 

[wallysb01]

Post a link to that graph please.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure no one outside Apple has the figures for that. I've been curious about this before and tried finding it. Needless to say, I didn't find anything. They give you figures on how well the desktops and laptops or iPads or iPhones are doing, but they don't break it down into Mac Pro vs iMac, etc.

 

[deconstruct60]

Well, you have to remember that i7-3770 is a 77W part whereas i7-2600 is a 95W part. Intel chose to save power instead of increasing the performance substantially.

Actually no, they did increase the performance substantially. It is the GPU performance that increased substantially. The failure here is to keep looking at these products as simply x86 cores. They are not.

 

[radug]

Quote:
- Make hard drive bays hot-swapable

Are you sure they're not? I thought part of the SATA spec was: hot swappable.

this has been discussed before on the forum : OS X does not support hot-swapping hard drives and as far as i can remember, nobody with a MacPro was willing to try it under Windows.

 

[Hellhammer]

Actually no, they did increase the performance substantially. It is the GPU performance that increased substantially. The failure here is to keep looking at these products as simply x86 cores. They are not.

True, but you can't ignore the reduction in TDP either. When we look at chips with equal TDPs, the CPU performance improvement is much bigger. Improvement in graphics doesn't mean that the CPU department is left as it is. Sandy Bridge improved both, substantially.

 

[Sjhonny]

This. People forget that Intel hasn't released new chips, hence no new Mac Pro.

Seriously? You're just going to deny the fact Apple skipped over a complete generation of GPUs? They never even bothered to add it as a BTO option. +the 5770 is slower then the 6970m featured in the iMac. Hell, the 6970m even outperforms the 5870 in games and synthetic benchmarks. Although, the BTO price for a 5850 is a surplus (!) of $200. Which could get you a 6950 or a 560Ti? Sorry, but this is ridiculous ...

Want to use Mac? Get an iMac (great product bang for the buck whise!). Not enough horsepower? Get a pc 8). Apple clearly prioritizes it's con(/pro)sumer products over there pro products since there MacPro4,1's.

Besides, Adobe puts way more effort in there pc-side of the CS-suite, so do most open-source projects (handbrake being an exception). The one thing that bugs me is that Autodesk is trying to port half there repertoire to Mac. Okey, beside the first releases (The AutoCAD release was just terrible, not even Beta-label worthy), the products are okey, but functionality is better on Windows, so is the performance. M$ might be big and evil, (Windows,) DirectX, .Net, are just fine and complete products, where the Mac Side has no answer for.

 

[derbothaus]

Hell, the 6970m even outperforms the 5870 in games and synthetic benchmarks.

So wrong. A 6970m, for the millionth time, is a 6850 dressed up in new numbers and slower clocks. It is in no way faster than a 5870 in ANYTHING. Even a 6870 is SLOWER than the 5870.
Please get your heads around the whole notebook (mobile) vs. Desktop thing.
3Dmark Vantage (about as game synthetic as you get)
6970m: 11600
5870: 21062

http://www.barefeats.com/imac11b.html
http://www.barefeats.com/imac11c.html

 

[goMac]

So wrong. A 6970m, for the millionth time, is a 6850 dressed up in new numbers and slower clocks. It is in no way faster than a 5870 in ANYTHING. Even a 6870 is SLOWER than the 5870.
Please get your heads around the whole notebook (mobile) vs. Desktop thing.
3Dmark Vantage (about as game synthetic as you get)
6970m: 11600
5870: 21062

http://www.barefeats.com/imac11b.html
http://www.barefeats.com/imac11c.html

What I've noticed about people upset about the Mac Pro GPU is they seem to mostly be upset that the number isn't the biggest, without looking at actual performance.

Most overall benchmarks of the 5870 vs. the 6970 are a wash. On OpenCL, the 5870 has even been trouncing the 6970.

Some GPU benchmarks do show the 6970 with a lead, but most show them pretty even. The 6970 is hardly a do or die upgrade for Apple.

That's not saying it wouldn't be nice if Apple updated their GPUs. But I wouldn't really consider the 5870 an out of date GPU.