mac pro going away:o

[macbook pro i5]

Do you think the mac pro is gonna get the chop considering the final cut pro x that came out was more like iMovie pro, And they got rid of the Xsan server I think it was called, and the update still has not come yet I know the new sandy bridge cpu for the mac pro is not ready ,but Apple is showing it does not care about the professional market anymore

 

[mrsir2009]

Yeah, probably. The iMac is powerful enough to step up and fill the void for most people.

 

[Des Zac]

Do you think the mac pro is gonna get the chop considering the final cut pro x that came out was more like iMovie pro, And they got rid of the Xsan server I think it was called, and the update still has not come yet I know the new sandy bridge cpu for the mac pro is not ready ,but Apple is showing it does not care about the professional market anymore

The thing is, the new processor is the only upgrade that really suits it, so they have to wait.

 

[macbook pro i5]

The thing is, the new processor is the only upgrade that really suits it, so they have to wait.

But all the software and new products they are rolling out is now for the average costumer not professional use

 

[blunti]

Ok just to bring up a few examples.

For editing : Avid is, and has been the industry standard editing software for quite some time. I'm talking about Feature Films, TV series and NOT trash reality series or cheap documentaries. Whoever says the opposite is ignorant and has no idea about this specific industry.

We also have Autodesk Smoke. Apple nowhere near has software like that.

Then there is After Effects.

And I only came up with a few examples related to film/tv/whatever production on the PRO level.
(yes, all of these have windows versions, but some companies prefer to use OS X)


Then there are scientific labs, composers, 3D designers etc who use and NEED more juice than a computer that's built out of laptop parts. (yes, i'm talking about the imac)

When intel releases the sb-e, we will get new MP.

end of rant

 

[chrono1081]

Ok just to bring up a few examples.

For editing : Avid is, and has been the industry standard editing software for quite some time. I'm talking about Feature Films, TV series and NOT trash reality series or cheap documentaries. Whoever says the opposite is ignorant and has no idea about this specific industry.

We also have Autodesk Smoke. Apple nowhere near has software like that.

Then there is After Effects.

And I only came up with a few examples related to film/tv/whatever production on the PRO level.
(yes, all of these have windows versions, but some companies prefer to use OS X)


Then there are scientific labs, composers, 3D designers etc who use and NEED more juice than a computer that's built out of laptop parts. (yes, i'm talking about the imac)

When intel releases the sb-e, we will get new MP.

end of rant

Thank you!

Not to mention a TON of pro studios are Mac and Linux only. This is not to start a flame war, this is true. The past several jobs I've looked for want OSX experience (I'm a Windows tech so it doesn't work in my favor) so it tells you that these places are using it. An iMac doesn't have the storage capacity of a Mac Pro nor the processing power. Many applications in these places require multiple processors, as in 8 or more.

As the poster above said, this is Intels game, when they release new stuff it'll trickle down to the Mac Pro.

If you take a look at other machines for other OS's their pro lines aren't what drives the income, its the consumer lines but the pro lines are still available for those who need the power.

 

[theSeb]

But all the software and new products they are rolling out is now for the average costumer not professional use

Yeah. /sarcasm

 

[Inconsequential]

Yeah, probably. The iMac is powerful enough to step up and fill the void for most people.

And where exactly do I fit my custom SSD and 5 hard disks?

Where do I fit my blu-ray drive?

Where do I fit my custom GPU(s)?

Where do I fit 32+GB ram?


The Mac Pro isn't just about power, it's also about expandability.

Currently as it stands if I were to buy an iMac it would need to be the top end 27" and the TB enclosure to hold my HDs would push it MORE than my next Mac Pro would be otherwise.


Mac Pro has to stay, otherwise ALOT of people will be severely ****ed off.

 

[nanofrog]

If you take a look at other machines for other OS's their pro lines aren't what drives the income, its the consumer lines but the pro lines are still available for those who need the power.

Actually, the enterprise segment is more profitable than the consumer gear (Intel and system vendors other than Apple - much better margins per system, combined with higher volume sales for large customers).

For example, if you recall the recent news about HP considering selling off part of their business, it was the Personal Systems Group (PSG) that was potentially on the auction block. Not the Enterprise System Group (ESG), which is due to it's profitability vs. consumer gear (there's more than just systems in the enterprise segment as well; there's other hardware and software offered that allow a customized integrated solution for clients).

Consider this:
A consumer user will go out and buy one system at a time, while enterprise customers order more, much more in a number of cases. Particularly the larger ones, which are far more likely to order thousands of systems per quarter when an upgrade cycle is due (think Fortune 500 and larger). And there's all SMB's as well... not as many systems, but they still order more than typical consumer users do.

Combine both the higher system sales volume per customer, and the fact that each of these systems contain more profit per system than their consumer oriented products, it's no real surprise that the enterprise segment really is more profitable.

Apple just never got serious in this market. Now I'm not sure if they just screwed up, or decided early on that the ROI wasn't going to be good enough for their tastes (take to long to see their idea of suitable margins), but the XServe languished as a result, regardless of the specifics. Since they can't really compete in this section, they've focused in another direction that has high margins/ROI, which is the high-end consumer market, and particularly the devices as of late.

 

[chrono1081]

Actually, the enterprise segment is more profitable than the consumer gear (Intel and system vendors other than Apple - much better margins per system, combined with higher volume sales for large customers).

For example, if you recall the recent news about HP considering selling off part of their business, it was the Personal Systems Group (PSG) that was potentially on the auction block. Not the Enterprise System Group (ESG), which is due to it's profitability vs. consumer gear (there's more than just systems in the enterprise segment as well; there's other hardware and software offered that allow a customized integrated solution for clients).

Consider this:
A consumer user will go out and buy one system at a time, while enterprise customers order more, much more in a number of cases. Particularly the larger ones, which are far more likely to order thousands of systems per quarter when an upgrade cycle is due (think Fortune 500 and larger). And there's all SMB's as well... not as many systems, but they still order more than typical consumer users do.

Combine both the higher system sales volume per customer, and the fact that each of these systems contain more profit per system than their consumer oriented products, it's no real surprise that the enterprise segment really is more profitable.

Apple just never got serious in this market. Now I'm not sure if they just screwed up, or decided early on that the ROI wasn't going to be good enough for their tastes (take to long to see their idea of suitable margins), but the XServe languished as a result, regardless of the specifics. Since they can't really compete in this section, they've focused in another direction that has high margins/ROI, which is the high-end consumer market, and particularly the devices as of late.

Although I agree with most of your statement (and stand corrected on mine), enterprise computers aren't necessarily "pro" computers so I would still bet that high end work stations do not make near as much vs regular enterprise computers that a majority of people are using.

 

[odinsride]

I could see the Mac Pro and iMac going away within 5 years. Not saying it will happen, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did. After upgrading to Lion last weekend, I can see that Apple only cares about people who use a trackpad.

 

[nanofrog]

Although I agree with most of your statement (and stand corrected on mine), enterprise computers aren't necessarily "pro" computers so I would still bet that high end work stations do not make near as much vs regular enterprise computers that a majority of people are using.

How are you defining enterprise computers (what does this include to you)?

I ask, as you don't really want to confuse what some vendors offer as business systems as enterprise, as they may not be (i.e. essentially a consumer system with the additional fluff and garbage removed, such as the trialware and things like CF/SD card readers that consumers would be interested in).

Enterprise segments usually are focused on, if not exclusively, servers. For example, HP lumps their workstation systems in the Personal Computer Group, not the Enterprise System Group, which some may find surprising.​

And what lends you to think that high-end workstations aren't profitable (I'm stating they're more profitable than the consumer systems)?

 

[Robellyn]

I could see the Mac Pro and iMac going away within 5 years. Not saying it will happen, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did. After upgrading to Lion last weekend, I can see that Apple only cares about people who use a trackpad.

I understand your frustration, but I wouldn't say that precisely. It works well with a trackpad, pretty well with the 'magic mouse', okay with a graphics tablet, and poorly with a traditional mouse.

But that is outside of the topic ... I once believed that the Mac Pro would be here as long as there were Mac's, but when Apple built a server farm NOT using Mac's, I understood that perhaps the era of the Professional Mac was coming to an end.

Evolution happens. We can evolve with it or we can fall behind. We don't have to be happy about it though.

 

[thekev]

Then there are scientific labs, composers, 3D designers etc who use and NEED more juice than a computer that's built out of laptop parts. (yes, i'm talking about the imac)

When intel releases the sb-e, we will get new MP.

end of rant

That was a nice rant . I enjoyed it. I'm familiar with all of those programs, and I've used some of them although that's not really my area of expertise. I don't think we'll see a discontinuation on the line yet. I do however wish Apple would rethink the line to a degree. Right now the consensus seems to be that Apple isn't really pleased with its performance. The starting model is just a joke in terms of power and the machine has never been strong on features for its price point. It's one of those things where the absolute only reason people buy it is that it's their only option in a workstation grade machine that runs OSX.

We also have never seen a quality workstation grade card from Apple (one without terrible drivers/failure rates) and Lion still doesn't support 10 bit displayport connections. Quality workstation cards would be a nice feature for those that work in maya and some of the other Autodesk programs. Nvidia always came out with buggy drivers on the mac versions of Quadros, but I'm a little surprised we have yet to see a Firepro available (and yes I realize the differences are largely driver based).

The imac is mostly desktop parts these days. I don't own one. I'm just mentioning it for reference. The gpu is the only laptop grade part in there and I imagine it's just due to spacial constraints as it sucks up as much power as many desktop cards.

Yeah, probably. The iMac is powerful enough to step up and fill the void for most people.

Bleh... I don't totally hate the imacs. The i7 is reasonably fast for a single socket machine which is what "most" people need. Things like rendering tend to use more cores but in a larger environment that kind of task may be allocated to a server farm. Tasks that tend to be run while you're sitting there staring at the display are often not the ones that take full advantage of a 12 core machine. The imacs in every generation I've tested don't exactly run cool under heavy loads. It would make me nervous running them to their limits for hours or days at a time compared to a mac pro of similar speed.

 

[tamvly]

I seriously doubt that the MP is going away. It may morph in form (although I am a big fan of the current enclosure and the expansion possibilities). But there are just too many power users - including much of the development community - for this machine to disappear.

Patience is a virtue.

 

[goMac]

And they got rid of the Xsan server I think it was called, and the update still has not come yet I know the new sandy bridge cpu for the mac pro is not ready ,but Apple is showing it does not care about the professional market anymore

XServe being cut has little to do with the Mac Pro. Server admins needed things like on sight 24 hour service, and that wasn't a game Apple wanted to get into. Doesn't really affect the Mac Pro.

but Apple is showing it does not care about the professional market anymore

How exactly? All this seems to be based on FCPX, which is getting features added back in and just had a pro update.

 

[gglockner]

I take a few months away from posting on MR Forums, and it seems that nothing has changed. Variations on this thread have been around for months.

1. No new Mac Pro until the Sandy Bridge Xeon chips are available
2. If and when there is a 6-core Sandy Bridge iMac, it will be a good replacement for the Mac Pro for many - though not all - users

This isn't just about whether Apple "likes" the pro market or not - it's about the availability of suitable processors.

 

[nanofrog]

I take a few months away from posting on MR Forums, and it seems that nothing has changed. Variations on this thread have been around for months.

They may die down awhile, but like a zombie, they get back up again...

 

[zorinlynx]

I love my 2006 Mac Pro, and am also worried about the future of the platform.

I'm not even a professional! I just want the fastest Mac I can get, and be able to load it up with internal hard drives. The Mac Pro is a FUN enthusiast machine if you like the OS X platform.

I pretty much have my finger on the trigger to buy when the MP is refreshed. Considering how much I use this machine in my daily life at home (for pretty much everything!) I won't settle for an iMac or a lesser machine if I don't have to.

Here's hoping.

 

[wallysb01]

2. If and when there is a 6-core Sandy Bridge iMac, it will be a good replacement for the Mac Pro for many - though not all - users

But the 6 core i7 extreme is hardly better than the i7 2600, if at all, at pretty much any task. Are we assuming Apple will be using an as of yet unreleased 6 core Sandy Bridge? Also the six core can't use any more memory than the i7 2600, so that's not going to be particularly useful, and will remain one big reason why people use Mac Pros.

 

[gglockner]

But the 6 core i7 extreme is hardly better than the i7 2600, if at all, at pretty much any task. Are we assuming Apple will be using an as of yet unreleased 6 core Sandy Bridge? Also the six core can't use any more memory than the i7 2600, so that's not going to be particularly useful, and will remain one big reason why people use Mac Pros.

A 6-core i7 has 2 more cores than the i7 2600. I don't know about your work, but 4 cores isn't quite enough for my main computer, while 6 cores would do the trick. A 6-core Sandy Bridge iMac would be a really great replacement for my current 8-core 2009 Mac Pro. Sure, a 12-core Mac Pro would be great fun, but it's overkill for my needs and too expensive for my budget.

IIRC, the current i7 2600 has some of the die set aside for the GPU. Many computers, including the iMac, have an external GPU, so this is just wasted space. Once you replace that die space with 2 extra cores, an i7 becomes a very, very useful chip to me and many others.

 

[wallysb01]

A 6-core i7 has 2 more cores than the i7 2600. I don't know about your work, but 4 cores isn't quite enough for my main computer, while 6 cores would do the trick. A 6-core Sandy Bridge iMac would be a really great replacement for my current 8-core 2009 Mac Pro. Sure, a 12-core Mac Pro would be great fun, but it's overkill for my needs and too expensive for my budget.

IIRC, the current i7 2600 has some of the die set aside for the GPU. Many computers, including the iMac, have an external GPU, so this is just wasted space. Once you replace that die space with 2 extra cores, an i7 becomes a very, very useful chip to me and many others.

Heck, for my work I'm often using hundreds of cores on a cluster. Or I'm using 1 core and need hundreds of GB of RAM feeding it. Its all over the place. However, I was under the general impression that the i7 2600 benefits quite greatly from improved architecture that makes it more efficient even though its a similar clock speed with 2 fewer cores.

Mostly I'm thinking about what I read here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-990x-extreme-edition-gulftown,2874-1.html

So, for most tasks it just doesn't seem to make much difference if you have the 990X or the 2600. Then the 990X is $1000, vs. the 2600 at $300. That means by the time you buy it from apple you're probably looking at $3000 iMac.

Now if you know you sit in a spot where you can use all 6 cores pretty much all the time, that might be the right choice for you. However, even if you do have well paralleled tasks the 2600 is not far enough behind to much too much difference. And if your work is moderately mixed between things that can use 6 cores, only 2-4, or even just one, then there's a good chance the 2600 comes out ahead.

Anyway, get what works for you, but it seems pretty obvious why the 990X is not in an iMac. But things may change, maybe Ivy Bridge will bring 6 cores to the iMacs?

 

[scottsjack]

Yet another "Mac Pro is going away" thread? Wow.

 

[thekev]

But the 6 core i7 extreme is hardly better than the i7 2600, if at all, at pretty much any task. Are we assuming Apple will be using an as of yet unreleased 6 core Sandy Bridge? Also the six core can't use any more memory than the i7 2600, so that's not going to be particularly useful, and will remain one big reason why people use Mac Pros.

If 8GB sticks come down in price that'll pretty much do it for a lot of users for this machine generation. Apple used to get 8 by using dual socket logic board configurations on all of their machines.

A 6-core i7 has 2 more cores than the i7 2600. I don't know about your work, but 4 cores isn't quite enough for my main computer, while 6 cores would do the trick. A 6-core Sandy Bridge iMac would be a really great replacement for my current 8-core 2009 Mac Pro. Sure, a 12-core Mac Pro would be great fun, but it's overkill for my needs and too expensive for my budget.

IIRC, the current i7 2600 has some of the die set aside for the GPU. Many computers, including the iMac, have an external GPU, so this is just wasted space. Once you replace that die space with 2 extra cores, an i7 becomes a very, very useful chip to me and many others.

What kind of software are you running? It's odd to hear someone estimate their core needs without seeing real world performance tests. Practically nothing you do while sitting at a computer runs well on more than four cores. It's usually the long number crunching tasks that can take advantage of greater core counts.

Heck, for my work I'm often using hundreds of cores on a cluster. Or I'm using 1 core and need hundreds of GB of RAM feeding it. Its all over the place. However, I was under the general impression that the i7 2600 benefits quite greatly from improved architecture that makes it more efficient even though its a similar clock speed with 2 fewer cores.

Mostly I'm thinking about what I read here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-990x-extreme-edition-gulftown,2874-1.html

So, for most tasks it just doesn't seem to make much difference if you have the 990X or the 2600. Then the 990X is $1000, vs. the 2600 at $300. That means by the time you buy it from apple you're probably looking at $3000 iMac.

Now if you know you sit in a spot where you can use all 6 cores pretty much all the time, that might be the right choice for you. However, even if you do have well paralleled tasks the 2600 is not far enough behind to much too much difference. And if your work is moderately mixed between things that can use 6 cores, only 2-4, or even just one, then there's a good chance the 2600 comes out ahead.

Anyway, get what works for you, but it seems pretty obvious why the 990X is not in an iMac. But things may change, maybe Ivy Bridge will bring 6 cores to the iMacs?

It's not actually scheduled to do so from what I've read. Sandy Bridge E is basically the next thing, so the 6 core from that generation should be a significant step over the gulftown version. Now if pricing were a bit more sane (it's a $600 processor in a $3700? configuration). As for what comes ahead let's see how the 6 core is clocked.

 

[gglockner]

What kind of software are you running? It's odd to hear someone estimate their core needs without seeing real world performance tests. Practically nothing you do while sitting at a computer runs well on more than four cores. It's usually the long number crunching tasks that can take advantage of greater core counts.

Which is exactly what I do. I work as Director of Engineering for Gurobi Optimization. We develop software for mathematical optimization. In the world of scientific computing, everything is parallelized. So I've got a very good idea of what I need, thanks.

While I realize that most Mac users aren't doing scientific computing, many of us run virtual machines for testing. With more cores, you can run a virtual machine in the background while still having the computer available for basic tasks like web and email. 8-12 cores is probably overkill for this, but 6 isn't.