Exactly why the death of the Mac Pro was prophesized to begin with. I would imagine now that thunderbolt is here, there will be many users second guessing the validty of having a Mac Pro now.
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 vs MacBook Pro...
- Thread starter VirtualRain
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly why the death of the Mac Pro was prophesized to begin with. I would imagine now that thunderbolt is here, there will be many users second guessing the validty of having a Mac Pro now.
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated"
That said, Apple should be little concerned about the perception of current rev MP obsolescence.
cheers
JohnG
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated"
That said, Apple should be little concerned about the perception of current rev MP obsolescence.
cheers
JohnG
haha nice. +1 for MPs
did you know that TB is just an extension of PCIe? there's already ways to hook up SSDs to PCIe slots. TB isn't going to do anything to the internals, other than adding another controller to the motherboard.
SB is only an incremental step in desktop processors. the biggest gains were made in mobile quad-core CPUs.
If the Hexacore becomes standard or a cheap upgrade with the next refresh that will be a good improvement.
I dont think imac vs mac pro would work either. Heat issues when really running hard plus you are stuck with their display. iMac with TB would be a great option again for someone who does not need Mac Pro
I purchased the pro knowing that I needed an iMac that would let me access external hdds in a proper fashion ie sata II speed with booting option. 16gb ram would be good enough for my uses.
I did not have that machine to buy so macpro was the closest machine for my uses. Now it looks like using a lacie raid0 t-bolt to a promise pegasus t-bolt 6 hdd machine would work for me. IN fact it would suit many mac pro buyers.
any real power user will not go that route they will need 24gb ram and the heat/cooling setup of a pro.
I did not want to get a pro in aug but my options were limited to it or a highend nas. I wasn't looking to stash a large nas in another room for storage and hope my 2009 imac's internal never had problems. So I purchased a small nas and the macpro.
I like the mac pro in fact I don't need it if t-bolt is any good but I will most likely get a low end mac pro again when they make one with t-bolt. or maybe they will sell an add on pcie card. promise pegasus will work with pcie and t-bolt used a mac pro with a pcie card for a demo
yes phil, that would work for people that dont need a mac pro you are correct. Many comparisons are made by people who have the mac pro but dont actually need it. When you put imac vs mac pro I just assumed we would be talking about people who actually need the system provided by the pro. An iMac with a stack of tb drives would be a great option for many... just not ones that need a mac pro.
I've been thinking about this very topic today.
I bought my Early 2006 vintage MacBook Pro (which just "black screened" on me tonight ) as a desktop replacement.
It's kept closed up in clamshell mode, tethered to my 30" Cinema HD Display (so an iMac is right out of the question for me).
I thought a MacBook Pro was better (at the time) because of the potential to be portable (my Dad always used to say "Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it").
But in practice it's rarely left my computer room (and I have an even older PowerBook G4 in the living room as an ersatz iPad, which is why I don't disconnect the MacBook Pro). It's gone on a few trips and to some conferences, but that's about it.
I'd been thinking that I should just buy a used Mac Pro to replace it with, but I have to admit these new Sandy Bridge laptops have me questioning that idea.
To get a new machine with > 10000 Geekbench for under $3000 all-in is pretty decent bang for the buck compared to the Mac Pros. For someone who isn't using it professionally, Mac Pros can get expensive in a hurry when you configure one that isn't just the bare bones model.
I'm a classic waffling Libra so I still don't know which is the right way to go
I bought my Early 2006 vintage MacBook Pro (which just "black screened" on me tonight
) as a desktop replacement.It's kept closed up in clamshell mode, tethered to my 30" Cinema HD Display (so an iMac is right out of the question for me).
I thought a MacBook Pro was better (at the time) because of the potential to be portable (my Dad always used to say "Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it").
But in practice it's rarely left my computer room (and I have an even older PowerBook G4 in the living room as an ersatz iPad, which is why I don't disconnect the MacBook Pro). It's gone on a few trips and to some conferences, but that's about it.
I'd been thinking that I should just buy a used Mac Pro to replace it with, but I have to admit these new Sandy Bridge laptops have me questioning that idea.
To get a new machine with > 10000 Geekbench for under $3000 all-in is pretty decent bang for the buck compared to the Mac Pros. For someone who isn't using it professionally, Mac Pros can get expensive in a hurry when you configure one that isn't just the bare bones model.
I'm a classic waffling Libra so I still don't know which is the right way to go
I'd love to know how my 2009 Quad 2.66 / 2.5 TB RAID0 / 8GB Ram Mac Pro somehow scores lower than the entry level 2011 MBP in the Geekbench scores posted online.
I understand newer tech in the form of CPU but it's just confusing. (My 32bit score in Geekbench is a paltry 8,490)
I understand newer tech in the form of CPU but it's just confusing. (My 32bit score in Geekbench is a paltry 8,490)
Because Geekbench only takes into account the processor and memory. Not anything else like your faster HD, System bus etc. But just CPU power. Yes, the new MBP 2.3GHz Quad is a faster processor. It is almost as fast as your chip if it were clocked to 3.33GHz, which yours isn't. The new Desktop i7-2600 is almost as fast as the i7-980X 6-core at 3.33GHz. So Nahalem/ Westmere users 2 years later feel like they overpaid? Welcome to tech. You can now get performance that cost 1000.00 for 300.00. When you are ready to buy a new machine, you will sing the praises. In the meantime get an SSD and be happy because most of us can't max out what we have and Macbook owners are going to hit the boards pretty soon complaining about "all the heat" and "fan noise" etc... I would never get a laptop as my only Mac. 8900 in geekbench is not that bad anyway.
15" MBP top end is faster and has light peak
Hard to justify a MP now
There will be those who say, "If you cannot justify it, you didnt need it"
So be it, but there are gray areas of users that can go either way
Apple has done a great job with the MBP, and the MP seems a little overpriced. IMHO
Hard to justify a MP now
There will be those who say, "If you cannot justify it, you didnt need it"
So be it, but there are gray areas of users that can go either way
Apple has done a great job with the MBP, and the MP seems a little overpriced. IMHO
Ah see I didn't know that, which make sense. (Why I stated I understand the CPU is newer/more efficient).
I still like to have my Mac Pro over a laptop as my only machine as well. I really wouldn't want to keep my MBP running at 100% CPU churning out HD video for hours on end that's for sure.
I still like to have my Mac Pro over a laptop as my only machine as well. I really wouldn't want to keep my MBP running at 100% CPU churning out HD video for hours on end that's for sure.
It is not faster than most 2010 Mac Pro's. You are only talking processor not anything else. Anything over 3.2GHz Quad is on par with it. The 6-core blows it away as does any of the 12-core's and some of the older 2009 models best it by a wide margin. Also, what are you going to do with light peak at this stage? Do you have a RAID that can push more than 500MB/s? Does that RAID also have a light peak port? Probably not. It is a non issue for most of us. Having an external HDD hooked into light peak will not work any faster than eSATA. HDD's can only get like 150MB/s. SATA l will do that. It is definitely nice to have more options but Mac Pro's have PCI slots. I can put any controller I want in it. Light peak does make sense if you want a 4xRAID0 SSD that can push over a 1GB/s but that is not being used by the person who buy's a 13" macbook pro. Not the same mindset.
say what you will
the bottom line is this - there are consumers (a lot of them), that compute in the gray area between two clear choices. Some will pick the MBP over the bottom end MP. Thus, fewer buyers for MP. This would have never happened with the older MBP, but the new one is fantastic.
Unless apple upgrades, there will be less business for MP in that gray area.
the bottom line is this - there are consumers (a lot of them), that compute in the gray area between two clear choices. Some will pick the MBP over the bottom end MP. Thus, fewer buyers for MP. This would have never happened with the older MBP, but the new one is fantastic.
Unless apple upgrades, there will be less business for MP in that gray area.
Very good point.
Apple has too much invested into pro environments to just ax the Mac Pro though. I have a few Xsan/Mac Pro/Xserve/Fibre work areas using FCP and FCS and they would never give up that editing market to Avid. (I guess I shouldn't say never) Grandma and her new iOS thing really seem to be putting the money in the stockholders hands. Anything is possible.
8GB of RAM is useless for me.
I've tried iMac's and Macbook Pro's as replacements in the past and it has never worked out. Yes, they are great machines but are dead end machines in terms of upgrading.
I was hoping the new Macbook Pro would allow 16GB of RAM which I could get away with but sadly not the case.
I've tried iMac's and Macbook Pro's as replacements in the past and it has never worked out. Yes, they are great machines but are dead end machines in terms of upgrading.
I was hoping the new Macbook Pro would allow 16GB of RAM which I could get away with but sadly not the case.
what is maddening is that "pro level features" are not in the MP - lightpeak would have a lot of use in the MP... an improved array of processors for the price would be nice...
Obviously the MBP is a lot more volume for apple than the MP... but the MP, as their flagship, should have all the flagship features
Most surprising, however, is how the MBP exceeds the geekbench of the base MP
Consumers in the gray area will take heed. Those firmly in the MP land won't look at the MBP, but there are those in the gray area. The MBP should be commended for being a great package compared to the MP currently. Time will tell if this is temporary or permanent
Obviously the MBP is a lot more volume for apple than the MP... but the MP, as their flagship, should have all the flagship features
Most surprising, however, is how the MBP exceeds the geekbench of the base MP
Consumers in the gray area will take heed. Those firmly in the MP land won't look at the MBP, but there are those in the gray area. The MBP should be commended for being a great package compared to the MP currently. Time will tell if this is temporary or permanent
I find all this debate and comments like "You don't need a Mac Pro" amusing.
People buy Mac Pro's for a number of reasons...
- Support for multiple displays
- Support for more mass storage or RAID
- Support for better graphics performance or multiple GPUs
- Support for some kind of PCIe card for your creative work
Sure, some buy because they need 12-cores and 24GB of RAM, but not everyone does. And to imply that you don't need a Mac Pro just because of these two items, is, well extremely ignorant.
It's ridiculous to look at computing needs based on the form factor. Analyze the software you run, look at the peripherals you need, and then decide what form factor best suits your needs.
With Thunderbolt, a lot of the needs that could previously only be achieved through the expansion capabilities of a Mac Pro, can now potentially be met with a computer of any form factor.
And when you couple Thunderbolt with very capable quad cores in MacBooks, iMacs, and Mac Pros, creative professionals and enthusiast users have more choices than ever before on how to get their work done.
Let me wrap up by reminding everyone that there are precious few apps that can stress a Quad Core these days, never mind a Hex, Octo or Dodeca core system. So, yeah, if your workload relies heavily on 6+ cores, then you probably really do need a Mac Pro. Otherwise, you have more choice now.
People buy Mac Pro's for a number of reasons...
- Support for multiple displays
- Support for more mass storage or RAID
- Support for better graphics performance or multiple GPUs
- Support for some kind of PCIe card for your creative work
Sure, some buy because they need 12-cores and 24GB of RAM, but not everyone does. And to imply that you don't need a Mac Pro just because of these two items, is, well extremely ignorant.
It's ridiculous to look at computing needs based on the form factor. Analyze the software you run, look at the peripherals you need, and then decide what form factor best suits your needs.
With Thunderbolt, a lot of the needs that could previously only be achieved through the expansion capabilities of a Mac Pro, can now potentially be met with a computer of any form factor.
And when you couple Thunderbolt with very capable quad cores in MacBooks, iMacs, and Mac Pros, creative professionals and enthusiast users have more choices than ever before on how to get their work done.
Let me wrap up by reminding everyone that there are precious few apps that can stress a Quad Core these days, never mind a Hex, Octo or Dodeca core system. So, yeah, if your workload relies heavily on 6+ cores, then you probably really do need a Mac Pro. Otherwise, you have more choice now.
Last edited:
- Then you need a Mac Pro, and you still need a Mac Pro today.
- This is valid. Although ExpressCard has been around on the MBP for some time (200MB/s is not fast enough for some uses).
- Then you still need a Mac Pro. Today's implementation of Thunderbolt is not fast enough for external GPUs, and I don't see that market going anywhere for awhile.
- Vendor-specific external Thunderbolt cards are a cool idea. I hope we see them. Until we do, you still need a Mac Pro.
You can't sell me this line until the peripherals are out there. Right now, all of the restrictions still apply.
This is true. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge proponent of choice. I very much hope Thunderbolt catches on in a big way. I would love to compute in a world where you had USB2 for your low-bandwidth peripherals, and Thunderbolt for everything else. You will not find a bigger advocate of how awesome the new MacBook Pros are. The fact remains, if you are a considering a computer today there is basically nothing to sell the MacBook Pro over the Mac Pro (except portability, as always). Most of us will continue to use/buy Mac Pros until the peripheral ecosystem is there to accomplish what we need. You can't buy now, hope something comes out in the future, and meanwhile not do any work.
The new MBPs are very impressive and are making me start to wonder if now's the time to start thinking about upgrading my aging Early 2008 model.
BUT...
It would be stupid for me to think that a new MBP would be a suitable replacement for my 2008 Mac Pro. I fall into that relative minority that actually DOES use multithreaded CPU power (mostly for video encoding) and I need the PCIe expansion. Plus, I like having 4 internal drive bays so I can avoid a rat's nest of wires created by doing the same thing with external hard drives.
But I do think I agree that this new model is a game changer for mobile computing. Thunderbolt has lots of potential and FINALLY, MBPs are getting some quad-core love. It's about time.
BUT...
It would be stupid for me to think that a new MBP would be a suitable replacement for my 2008 Mac Pro. I fall into that relative minority that actually DOES use multithreaded CPU power (mostly for video encoding) and I need the PCIe expansion. Plus, I like having 4 internal drive bays so I can avoid a rat's nest of wires created by doing the same thing with external hard drives.
But I do think I agree that this new model is a game changer for mobile computing. Thunderbolt has lots of potential and FINALLY, MBPs are getting some quad-core love. It's about time.