Mac Pro too late for me

[ScottishCaptain]

Why Thinkmate?

They're just selling rebranded SuperMicro stuff. You could have gotten it cheaper had you opted to assemble it yourself, which is strange because you're going to be spending a lot of time installing your own parts anyways.

Also, since it's a SuperMicro, that stuff is going to be loud. I've worked in the same room as a SuperMicro OEM tower, and they're not pleasant to be around. Not an issue if the machine is located in another room, but damn, I would hate to have to run one of those as a workstation under my desk having used a Mac Pro for the last many years.

In any case, enjoy the new workstation!

-SC

 

[deconstruct60]

Why Thinkmate?
....
They're just selling rebranded SuperMicro stuff. You could have gotten it cheaper had you opted to assemble it yourself, which is strange because you're going to be spending a lot of time installing your own parts anyways.

Go to the bottom of post 4. Technically it isn't his computer. Looks like he is just handing a detailed purchase order for the new employer to file with the vendor. There isn't anything on his config list that isn't on vendors BTO page.

 

[wallysb01]

Why Thinkmate?

Deconstruct got it right. Thinkmate because I need a retail shop to sell me one for billing reasons.

They're just selling rebranded SuperMicro stuff. You could have gotten it cheaper had you opted to assemble it yourself, which is strange because you're going to be spending a lot of time installing your own parts anyways.

I probably would have rather just assembled it myself, but that isn't what they pay me to do here. All I'm doing is installing the HDDs...that's not exactly brain surgery.

Also, since it's a SuperMicro, that stuff is going to be loud. I've worked in the same room as a SuperMicro OEM tower, and they're not pleasant to be around. Not an issue if the machine is located in another room, but damn, I would hate to have to run one of those as a workstation under my desk having used a Mac Pro for the last many years.

Well, its in a lab with many different types of noise making machines. Freezers, refrigerators, stir-plates, thermocyclers, centrifuges, you name it. So, we'll see how the sound goes. If its bad, I'll try to do as much as possible with software changes to fan usage, or look into new fans....

 

[FluJunkie]

Including this time. Apple never made dedicated 5U rackmount server. That doesn't mean they didn't consider 5U rack server were not for professional use. The tool being in a profession category and Apple making a tool in that class are two different things.

I'm talking about this specific purpose. Not some hypothetical "Well yes, there are use cases where Apple doesn't make a product".

This use case used to have Apple behind it. There was a time when this wasn't beyond what Apple considered worth supporting. But then I've been lamenting Apple's odd abandonment of the science market, where they've been penetrating rather nicely for years, for some time now.

 

[deconstruct60]

This use case used to have Apple behind it. There was a time when this wasn't beyond what Apple considered worth supporting. But then I've been lamenting Apple's odd abandonment of the science market, where they've been penetrating rather nicely for years, for some time now.

Times and conditions change. This is a rather one sided observation. There is an open question of whether that is penetrated versus penetrating. If it is past tense then the market lost interest around the same time Apple did. Your implied causality is suspect.

There is just as much, if not more, vocal protest in the Mac "professional" forums about not clinging hard enough to the past as there is about lack of progress going forward.

Apple isn't going to make high priority something on a immediate-to-long term no, or very low, growth path.

"... But at the same time, there remain scattered pockets of concern, as the market has yet to resume the pace of growth it sustained back in the years 2005 through 2008. ..."
http://jonpeddie.com/press-releases/details/steady-as-she-goes-for-the-workstation-market-in-q411/

"... Going back to fourth quarter of 2011, the workstation market had hit some roadblocks, suffering three consecutive down quarters. But that string was mercifully broken in the third quarter of this year ..."
http://jonpeddie.com/press-releases/details/the-workstation-market-finds-its-groove-in-q312/

" ... reports that around 883 thousand workstations shipped worldwide in the quarter, down 3.8% from the quarter prior and 2.6% from Q2'11. ..."
http://jonpeddie.com/press-releases...-sluggish-in-q212-reports-jon-peddie-researc/ )

Pouring high priority resources into a market that is going backwards doesn't make alot of sense. Even less sense for Apple which had a couple of Mac products heading the decidedly opposite direction. Note how the missed iMacs from FY12 Q1 , around 700k, is about the same size as this whole workstation market. Not HP's or Lenovo's share, the whole market.


You've also pulled some assignment of Apple, as opposed to a subgroup, interest 10+ years ago. While the Macs relative PC market share was still imploding Apple was always primarily interested in moving the MBP and iMac forward. Those are the pace setters.

 

[wallysb01]

"... But at the same time, there remain scattered pockets of concern, as the market has yet to resume the pace of growth it sustained back in the years 2005 through 2008. ..."
http://jonpeddie.com/press-releases/details/steady-as-she-goes-for-the-workstation-market-in-q411/

Its interesting you started your quote with that "but" there. That tips you right off that the article was just talking about something positive, while you only quote the negative. The preceding sentences:
"The leading market research firm has completed its data collection and analysis of results from the quarter, and finds Q4 followed the same basic storyline Herrera had been laying out over the previous few quarters. The market has not only fully recovered from the recession, it's showing continued stability and some undeniable signs of strength."

"... Going back to fourth quarter of 2011, the workstation market had hit some roadblocks, suffering three consecutive down quarters. But that string was mercifully broken in the third quarter of this year ..."
http://jonpeddie.com/press-releases/details/the-workstation-market-finds-its-groove-in-q312/

Again, you chop only the negative from the story. The next few sentences:
"Alex Herrera, JPR Senior Analyst and JPR Workstation Report author, reports that workstation vendors shipped about 932 thousand branded workstations, representing an increase of 5.5% over Q2'12. Especially considering that third quarter shipments often take a dip after Q2, that otherwise modest 5.5% figure is a sight for sore OEMs' eyes."

Pouring high priority resources into a market that is going backwards doesn't make alot of sense.

If we take a look at these articles in totality here's the basic run since late '11.

Flat in Q4'11, down Q2'12 (intel chip released but not widely available), up Q3'12 (shockingly, after new intel chip is finally available). In total, the sales from Q3'12 of 932K are back above their pre-recession peek of 867K, after bottoming out around 600K. I wouldn't say this is a contracting market any longer from data like that. It sounds like it went through tough times with the recension (surprise!), bounced back, and has started fairly stable, small growth. Longer term trends are actually looking pretty good and indicate the exact opposite thing you are saying.

Even less sense for Apple which had a couple of Mac products heading the decidedly opposite direction. Note how the missed iMacs from FY12 Q1 , around 700k, is about the same size as this whole workstation market. Not HP's or Lenovo's share, the whole market.

But I wonder what the profit margins and total profit in dollars, not percent, are like for an iMac vs. Mac Pro or a workstation, in general. Self-built workstations similar to a bottom line Mac Pro are what, ~$1500? Apple charges $1000 more. But Apple can probably build the Mac Pro for substantially less than you could from Newegg and the like. I wouldn't be surprised if margins on the Mac Pro are nearly 50%, and ~$1200 on a bottom of the line machine. So, one bottom of the line Mac Pro sale might net the same profit in real dollars as 3-4 iMac sales. For duel processor machines it might be more like 7 or 8. By that math, Apple needs ~150K sales to equal the iMac line in profit, but they don't need to equal it. Even 50K sales would probably be plenty to justify the lineup. And that would only represent about 5% of the workstation market. Seems like an easy target to me.

 

[FluJunkie]

Times and conditions change. This is a rather one sided observation. There is an open question of whether that is penetrated versus penetrating. If it is past tense then the market lost interest around the same time Apple did. Your implied causality is suspect.

What implied causality?

I stated that Apple has been penetrating into the science market nicely for years now, but recently they've been losing steam, and I've noticed some very positive sentiment fading among professional scientists.

And yes, times and conditions change. That was the point of my post. Times have changed, and Apple's support of the scientific community has been on something of a downswing. I find that unfortunate. You can choose not to, I really don't care.

 

[MisterKeeks]

Apple never had products on their own processors.

They sort of did with PowerPC - not their own, but they were the sole users.

 

[robains]

Is this still going on ... geeez, you folks are die die die hard Apple hardware fans.

It's really simple, I can build and quote you a $11,450 computer (because I built one) 2U Rack unit 64 real CPUs - 256GB RAM - 3TB SSD RAID - nVidia GTX 680 4GB.

AMD Opteron 6376 16 core (64 CPUs): 4 - $730.00 = $2,920.00
Dynatron A8 CPU Cooler for AMD: 4 - $35.00 = $140.00
SUPERMICRO 2U Rackmount Quad Socket G34 AMD: 1 - $1,900.00 = $1,900.00
Kingston 32GB (2x16 GB) 240-Pin DDR3 ECC (256GB): 8 - $290.00 = $2,320.00
OCZ Vector Series 2.5" 512GB SATA III MLC (3TB): 6 - $600.00 = $3,600.00
ASUS GTX680 4GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 (4GB): 1 - $570.00 = $570.00

Grand Total: $11,450.00

I challenge anyone living the Mac Pro dream to get any Apple MacPro today or in the future to get even remotely close to the computational power I listed above? Anyone? I'm listing just a workstation, not a server farm component.

If you have been in the position where you need to do A LOT in a short period of time (as is the situation 90% time) who is on the professional side in terms of rendering 3D animation or video processing isn't going to be using a MacPro now or in the near future. The above system will not only save a professional A LOT of time, it will save them a lot of money.

In those rare situations where one has more time to be creative, one is able to complete a considerable amount of creative prototyping much faster ... giving a final product a "fresh" look.

The ONLY downside is one has to run Windows or Linux not OSX -- it's a bummer for sure, but it's NOT a show stopper as the OS pretty much stays out of the way in all flavors but you'll find better driver support under Windows.

 

[PowerPCMacMan]

I think this is why ARM is being pushed, though you don't see much about it being advertised. Apple is all about wanting to make their own chips and dropping outside support, namely Intel. While I do believe ARM, a RISC CPU has its advantages, currently its not up to the performance of Intel's latest offerings.

I am sure a day will come when Apple will have the right tools to make their own processors inside their own fabrication plants. Now, how about that Macbook Air with a 3 Ghz 64-bit dual core ARM?

They sort of did with PowerPC - not their own, but they were the sole users.

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple is all about wanting to make their own chips

Apple doesn't make any of the ARM chips they use now. ARM is not about "Making".

A subset of the internals of the SoC are designed by Apple, but at least half, if not more, of the transistors are designed by someone else. The whole package is make by other folks.

and dropping outside support, namely Intel.

The primary reason Apple is dropping Samsung is that another part of Samsung is competing very well with them now. It is not because Apple wants to. If they weren't engaged in billion suits against Samsung they'd probably continue to use them.

While I do believe ARM, a RISC CPU has its advantages, currently its not up to the performance of Intel's latest offerings.

There is nothing to indicate that future Intel offering won't also have a lead in performance. If performance becomes a completely secondary factor for all Macs then sure. ARMs are generally cheaper to buy because there are multiple suppliers competing against each other. At least for now.

I am sure a day will come when Apple will have the right tools to make their own processors inside their own fabrication plants.

Apple doesn't want to own multibillion dollar factories. Even this "make Macs in the USA" move they are about to make it is unclear if that is work being done by a contractor.

Outsourcing to other companies with higher and more vertical skill sets is a core part of Apple's strategy.

A more likely future may be a Intel SoC with Intel x86 and GPU with some specific Apple selected I/O and specialized de/encoder support along with maybe some DRM dongle (if Hackintosh piracy gets to be too large). The chip would be made by Intel for Apple. Again the presumption is that most of the Mac line up performance was secondary and majority of the whole line up was on one SoC.

I think it is far more likely that stuff like Siri processing will happen on the Mac (instead of at Apple's servers) and that performance will matter. It won't be direct user workload but more work making the Mac "smarter" that will keep performance as a factor in CPU package selection. Hence, Intel (or AMD if they ever come out of their slump).

Now, how about that Macbook Air with a 3 Ghz 64-bit dual core ARM?

LOL. By July you can buy an Intel version of that in x86 ( a SoC with CPU + GPU + IOHub ) .... again why? That would cost Apple zero dollars of upfront R&D to make available. Why would Apple gobs of money for something that Intel is going to create for them anyway? A couple years from now it will be better still. Again with no up-front money invested by Apple other than passing on the costs for Intel processors to customers. As long as Mac margins hold that costs Apple nothing.

There likely will be an iPad with that SoC. It would be quite straightforward for Apple to create one of those "snap on" keyboards for a new "high powered" iPad (just stop shrinking it.) running iOS. Apple probably will increasing wage war on the market position the 11" MBA is in now. That is hardly the whole Mac line up though.

 

[deconstruct60]

AMD Opteron 6376 16 core (64 CPUs): 4 - $730.00 = $2,920.00

16 integer cores but only 8 Floating point units. They are cheaper than Xeon E5's but not particularly faster in single or double precision math. The number of floating point units is exactly the same. If want four than just get E5 4000's

Back of the envelope for FLOPS but

"...
CPU __________________________________FLOPS
Intel Xeon E5-2600 (Sandy Bridge) series ______8
Intel Xeon E3-1200 (Ivy Bridge) series ________8
AMD Opteron 6200 (Bulldozer) series ________ 4
AMD Opteron 6300 (Piledriver) series ________ 4

..."
http://www.penguincomputing.com/Blog/Tagname/HPC+Performance

I challenge anyone living the Mac Pro dream to get any Apple MacPro today or in the future to get even remotely close to the computational power I listed above? Anyone?

A current Mac Pro with two Xeons and two Quadro K5000s. That is over 3000 single precision cores versus your ~1600.

Yes, the K5000 isn't shipping yet but it is unclear if that is Apple's fault or not. Apple didn't demo and say "ships later this year".

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/09/nvida-announces-kepler-based-quadro-k5000-gpu-for-mac-pro/

It is far more generally the case of software being the major impediment here. Not monster 4 CPU socket motherboards. That some renders can't take advantage of all of those single precision cores. It is extremely likely that several folks at Apple can read these industry trends and there is never going to be 4 socket boards. The new Mac Pro will be looking forward into the future, not backward into the past.

 

[deconstruct60]

They sort of did with PowerPC - not their own, but they were the sole users.

If want to wave your arms about "sort of , kind of " then ARM is also. What is effectively ARM now results from a joint venture between Acorn and Apple that was spun off where Newton was the initial primary consumer.

That's is about as 'sole user' as PowerPC. The 'Power' comes from IBM and was continued to used by them; including later variants that were in PowerPC arch compliance. There is also a large number of network equipment and automobiles with PowerPC's inside them too. The fact was Apple was actually more so the minor users of PowerPC and they didn't want to pay for the chip really only they wanted to be developed. ( Microsoft did and they got want they wanted. So did Sony).

It was, and still is, far less risky for Apple to buy what "everyone else" is buying in order to distribute R&D over a wider base of companies. There is zero good reason in the market right now for Apple to spend more money and take on unnecessary risk.

 

[robains]

16 integer cores but only 8 Floating point units. They are cheaper than Xeon E5's but not particularly faster in single or double precision math. The number of floating point units is exactly the same. If want four than just get E5 4000's

For the applications I use, threads rule the day ... but hey if FP is your thing, then off the shelve computer I listed (all parts from NewEgg) still has 32 floating point units which is almost 3X more than anything Apple currently offer. Agree the AMD CPU isn't as computational strong as the Intel Xeon, it's about 10-15% slower real world application processing. But still about 3X faster (300%) than anything Apple currently offer (2 X 6 core Xeon).

A current Mac Pro with two Xeons and two Quadro K5000s. That is over 3000 single precision cores versus your ~1600.

Yes, the K5000 isn't shipping yet but it is unclear if that is Apple's fault or not. Apple didn't demo and say "ships later this year".

Kidding right? I can get a K5000 right now (can't do that with Apple) if I thought it would help, the ONLY time I've seen the K5000 be a benefit is with SolidWorks and 3D CAD software, doesn't help at all with Adobe PP or Cinema 4D. But hey, just for you (and because I can) I'll add two K5000's to the system I listed above if that's what you want NewEgg Quadro K5000 $1780 it'll bump the price up to $14450 ... again killing (by a wide margin) anything Apple currently offer.

... so we have a MacPro with 12 cores (Intel Xeon @ 3Ghz) + 64GB RAM + 4 X 512GB SSD (2TB) + 2 Quadro 4000 = $14600

To recap Apple $14600 vs. PC $14450 ... with the PC being about 3X faster with considerably more RAM 256GB and more SSD capacity 3TB.

Apple MacPro
CPU: 12 cores
RAM: 64GB
HDD: 2TB (SSD)
Video: Quadro 4000 X 2
Cost: $14600

PC
CPU: 32/64 cores (32FP/64I but 64 threads)
RAM: 256GB
HDD: 3TB (SSD)
Video: Quadro K5000 X 2
Cost: $14450

So honestly, you think Apple could EVER be competitive in the "Professional" market? Do think Apple even have the commitment or desire to compete in this market?

It is far more generally the case of software being the major impediment here. Not monster 4 CPU socket motherboards. That some renders can't take advantage of all of those single precision cores. It is extremely likely that several folks at Apple can read these industry trends and there is never going to be 4 socket boards. The new Mac Pro will be looking forward into the future, not backward into the past.

Any "Professional" grade software will be (at a minimum) able to work multiple threads on separate cores and/or have support for CUDA ... Cinema4D, Adobe, SolidWorks, Inventor, Cakewalk, etc. etc. (all native 64bit).

 

[FluJunkie]

They key is not necessarily that the Mac Pro would make a swell cluster node, because it won't.

What the Mac Pro provides, and many people here value, is that its an excellent every day use workstation that combines the strength of a Linux machine and a mass-market consumer machine.

Why I value mine? Because I ran be running Python, C or R code in the command line, using things that are a PITA to get working on Windows but have a ton of support from Linux/Unix types, while also having Microsoft Office running, all of that wrapped up in a polished UI and corporate support where I can take the machine to a store and say "Fix this".

All of that could theoretically be accomplished by an iMac or MBP plus access to some compute nodes, but I've rather enjoyed being able to go "Nah, my local machine will run this" more often than not.

It's not enough to keep me loyal to the Mac Pro line for much longer in the face of cheaper and better hardware, but it's been enough to leave me willing to pay a light premium. Also: compare like with like. A "Build Your Own" machine isn't comparable to Apple - you should be looking at Dell/HP/Lenovo. Hell, I know my department won't even *let* you build a machine.

----------

Any "Professional" grade software will be (at a minimum) able to work multiple threads on separate cores and/or have support for CUDA ... Cinema4D, Adobe, SolidWorks, Inventor, Cakewalk, etc. etc. (all native 64bit).

Some professional grade tasks involve largely serial processes. What is true for you is not true for everyone.

 

[robains]

They key is not necessarily that the Mac Pro would make a swell cluster node, because it won't.

I'm talking about a workstation not a cluster node ... you don't put K5000's in a cluster node. Just because it's a 2U rack mount doesn't mean it can't be used as a workstation.

What the Mac Pro provides, and many people here value, is that its an excellent every day use workstation that combines the strength of a Linux machine and a mass-market consumer machine.

Why I value mine? Because I ran be running Python, C or R code in the command line, using things that are a PITA to get working on Windows but have a ton of support from Linux/Unix types, while also having Microsoft Office running...

You realize this is all available on the computer I listed above? Heck, if you run VM, you can load just about any OS you like including OSX (violates license but it will work just fine).

Some professional grade tasks involve largely serial processes.

Ok, so now your saying there is no need for a MacPro or even multi-core computers? I do agree, not everyone will need the capabilities of the computer I listed above, it's primarily aimed at "Professionals" So what's the Mac "Pro" aimed at?

Rob

 

[FluJunkie]

I'm talking about a workstation not a cluster node ... you don't put K5000's in a cluster node. Just because it's a 2U rack mount doesn't mean it can't be used as a workstation.

I'm aware of that. I confess I was using that as a shorthand for "Computer valued for its raw output".

You realize this is all available on the computer I listed above? Heck, if you run VM, you can load just about any OS you like including OSX (violates license but it will work just fine).

You can't if its running Linux or Windows. Linux doesn't have access to a polished UI and commonly available "productivity" applications (LibreOffice < Microsoft Office, as much as I hate to say that). And Windows doesn't play nearly as well with a great deal of what I use on a daily basis.

Ok, so now your saying there is no need for a MacPro or even multi-core computers? I do agree, not everyone will need the capabilities of the computer I listed above, it's primarily aimed at "Professionals" So what's the Mac "Pro" aimed at?

No, I'm saying absolutist statements about the nature of "Professional" work - something this forum is inordinately fond of - is wrong. So your design, which emphasizes maximizing the amount of threads that can be used - is good for your professional workflow, but not all processional workflows.

So, for example, the loss of an Intel chip with Turbo (if we can move the conversation to a hypothetical not pathetically obsolete Mac Pro) in favor of your AMD chip would be a net loss for me.

 

[robains]

FluJunkie,

You can run any OS you like on a PC ... including OSX under VM. Just like you can run Linux and/or Windows on your MacPro.

Agree, "professional" needs vary, but if you go to Apple's web site they sell the MacPro on how fast it "renders" ... not how fast it runs Office. Like you said, if Office is what you use for professional work, then it doesn't need high CPU core counts, then an iMac or lower end PC will work just fine. But again, that's why Apple has NOT done much with the MacPro for a long long long time and hence the nature of this original thread "MacPro too late for me".

As far as my AMD PC, heck, replace the AMD parts with Intel ones and a 4 CPU socket motherboard and go Intel parts if you like ... the cost difference is minor and would only increase the performance difference over the best Apple have to offer.

What I find amusing is the continued hope of a MacPro ... even if it did come out this year it would be a computer sitting in no-man's land ... not powerful enough for high end professional rendering work, and too powerful/expensive for Office type work.

Please do tell me what application(s) specifically the MacPro would be aimed at for Professional use?

 

[FluJunkie]

You can run any OS you like on a PC ... including OSX under VM. Just like you can run Linux and/or Windows on your MacPro.

I don't want to run OSX under a VM, both because I don't want to run a VM, and because running an unsupported OS that's violating an EULA isn't something I'd do on a professional machine. The point of paying a professional premium is support. For my living room hobby machine, sure, but I have better things to do at work.

Agree, "professional" needs vary, but if you go to Apple's web site they sell the MacPro on how fast it "renders" ... not how fast it runs Office. Like you said, if Office is what you use for professional work, then it doesn't need high CPU core counts, then an iMac or lower end PC will work just fine. But again, that's why Apple has NOT done much with the MacPro for a long long long time and hence the nature of this original thread "MacPro too late for me".

Neither the OP - I'm guessing based on his posts so far - care about rendering. "Rendering" and "Office" are not the only two things one might want to use a Mac Pro for. That's what I'm telling you - broaden your horizons. What you're defining as "Professional" isn't the entire gamut of professional users, and if they're not doing exactly what you do, that doesn't mean they don't need a Mac Pro.

As far as my AMD PC, heck, replace the AMD parts with Intel ones and a 4 CPU socket motherboard and go Intel parts if you like ... the cost difference is minor and would only increase the performance difference over the best Apple have to offer.

And that's fine. I was just noting that "Threads > All" isn't necessarily always true even in professional applications. I use some blisteringly expensive software that could fetch me a decent salary if I moved into the private sector, which is in my mind pretty much the definition of "Professional". And much of it involves serial tasks.

Please do tell me what application(s) specifically the MacPro would be aimed at for Professional use?

Anything where you'd want Terminal and Word open at the same time.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Is this still going on ... geeez, you folks are die die die hard Apple hardware fans.

It's really simple, I can build and quote you a $11,450 computer (because I built one) 2U Rack unit 64 real CPUs - 256GB RAM - 3TB SSD RAID - nVidia GTX 680 4GB.

AMD Opteron 6376 16 core (64 CPUs): 4 - $730.00 = $2,920.00
Dynatron A8 CPU Cooler for AMD: 4 - $35.00 = $140.00
SUPERMICRO 2U Rackmount Quad Socket G34 AMD: 1 - $1,900.00 = $1,900.00
Kingston 32GB (2x16 GB) 240-Pin DDR3 ECC (256GB): 8 - $290.00 = $2,320.00
OCZ Vector Series 2.5" 512GB SATA III MLC (3TB): 6 - $600.00 = $3,600.00
ASUS GTX680 4GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 (4GB): 1 - $570.00 = $570.00

Grand Total: $11,450.00

I challenge anyone living the Mac Pro dream to get any Apple MacPro today or in the future to get even remotely close to the computational power I listed above? Anyone? I'm listing just a workstation, not a server farm component.

If you have been in the position where you need to do A LOT in a short period of time (as is the situation 90% time) who is on the professional side in terms of rendering 3D animation or video processing isn't going to be using a MacPro now or in the near future. The above system will not only save a professional A LOT of time, it will save them a lot of money.

In those rare situations where one has more time to be creative, one is able to complete a considerable amount of creative prototyping much faster ... giving a final product a "fresh" look.

The ONLY downside is one has to run Windows or Linux not OSX -- it's a bummer for sure, but it's NOT a show stopper as the OS pretty much stays out of the way in all flavors but you'll find better driver support under Windows.

I'll take your challenge!...lol. You might win on performance, but loose on support.

Many professionals don't like building their own systems as they have to provide their own support if their workstations go wrong.

Time is money if they spend time troubleshooting their systems instead of getting work done or are busy running their own business.

Even if you track down whats wrong with your system, you often have to fight with part manufactures saying its something else thats causing the problem.

Apple care has a stellar support system, for that reason many choose to go that route.

 

[wallysb01]

The machine arrived yesterday. Right off the bat, it geekbenched ~20600 in 32-bit mode. I'm not going to pay for the 64-bit, but I doubt its much different relative to other machines. Maybe the newer architecture takes a little bit better advantage of 64-bit mode than the westmeres, but I doubt by much. So I'd estimate 64-bit mode to be around 23600. However, the RAM is showing up as 1333 MHz, despite it being 1600 and supposedly having the processors and motherboard to support 1600. So, I have some tinkering to do with the BIOS. Plus, noise permitting, I'm going to set the BIOS to the most performance based configuration I can while stopping short of any under/over clocking.

Also, since it's a SuperMicro, that stuff is going to be loud. I've worked in the same room as a SuperMicro OEM tower, and they're not pleasant to be around. Not an issue if the machine is located in another room, but damn, I would hate to have to run one of those as a workstation under my desk having used a Mac Pro for the last many years.

I also thought I would bring up the noise, since it was brought up before by ScottishCaptain above. Well, its pretty quiet with 2x80mm fans in front, two huge heat sinks and fans on the CPUs, and 1x92mm fan in back. Not as quite as my previous work machine, an 8-core 2.4 GHz 2010 Mac Pro, but definitely not loud. The main thing right now is not the fans, even during a relatively short but stressful test of my own, but rather the hard drives. For now, the machine is sitting right on top of my desk with the disks maybe within 18 inches of my ear. Once I move it a couple feet away and off the top of my relatively small desk, I am guessing I will probably hardly notice the noise over things like refrigerators that are across the room.

I'll take your challenge!...lol. You might win on performance, but loose on support.

Many professionals don't like building their own systems as they have to provide their own support if their workstations go wrong.

This is true, but not as much as you're thinking. This is exactly what Red Hat is for and what these custom build vendors are for (Even HP/Dell/Lenovo all have good options for these kinds of machines, but they aren't as cheap). For example, the rough equivalent machine as what rabains built could be configured from Silicon Mechanics (which also has wonderful support, I'd say even better than Apple) for about the same price as he listed, just without the GPU to be bought separately.

http://www.siliconmechanics.com/quotes/241580?confirmation=1837339514

Add RHEL and you have machine with full support and an OS with full support. RHEL is expensive, but its no more expensive than the Apple tax. Or, if you're in a medium/large company/institution, you likely have IT support ready for RHEL anyway. So, Apple loses nearly all its advantage in those settings, and thus without a competitive price/performance ratio, it loses sales.

If you're a professional that depends so heavily on a $5-10K computer to make a living, its really not that hard to justify putting some time and energy into the best computer for your needs and not just hoping some out-of-box solution from Apple (or anyone else) is the right thing. In my case, it was particular hard to justify to myself to spend maybe ~10% more money for 10-20% less CPU performance, 25% less RAM (that's just as configured), and 1/2 the data storage expandability on a Mac. Gaining that was, for me, certainly worth a tiny bit more tinkering over a Mac (its not like Macs are without their own software frustrations that would require my time, i.e. I can just sudo apt-get many of my research specific software on Ubuntu that might take half a day, or much more, trouble shooting and configuring on a Mac).

 

[robains]

I'll take your challenge!...lol. You might win on performance, but loose on support.

Where did I make a support challenge? This is something YOU introduced, not me.

Many professionals don't like building their own systems as they have to provide their own support if their workstations go wrong.

Do you have valid data to back this up? All the professionals in my field are VERY aware of the hardware they use to get the job done.

Time is money if they spend time troubleshooting their systems instead of getting work done or are busy running their own business.

Yes it is, but again you've magically assumed that the system I listed above is going to require more support -- so I ask again, where is you quantifiable data to back that up?

Even if you track down whats wrong with your system, you often have to fight with part manufactures saying its something else thats causing the problem.

I don't know, I've never had to fight with parts manufacturers as I've never had any serious issues with my computers.

Apple care has a stellar support system, for that reason many choose to go that route.

You do realize that you can buy similar systems as I've listed from Dell, HP, Others for a little more in cost and have the option to purchase guaranteed 3 hour solution (yes even if a part fails they guarantee you a replacement will be installed within 3 hours). It's called a Service Contract and they come in many options. Some of the response time/solution options are MUCH MUCH better than anything Apple care offer -- but again, it costs money, just like Apple care does.

It's simple, if you're a "Professional" that does NOT need huge computational resource, then get an iMac or a cheaper PC. If you're a "Professional" that does indeed need huge computational resources (such as a 3D animator, CAD, Video editor, and even some high end audio work) then you get a PC.

This isn't a "new" concept, this IS why Apple still don't have a new MacPro ... they did this analysis a long time ago and it is exactly why the MacPro hasn't been significantly updated in over 3+ years.

 

[robains]

The machine arrived yesterday. Right off the bat, it geekbenched ~20600 in 32-bit mode. I'm not going to pay for the 64-bit, but I doubt its much different relative to other machines.

You do realize that if you run in 32bit mode you're limited to a single thread/process that can not exceed 4GB of RAM? Unless you do just basic word processing, email, and surfing the next, you'll want to operate you computer on a 64bit OS and run native 64bit applications.

But in regards to the MacPro and Tim Cook's comments, this would seem to contradict those:

No MacPro's in Europe

Mac computer sales down 20+%

By all means hang on to your MacPro, whatever floats ya boat ... but eternal hope doesn't solve professional problems of today.

 

[GermanyChris]

You do realize that if you run in 32bit mode you're limited to a single thread/process that can not exceed 4GB of RAM? Unless you do just basic word processing, email, and surfing the next, you'll want to operate you computer on a 64bit OS and run native 64bit applications.

But in regards to the MacPro and Tim Cook's comments, this would seem to contradict those:

No MacPro's in Europe

Mac computer sales down 20+%

By all means hang on to your MacPro, whatever floats ya boat ... but eternal hope doesn't solve professional problems of today.

He's talking about Geekbench 32 bit...

 

[Mackilroy]

I think he meant GeekBench WRT 32- and 64-bit.

Darnit, ninjaed by GermanyChris.