Mac Pro is not overpriced.

[reyh]

you have a valid point, I was a PC user since 1997 and converted to OSX 2012, Strong points are the bandwidth of the thunderbolt 2 which is 20Gbps on a thin wire, I had eSATA multibus(thick cable) and still cannot beat the TB2 bandwidth..So that eliminate bandwidth bottleneck for people that work with lots of external transfers..Apple can read NTFS without buying additional software while windows needs I believe paragon to read HFS+(Not Free) Thanks to apple bootcamp driver you can read HFS on windows..I'm sure people buy the Mac Pro based on their needs..We should not base our comparison based on what others..If they like MacPro, they must have think this over and over if this is the most capable machine for their needs..For me, I cannot go back to PC, the OSX is much smoother for me and I hate the antivirus running/watching every thing you do, I hate seeing it there on the task bar.. peace

 

[AxoNeuron]

Most importantly, any machine you would actually build would have to run Windows if you wanted to run the majority of graphics or other professional software, if you weren't using the mac pro. Windows 8? HAHAHAHA! I don't even have to bother elaborating, do I? Or are you a huge Windows 8 fan too?

Here is an interesting set of phrases.

The D700 is just like a W9000 except it doesn't include that "very important" ECC RAM.

As YOU said earlier in the thread:

The Titans aren't gaming cards... They are CUDA workhorse and they are used in many many render farm setup.

As for ECC ram, it doesn't really matter except in the extremelly limited market of scientific application. It is not needed in rendering or video/image/sound processing at all.

AMD simply added ECC video memory as one attempt to justify the staggering price of the W9000. But it doesn't actually add much capability to graphics applications as has already been pointed out (by you) in this thread. So while ECC memory can be very valuable in RAM, it is almost never useful in graphics VRAM and only serves to slow things down. Apple made an improvement as far as the VRAM is concerned by replacing it with 6GB of standard non-ECC GDDR5.

And it's clocked slower.

The FirePro D700 has a lower clock speed, which is very common when putting such a large graphics card in to smaller machines. Most uninformed people tend to look only at clock speeds and VRAM when comparing graphics cards, but this tells you very little about actual performance. In fact, all of the graphics experts I have spoken with have been extraordinarily impressed with how little is different between the D700 and the W9000 considering the enormous size difference. Asides from these two very minor differences they are the exact same card in every respect.

And oddly enough it doesn't share the same device id. (Used by drivers to assign identity)

In fact, guess which device id it uses?

AMD7970. (device id 6798)

So, especially in OSX, it performs IDENTICALLY TO A 7970. (Except it has been watered down with much lower clocks, of course)

Yeah...

...you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Just because it shares the same drivers as the 7970 does NOT mean it shares the same performance. Did you actually just say that...?

My mouse and keyboard both operate off of the same exact driver. Does that mean they are the same thing? No, fortunately, it doesn't mean that at all.

SO go ahead and chop a "0" off the price. From $3,500 down to $350. Now add the numbers up again.

So, is a D700 "almost entirely identical" or is ECC RAM "very important"?

Can't have both.

Hahaha! Nice, desperate try. But it's not going to fly. Are you actually trying to say that the D700 == 7970? The more you speak, the more you convince me that you are clueless and have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[AxoNeuron]

I think it's silly to have two mediocre cards instead of one good one, especially if the software you use doesn't support them.

I'm still not sure why they were so eager to include two GPUs without a generous power supply and a commensurately robust cooling system to accommodate them.

Even if they're "cheap" they're not free, can't see paying twice as much for half the performance.

Yeah Larry, please do some research before you say ignorant things like this.

The Mac Pro is extremely power efficient, so is OS X for that matter. Unlike the majority of PC manufacturers, who simply take parts from chip makers and slap them in to their machines, Apple has designed the logic board, cooling system, and almost every other component in the Mac Pro to meet their target power levels.

A lot of people who are stuck in the PC mindset of "more power = faster computer" don't realize how much power in a modern PC is wasted simply due to heat dissipation by poorly designed chips. Apple has cut out a HUGE amount of this waste with almost zero real-world penalty in performance simply by removing a lot of the components that would normally just turn power in to heat. Just by making the machine and the chips smaller they are able to save a lot of power, as well as the incredible one-fan cooling system they've come up with.

The GPU's have more than enough power to run at full speed, this has been demonstrated by many people already.

 

[MacVidCards]

Most importantly, any machine you would actually build would have to run Windows if you wanted to run the majority of graphics or other professional software, if you weren't using the mac pro. Windows 8? HAHAHAHA! I don't even have to bother elaborating, do I? Or are you a huge Windows 8 fan too?


As YOU said earlier in the thread:



AMD simply added ECC video memory as one attempt to justify the staggering price of the W9000. But it doesn't actually add much capability to graphics applications as has already been pointed out (by you) in this thread. So while ECC memory can be very valuable in RAM, it is almost never useful in graphics VRAM and only serves to slow things down. Apple made an improvement as far as the VRAM is concerned by replacing it with 6GB of standard non-ECC GDDR5.


The FirePro D700 has a lower clock speed, which is very common when putting such a large graphics card in to smaller machines. Most uninformed people tend to look only at clock speeds and VRAM when comparing graphics cards, but this tells you very little about actual performance. In fact, all of the graphics experts I have spoken with have been extraordinarily impressed with how little is different between the D700 and the W9000 considering the enormous size difference. Asides from these two very minor differences they are the exact same card in every respect.


Yeah...

...you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Just because it shares the same drivers as the 7970 does NOT mean it shares the same performance. Did you actually just say that...?

My mouse and keyboard both operate off of the same exact driver. Does that mean they are the same thing? No, fortunately, it doesn't mean that at all.


Hahaha! Nice, desperate try. But it's not going to fly. Are you actually trying to say that the D700 == 7970? The more you speak, the more you convince me that you are clueless and have no idea what you're talking about.

Please take a moment and educate yourself.

Same chip, same device id, but actually LESS performance.

Try Barefeats.com

The 7970 or R9 280x actually EXCEEDS D700 in OpenCl.

Always best to inform yourself before posting.

http://barefeats.com/tube08.html

 

[AxoNeuron]

Please take a moment and educate yourself.

Same chip, same device id, but actually LESS performance.

Try Barefeats.com

The 7970 or R9 280x actually EXCEEDS D700 in OpenCl.

Always best to inform yourself before posting.

http://barefeats.com/tube08.html

You looked at....one benchmark test on a single obscure website where the 7970 performs better than the D700. And based off of this, you conclude that the D700 has less performance...? Especially considering the fact that the D700 beat out the 7970 on *EVERY* other benchmark on the same obscure website?

You're trolling, right? It would be funny if it weren't so sad. And desperate. And I'm not even going to deign to respond, it's just too easy. Buddy, if you actually believe that the 7970 beats the D700 in pro-graphics applications, all the power to you LOL!

 

[MacVidCards]

You looked at....one benchmark test on a single obscure website where the 7970 performs better than the D700. And based off of this, you conclude that the D700 has less performance...? Especially considering the fact that the D700 beat out the 7970 on *EVERY* other benchmark on the same obscure website?

You're trolling, right? It would be funny if it weren't so sad. And desperate. And I'm not even going to deign to respond, it's just too easy. Buddy, if you actually believe that the 7970 beats the D700 in pro-graphics applications, all the power to you LOL!

Try again:

http://barefeats.com/tube16.html

My point is that D700 is NOT imbued with any special fairy dust.

It is a 7970/R9 280X, nothing more, nothing less (except for lower clock speeds)

Wishing that device id 6798 gains some magical powers when it goes through the Apple Factory is wishful thinking, at best.

These are the ONLY FirePro cards that share device ids with consumer grade cards, all the rest get special ids.

 

[Larry-K]

Yeah Larry, please do some research before you say ignorant things like this.

The Mac Pro is extremely power efficient, so is OS X for that matter. Unlike the majority of PC manufacturers, who simply take parts from chip makers and slap them in to their machines, Apple has designed the logic board, cooling system, and almost every other component in the Mac Pro to meet their target power levels.

A lot of people who are stuck in the PC mindset of "more power = faster computer" don't realize how much power in a modern PC is wasted simply due to heat dissipation by poorly designed chips. Apple has cut out a HUGE amount of this waste with almost zero real-world penalty in performance simply by removing a lot of the components that would normally just turn power in to heat. Just by making the machine and the chips smaller they are able to save a lot of power, as well as the incredible one-fan cooling system they've come up with.

The GPU's have more than enough power to run at full speed, this has been demonstrated by many people already.

Yeah, don't get too upset about it, but I'll take MacVidCard's opinion over yours anyday.

Especially since you seem eager to go out of your way to offend.

 

[George Dawes]

I'm contemplating buying one instead of the current mac mini ( don't fancy buying out of date gear tbh ) , only using it for wp , emails and basic surfing , would the base model do ?

Upgrade the ram & ssd or just leave it as the basic one ?

 

[iBug2]

All I want to explain is: when you buy a Mac Pro, chances are that you're paying for stuff you actually don't need. On a PC, you can install just the stuff you need for the moment, being capable of adding expansion cards in the future.

This! People who doesn't need two GPU's is getting two GPU's, like me. I think this is the only failure of the new Mac Pro, the two GPU standard. They could have sold these 200-500$ cheaper (D300 to D700) by removing one GPU. The machine is not overpriced but they are selling you an extra GPU whether you like it or not.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

This! People who doesn't need two GPU's is getting two GPU's, like me. I think this is the only failure of the new Mac Pro, the two GPU standard. They could have sold these 200-500$ cheaper (D300 to D700) by removing one GPU. The machine is not overpriced but they are selling you an extra GPU whether you like it or not.

I agree with this, they should have given people the option to only have 1GPU if they wanted to. They might actually even sell more units then.

For instance the Logic Pro X folks don't need a strong GPU, let alone two. So why make them have it? Not everyone is going to use FCPX or OpenCL, why make them have two?

The option would have been nice.

 

[tuxon86]

Better yet, they could have made it so the second GPU could be replaced by a second CPU board with 4 more ram slot and another pcie SSD.

 

[bennibeef]

I agree with this, they should have given people the option to only have 1GPU if they wanted to. They might actually even sell more units then.

For instance the Logic Pro X folks don't need a strong GPU, let alone two. So why make them have it? Not everyone is going to use FCPX or OpenCL, why make them have two?

The option would have been nice.

Yes I have the same feeling I dont need 2 gpu's, but I would get them. I dont have a Mac Pro but thinking about getting one in the future.

But in a marketing thought its a pretty good strategy for apple.

1. You can sell a Mac Pro and advertise it with its raw gpu power
2. down the line like some next updates you can come up and say yes we heard all you Audio guys and whatever programmers who dont need 2 gpus - here it is the mac pro with 2 cpus or something.

The other thought is, if the Mac Pro actually needs the 2 gpus (I think 3 4k displays are possible?) to run them you actually have to keep them in there because its a big marketing thing to say yes here you can use 3 4k displays.

And maybe 1 gpu is enough to drive those displays but hm - is there any headroom to use any openCL? I dont know I think its quite complicated to advertise the Mac Pro for what it can if there are very different models

 

[pmau]

I don't want to join the debate but one thing always drives me crazy.

Todays GPU's aren"t mainly used to drive the output of your display.
It's actually the easiest task in the world. A RAMDAC reads a specific window of memory and converts it to HDMI.

The main functions of GPU's today are computing tasks, treating graphics memory as a region of numbers, even floating point and doing loads of transformations.

This is why two GPU"s make sense even if you would only drive a tiny display.
Of course you absolutely have to design software that actually uses all the computing power available. And this is the problem.

Do you need two GPU's? Sure, if you have the software to use them or you know enough to write a small OpenCL kernel and build software yourself.

The only reason why you might need two GPU's to drive multiple screens is the memory bandwidth on the card. Because 4k resolution at 30 / 60 Hz is a lot of data ...

The computing capabilities are irrelevant to actually display a picture.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

Y
The other thought is, if the Mac Pro actually needs the 2 gpus (I think 3 4k displays are possible?) to run them you actually have to keep them in there because its a big marketing thing to say yes here you can use 3 4k displays.

And maybe 1 gpu is enough to drive those displays but hm - is there any headroom to use any openCL? I dont know I think its quite complicated to advertise the Mac Pro for what it can if there are very different models

I don't think 1 GPU can drive 3 4K displays well, it's down to bandwidth and 4K at 60hz uses around 17Gb/s. Quite a lot.

The marketing does come into it, but I think it would have been smart to showcase their best in class aka the 3 4K displays, but then also give the option of a single GPU. Just stick a little red warning up in the configuration that it would only allow 2 4K displays then and the like.

Although since Apple want everything to run the same and work the same to avoid confusion I can see why it's two gpu's constantly. They're also banking on OpenCL being used more so two GPU's give the mac pros a bigger performance punch.

Even with 1 GPU OpenCL can be used, it's dependant on each GPU, the more OpenCL capable ones in the system the better OpenCL needed work is.

 

[Jim Campbell]

I'm contemplating buying one instead of the current mac mini ( don't fancy buying out of date gear tbh ) , only using it for wp , emails and basic surfing , would the base model do ?

That would be a crazy waste of money. You could meet that use case with an iPad and a bluetooth keyboard.

 

[Ethosik]

You can buy the exact same ram module that apple puts in their machine for a fraction of the price. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me. Apple isn't using some magical super duper special ram module. They use the same Micron, Kingston, Crucial or any other ram manufacturer that fit the bill and that can provide a big enough inventory to Apple.

BTW Dell don't sell $400 workstation, but for the same $3000 you can get a nice Dell system with more ram and better gpu than the nMP, but without the magical unicorn dust that comes with the nMP.

Um. Where did I say that you cannot buy ram AFTER PURCHASE yourself? I said that in my first post here. I said "Is it true that you can build a system that is even cheaper than a Dell? YES". Learn to read.

My point was, Apple is NOT the only one to charge a lot for Ram upgrades. But the RAM found in the Apple computers are sometimes better than the ones found in Dell. Did I say they are using some super secret RAM? NO

Again, is an Intel i3 the same as an Intel i5? You make it sound like all ram from one manufacture is the same. Crucial, Kingston, Micron, ... They all offer ram with different latency, DDR speeds, and more. One of the last Dell's I purchased provided a cheaper, slower DDR3 ram than what the motherboard supported up to. Not only that, I remember when I configured it, it was still an extra $300 to upgrade from 4GB to 8GB.

NO MATTER WHAT COMPANY, building yourself / buying components yourself will ALWAYS be cheaper. It is not JUST APPLE. Read my first post again, I specifically said this.

I just looked at the base $3,000 Dell vs the base $3,000 Mac Pro. A few things:

The Dell workstation has a lower clock speed, meaning single threaded tasks will suffer. It does have 6 cores though, but the base Mac Pro has 3.7Ghz clock speed.

The Mac Pro has PCIe flash storage. You do realize those cost more than the 7200 RPM drive in the Dell workstation right?

The Mac Pro has dual video cards, while the Dell only has one:

3 GB NVIDIA® Quadro® K4000 (2DP & 1DVI-I) (2DP-DVI & 1DVI-VGA adapter)

Dell: http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/precision-t7610-workstation/fs
Mac Pro: http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/mac-pro?product=ME253LL/A&step=config

So while it does have better ram and (debatable) better video card (Mac Pro gives you 4GB since it is dual 2GB cards). You are forgetting about the other things.

This is ALL ABOUT buying a product. Do you need that 4GB more RAM? Do you need that single 3GB NVIDIA card instead of dual 2GB cards? Fine, get the Dell. If you need the enhancements of the PCIe storage and a higher clock speed? Get the Mac Pro.

If you don't need two graphics cards, get a different workstation. A hardcore gamer has no need for an Intel i7 processor, or Xeon processor. So does that mean Intel i7's are overpriced? Are all Xeons overprices too?

A person that just browses Facebook does not need a NVIDIA GTX 780. Does that mean the 780 is overpriced?

Here is an idea: Do.....Some.....Research. Buy what you need. If the Dell has everything you need, GREAT! But I fail to see how the Mac Pro is overpriced. Just because it has Thunderbolt, PCIe flash, two video cards, and more does NOT mean it is overpriced. It just is not what you need.

 

[AxoNeuron]

Try again:

http://barefeats.com/tube16.html

My point is that D700 is NOT imbued with any special fairy dust.

It is a 7970/R9 280X, nothing more, nothing less (except for lower clock speeds)

Wishing that device id 6798 gains some magical powers when it goes through the Apple Factory is wishful thinking, at best.

These are the ONLY FirePro cards that share device ids with consumer grade cards, all the rest get special ids.

So...you believe a gaming card with 3GB VRAM is going to have the same performance as a professional workstation card with 6GB VRAM? I'd take that bet any day

And I will state this again, even though it's starting to get rather tedious to correct you, just because a device appears to share the same device ID in ONE section of the OS does not mean it performs the same. They still have different performance. In your own benchmarks the D700 beats every card in almost every benchmark. And when you start looking at non-obscure websites the same holds true, not in GAMING performance which the D700 is not meant for, but in video rendering etc.

 

[fuchsdh]

So...you believe a gaming card with 3GB VRAM is going to have the same performance as a professional workstation card with 6GB VRAM? I'd take that bet any day

And I will state this again, even though it's starting to get rather tedious to correct you, just because a device appears to share the same device ID in ONE section of the OS does not mean it performs the same. They still have different performance. In your own benchmarks the D700 beats every card in almost every benchmark. And when you start looking at non-obscure websites the same holds true, not in GAMING performance which the D700 is not meant for, but in video rendering etc.

At gaming? I'd believe a 3GB card would do better than a workstation card, for sure. The gaming card is likely to have better drivers and be optimized for, surprise surprise, playing games. Workstation cards, especially those with ECC, tend to be designed more for long-term stress and power management, and doing different kinds of crunching on the GPUs. And I dunno if many games could properly use 6GB anyhow. Once again, it all depends on what you're using the cards for (and BareFeats' benchmarks point that out—the gaming benchmarks are a far different tale than the pro software benchmarks.)

Seriously, why are we arguing about this now? The Mac Pro isn't overpriced if it's your target machine. If you have different needs, or are willing to roll your own computer, you may be better served with other computers or setups. There's no magic "right" answer here.

 

[Intelligent]

1- Creative cloud not updating is not because of windows or the pc but because CC is crap and Adobe is responsible for it. The same thing can and does happens on Mac.

2- Machine randomly shutting down: Either an overheating issue or hardware failure. Mac aren't immune from those either.

3- Font not being recognize: Really? Well if the font isn't installed it won't be recognized certainly. But this can happen on Mac too!

4- Nas not being recognized: Too many thing can be the culprit with this. But again, Mac aren't immune from this either. Plenty of people around here have trouble setting up and accessing their NAS with their Mac.

5- Artifact: Can be related to #2 and again, not really exclusive to PC. Plenty of people over the years have reported such problems with Mac also.

6- Malware: Mac aren't immune to malware. It is more resilient to viruses but malware is something else. Since most mac user don't install any malware or virus scanner they don't even know if the piece of software they downloaded and run is really the real thing. For exemple, you're looking for a piece of software to do X. You search on google and end up on a site that looks legit and offer such a product. You download it and install it. Of course as always OSX ask for your password. But since you think this is the real thing you enter your password and run it. From that point, that piece of software can do as much damage as it want and you'll never know since you don't have anything to scan or warn you.

Beside, starting with Windows Vista, MS offer a great malware and virus scanner and plenty more are available and every IT dept worthy of the name know how to set it up and keep it up to date. And if they are really really competent then they also use a services to block dangerous website and they keep their network behind a lock down firewall.

You misunderstood his post, he didn't explain why windows was worse, he explained why you need an internet connection on a workstation. (that you make money on)

The Mac Pro is grossly overpriced. I need a workstation, not a render farm. $7000 worth of GPU's sitting idle (as they would be for me) is pure idiocy. I can build a better machine for less than half the price (with a single much cheaper graphics card), and I would never see the difference in performance.

And say all you want about mac OS (I'm currently using Mountain Lion), but that iOS Desktop Yosemite Edition they're about the dump on the market makes windows 7 look fantastic by comparison as a workstation OS.

No, it is not over priced, see my Original Post. Explain how/why it is overpriced because just saying "it's overpriced" is no proof.

Most importantly, any machine you would actually build would have to run Windows if you wanted to run the majority of graphics or other professional software, if you weren't using the mac pro. Windows 8? HAHAHAHA! I don't even have to bother elaborating, do I? Or are you a huge Windows 8 fan too?

No, i don't want windows and i will never get it, i have not tried Windows 8 but it is probably as bad as windows 7. I have not tried vista either. Only XP (school) and 7 (friends house). I can run a lot of professional software on mac. Name one application that don't have an equivalent to mac. Were talking about graphics software here.

 

[koban4max]

nMP's price may increased...but it's still not overpriced.
You gotta make money with nMP to balance out.

 

[beaker7]

I've come to prefer Windows 8 for 3D applications as the interface performance is generally quite a bit faster vs OSX. Plus, you know, my GPU apps work.

Using a nMP for light video work and as an ingest machine. Great for that.

 

[tuxon86]

Name one application that don't have an equivalent to mac. Were talking about graphics software here.

Equivalence in software doesn't mean equal.

You can't really replace 3DS Max with Maya for instance. Even though they are both 3D software, they have totaly different workflow. Well, you could but you would have to retrain and it's a pain.

And there are some that don't have any real equivalent on Mac. Catia is an exemple. We use it at work for 3D engineering projects.

 

[Mr Friendly]

overpriced is a value question.

Most think a first class seat to europe is overpriced. I think a Veyron is overpriced.

Individual wallet, need, want, revenue generated and so on determine the answer. I can easily see how 50 people with 50 different answers can all be right. Just saying...

 

[TzunamiOSX]

You looked at....one benchmark test on a single obscure website where the 7970 performs better than the D700. And based off of this, you conclude that the D700 has less performance...? Especially considering the fact that the D700 beat out the 7970 on *EVERY* other benchmark on the same obscure website?

You're trolling, right? It would be funny if it weren't so sad. And desperate. And I'm not even going to deign to respond, it's just too easy. Buddy, if you actually believe that the 7970 beats the D700 in pro-graphics applications, all the power to you LOL!

FirePro D700 is a workstation Graphics Card based on the 28nm GCN architecture.
It's based on the Tahiti XT GL (same used on Radeon HD 7970) and therefore offers 2048 Shader Processing Units, 128 TMUs and 32 ROPs, but on a 384-bit interface of fast GDDR5. The central unit is clocked 850MHz while the memory clock operates at 1375MHZ.
It is thus considerably lower clocked and its gaming performance is even lower, as Radeon HD 7970 benefits from certified gaming drivers which unlock the GCN's architecture potential while FirePro D700 is made for professional applications. Therefore, expect its performance to be similar to Radeon HD 7950 Boost Edition.
Source [Pip]

http://www.game-debate.com/hardware/?gid=2113&graphics=FirePro D700

Here a D700 vs. W9000
http://www.pc-specs.com/gpu/comparison-versus/2113/1086/firepro-d700-vs-firepro-w9000

 

[AxoNeuron]

http://www.game-debate.com/hardware/?gid=2113&graphics=FirePro D700

Here a D700 vs. W9000
http://www.pc-specs.com/gpu/comparison-versus/2113/1086/firepro-d700-vs-firepro-w9000

Those specs are very easily proven wrong. The D700's on the Mac Pro have 6GB GDDR5 VRAM per card. That is 12GB VRAM in the machine.

Really, it is stunning how misinformed some of the posters in this thread are. The W9000 is the exact same card. The only difference, asides from no ECC VRAM which is useless in graphics applications, is the slightly slower factory clock speed of the cards. But this is very easily remedied in software.

I can't believe some of you are trying to use gaming cards in your supposedly "equivalent" machines

I can understand criticizing Apple for pricing on the iMac. But the Mac Pro is a genuinely good deal.

Also, I notice how a lot of you are building these "equivalent" machines with Windows 7, a FIVE year old operating system. LOL is all I have to say. I don't blame you for skipping windows 8, pretending it never happened, but modern OS X Mavericks is way better on a ton of different levels.