buy the highest end configuration and for the next 5-6 years you will be more than ok for anything you will do in healthcare or if you switch jobs. God knows how things can change and you dont want to buy an mac mini now and in 3 years you go for visual edit or some converting industry and you will be face the fact that you will need another mac.
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.
Mac Pro for a Non-Pro
- Thread starter baselalsaadi
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They weren't directed at you specifically, but more in general at the whining on these forums over a $3k computer.
We still need to hear a bit more from the OP on specifically what software he's going to be running to really determine what GPUs are best.
Simply put, yes. Go for it.
Your line of argumentation is extremely weak, to say the least, perhaps because you do not understand the economic welfare concept associated with one's "willingness to pay". It is evident from the OP's message that his goals are as follows:
- Ability to multitask with several apps at once;
- Relatively large/flexible storage needs and need for multiple monitors;
- At least a 5-10-year lifespan, meaning NO computer replacement within that timeframe.
From the conditions above, it is more than clear that the nMP is by far the best choice, particularly since it will satisfy the OP's objectives which have nothing to do with mere financial concerns or depreciation of the purchased machine. He has already implied that he does NOT want to buy a new computer every 2 or 3 years.
- Processing power? Check, even though this is the least important of all conditions given the current iMac or even Mini's CPU power;
- To say that the Mini has the same possibilities to run multiple monitors is ludicrous, taking into account that within the next two years 4K displays shall be the norm and this was one of the main differentiation points advertised by Schiller et al.;
- Likewise for storage needs, which always raise exponentially and will greatly benefit from the nMP's TB2 multiple interfaces;
- It's perfectly clear that the nMP is the most viable and long-lasting Mac desktop of all three, despite its reduced customization options/internal expandability - heck, even my 2011 iMac is still more than powerful for everything I throw at it, and will continue to be well beyond 2014...so it's naive to say that the nMP will be old within five years, as it will continue to carry considerable processing power, be able to drive multiple ultra-hi-res monitors and drive a LOT of storage for the OP's needs...at least a LOT more than what the iMac and Mini can currently offer.
So in conclusion, he should just buy a 4- or 6-core model with a pair of D300s and be done with it.
You convinced me... it'll be the 6-core D500 model for me. After all, you live only once.I completely disagree with you.
I think he should get the D500
Signed,
Non-Pro (old pensioner).
I find this entire discussion fun. It is a fact that most folks buy more computer than they need. Kinda like the parent that walks in the store and tells the guy "I don't need much, just something good enough for the kids to play games" lol
I just had this conversation with a relative who, while looking to buy the cheapest PC laptop possible insisted that she had to have Office so she'd be able to type notes in Word and keep her christmas list in Excel!
That said, i edit simple 30 second videos in FCPX and have a Creative Cloud subscription to get access to Acrobat and make minor edits in Photoshop.
I am also one that wants the nMp badly, but I know that I don't need it. I'm pretty sure one will be on my desk soon. I wonder how well the target display works in Mavericks??? Gotta use the iMac for something!
I just had this conversation with a relative who, while looking to buy the cheapest PC laptop possible insisted that she had to have Office so she'd be able to type notes in Word and keep her christmas list in Excel!
That said, i edit simple 30 second videos in FCPX and have a Creative Cloud subscription to get access to Acrobat and make minor edits in Photoshop.
I am also one that wants the nMp badly, but I know that I don't need it. I'm pretty sure one will be on my desk soon. I wonder how well the target display works in Mavericks??? Gotta use the iMac for something!
new mac pro
Im in the same boat as the OP. I do a little gaming and play the mac games that come out, but hate bootcamp so never use it. I finally caved and bought an Xbox for most of the games I want to play on my 50inch TV with surround which is pretty good other than the xbox controller. I am still using my 2006 mac pro which I got in August of 06. That was $2400 so it has cost me about $27 a month for a great machine. There have been a few hundred $ in upgrades but less than $500.
This machine is still faster than my daughters new macbook pro she got this summer for some tasks.
How many of you would use a fast machine for $30/month.
I don't make money from my computer. Just a hobby with macs since the 80's.
Im in the same boat as the OP. I do a little gaming and play the mac games that come out, but hate bootcamp so never use it. I finally caved and bought an Xbox for most of the games I want to play on my 50inch TV with surround which is pretty good other than the xbox controller. I am still using my 2006 mac pro which I got in August of 06. That was $2400 so it has cost me about $27 a month for a great machine. There have been a few hundred $ in upgrades but less than $500.
This machine is still faster than my daughters new macbook pro she got this summer for some tasks.
How many of you would use a fast machine for $30/month.
I don't make money from my computer. Just a hobby with macs since the 80's.
Since the thread seems to have descended into a flame war, lets try some common sensical musings
1. Let's assume that you want a Mac. Take it as read that you can get something from Dell that looks like a refrigerator (maybe a refrigerator with wings and fluffy dice) with twice the raw speed for half the price, and your choice of Windows or Linux - or a Hackintosh that will give you a weekend of nerdy entertainment every time Apple release a software update.
2. It's your money. Would someone buy a sports car even if you never go near a race track, or a powerful saloon with a top speed of 3 x the maximum speed limit of any road you are likely to drive on? Hell, yes.
3. The nMP is clearly optimised for users running software that can use (or is likely to be updated to use) OpenCL to make use of the GPUs for number crunching. Realistically, that means video, 3d and graphics software. As for the CPU, Xeons aren't necessarily better than i7s if you're not doing workstation-y things. It will almost certainly be very, very nippy for the sort of general uses you are discussing - but the improvement c.f. an i7-based iMac or Mac Mini may not be proportionate to the price difference.
4. Killer features - you mentioned 3 screens. If you really want to run 3 screens of your choice without using up all of your thunderbolt ports and/or needing at least 2 of them to be over-priced Apple Thunderbolt Displays, then that is almost a Unique Selling Point for the nMP. Next best choice for that is probably a Retina MacBook Pro.
5. Alternatives - a fully tricked-out iMac will cost less and throw in a rather nice display, and you can have 2 screens easily (3 = possible within constraints). What puts me off is the non-upgradability of the HD/SSD - with affordable 1TB SSDs likely to appear within the useful life of the machine. (That's assuming that the nMP SSD is going to be upgradeable). Mac Mini is relatively cheap, but lacks discrete graphics, and there are constraints on multiple monitors, but at least you can unofficially upgrade the SSD. Its also overdue for an update (which I assume will happen once the Mac Pro is safely launched).
6. Longevity. The days of new computers being hopelessly outclassed after 18 months seem to be over. I sidelined my 2006 Mac Pro in favour of a laptop a couple of years back, but quite honestly, if I threw in some more RAM and an SSD it would still be a perfectly good computer - and old kit can always find new jobs as a server or hand-me-down. 10 years is probably pushing it, though.
However, the new Mac Pro is a very "brave decision" for Apple. I think they've correctly read the writing on the wall for the "big box 'o slots" workstation - but it could still flop, and is very dependent on the success of Thunderbolt. If it fails, then you could find yourself reliant on eBay for upgrades and spares sooner than you'd like. If you're looking for a 6-7 year life span I'd wait and see, and maybe wait for the first update.
On the other hand . mmmm . shiny!
One note here on that iMac.. ok, a few...
1) You get a display included
2) Those displays have had issues in recent years
3) The cost for a tricked out one is $2700+, so not a lot of savings, UNLESS you don't have any displays now, and would need to buy one anyway.
4) MacPro should have more longevity than the iMac
What this might come down to is, if you have the displays already, buy the MacPro, if you don't an iMac should be a consideration.
Of course, if you have already have a display you can always use it as a second screen for the iMac.
I wasn't ruling out the iMac - the deal-breaker for me is the inability to replace the internal SSD or HD without taking a pizza cutter to the glue holding the screen on. I'd expect 1TB SSDs to become affordable in the next year or two - so it is the one part I'd be most likely to upgrade.
We don't know for sure but from the pictures of the nMP so far, Apple would have to be very, very petty minded to make the SSD non-replaceable (although the fabled second SSD slot looks like wishful thinking).
unless the MacPro is a flop or there's some defect in Version 1.0.
Given the past history of the iMacs, especially the 27" ones, I'd say it's a crap shoot then...
4K monitors taking over the upper 15-20% price range monitor market over next two years? Probably. 4k monitors completely taking over the upper 50% of the overall monitor market in the next two years? Probably not. High quality IPS monitors are going to get more affordable hold their own for a while. Also general user expected monitor price points are going to sag a bit lower over the next two years also.
In the subset of the market where folks can easily throw $4-5K at the system and another $4K on monitor(s) there probably will be a healthy dose of 4K. Outside that range, not so much.
I got my 3,1 only a few months ago and spent a large part of it since kicking myself why I didn't keep one for me years ago, I have always maintained them but always sold them on whenever they crossed my path as I have a few clients who always snapped them up from me. When they didn't want this 3,1 unit I got cheap and one of my main Windows PC's about to need retiring I thought what the hell and kept this one. Add on cards, SSD, SATA 3, expandable slots, bootcamp working superbly and with 32gb ram and CS6 aside I can run as many apps and browsers and tabs as I want. Transcoding performance using xmedia recode also more than adequate for my needs. A spare sled I use for recovering data from drives whether Hfs+ or ntfs. I could go on and on, kicking myself more for being blind when it's been staring me in the face this bloody long.
When the next 4/5,1's come along crossing my path I will be holding onto one myself that I am sure of now
When the next 4/5,1's come along crossing my path I will be holding onto one myself that I am sure of now
Last edited:
Meh.. my current rig is a MacPro1,1, so not really enough room there to do something with... But if Apple does drag it's feet on the nMP and we see them in April or something, perhaps a 4,1 or 5,1 would be worth getting.
(It would be really sad and ironic if the nMPs were still vaporware by the time NAB rolled around...)
(It would be really sad and ironic if the nMPs were still vaporware by the time NAB rolled around...)
Actually, it depend on how heavily the TV industry tries to push 4K on the public. After having a beano while everybody upgraded their CRTs to "HD ready" LCDs, then another beano when people found their "HD Ready" TVs weren't actually HD ready, they're desperately looking for ways to make people replace their perfectly-good-for-another-5-years HD TVs. 3D didn't work (at least on TV) and people are starting to figure out that Smart TV functionality built into the TV is dumb, so 4k (or rather UHDTV) may be the next thing to try.
If so, UHDTV could show up in the middle of the market in the form of TV-class displays.
Pity, because (like 1080p before it) I don't think UHDTV is a particularly good format for computing.
That said - it still doesn't make sense to say the Mac Mini offers anything like the multi-display capabilities of the nMP: you get 1 TB/displayPort + a HDMI port with limited resolution and a history of issues.
I got a maxed out macbook pro just for reading and text-editing.
And it is worth it. I type one phrase in spotlight and the machine searches hundreds of pdf's and books in just a second. This saves me a lot of time and nerves.
I see no reason, not to go for one of the best available machines. Especially when using a multiple-monitor-setup. 4K-Displays are on their way and the Mac Pro seems to be the right machine to handle this.
And it is worth it. I type one phrase in spotlight and the machine searches hundreds of pdf's and books in just a second. This saves me a lot of time and nerves.
I see no reason, not to go for one of the best available machines. Especially when using a multiple-monitor-setup. 4K-Displays are on their way and the Mac Pro seems to be the right machine to handle this.
exactly
as a non-pro I would have liked a retina iMac after disliking the iMac screen being used to Retina displays
as it's non existent, this is the closest alternative
Good point here.
For those like myself with really old hardware (MP 1,1) that need a serious jump up, it's not worth putting $1500 into that old hardware to get it running Mavericks, and any alternate device is going to cost at least $2k.
So getting the nMP, and some set of 4k monitors in a year or two, makes a lot of sense.
If you were already using a MP that was capable of Mavericks it might be wise to sit on the side and wait for the second rev, but if you don't have anything, or your hardware is really old, a nMP now makes sense.
Which part of the TV industry? The equipment folks? They don't really matter as much as distribution.
Over-the-air 4K has major problems with bandwidth. Most over-the-air sliced bandwidth to roll out more channels ( and more advertising slots )?
Satellite very similar issues.
Cable/internet ... given the slow update of the first two if in different subclass content providers will beat up with segmentation pricing. Frankly there are competing general internet usage too.
Super duper compression is going to cure ills? Not really because have to deploy that. Over time 4K will trickle out. A sudden explosion in next 2K for folks wholesale run out and dump their TVs... likely not going to happen.
I think they are more realistic than that and primarily looking for 4K just to get folks to get off of 5-6 year old TVs far more so than making folks dump 1-4 year old sets. This is so that growth doesn't go very negative; not some major growth increase.
It isn't dumb as much as it is premature. The infrastructure that is being embedded is price capped to be constrained. What they don't have is a good model on how to move these subsystems forward over time or the basic services that can build off of ( or the balance between how much inside/outside the box).
It will eventually. Just not in 2 years.
That aspect will probably change in next the next year. Mac Mini with DPv1.2/TBv2 and a not as crippled HDMI port wouldn't equal the new Mac Pro but is quite well into the range of being multiple display capable. The bigger part is Apple uncorking the GPU ability that is largely already present.
Echoing what was said above, I think 4k has a long way to go with consumers.
For developers, the advantage of 4k is that 2x DPI is closer to what mobile developers target (and thus things like simulators can be fit on the screen, and graphics can be more easily previewed closer to their target API.) For videophiles, 4k is useful for creating content for cinema and possibly archiving.
For normal consumers? Not much benefit.
For developers, the advantage of 4k is that 2x DPI is closer to what mobile developers target (and thus things like simulators can be fit on the screen, and graphics can be more easily previewed closer to their target API.) For videophiles, 4k is useful for creating content for cinema and possibly archiving.
For normal consumers? Not much benefit.
Alot of assumptions going on here.
For instance - the OP could be a research neurologist running sophisticated analyses of research MRI scans - heavy duty graphical work. Or he could be an epidemiologist running cutting edge statistical modelling - heavy duty CPU work.
OP needs to specify more details on the applications he intends to run if he want sensible advice!
For instance - the OP could be a research neurologist running sophisticated analyses of research MRI scans - heavy duty graphical work. Or he could be an epidemiologist running cutting edge statistical modelling - heavy duty CPU work.
OP needs to specify more details on the applications he intends to run if he want sensible advice!
For the average joe, awesome. For those here that need reliable color accurate screens, not so great.
It is scientifically proven, that buying new shiny things only makes you happy for a short period of time. The happiness quickly wears off, once you have those things and you soon start to feel the need to buy something else.
If you are looking to invest in happiness "things" are never a good choice.