Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Just live in you little world where you think Apple hardware is magical or special cause of the software support.
Obviously you haven't read my reply. If you would you'd not have quoted the entire reply, you wouldn't have used the plural form of the word "post" and you'd definitely not have made the above statement as it would have been clear I put Apple, Dell, HP and other OEMs on the same level. The exact opposite of what you are doing: you're the one living in his own little world where certain manufacturers are all magical and special and others aren't. In the real world there is no such thing.

I tried to keep this simple stating that both Windows and OS X have equal levels of support. And depending on the specific software per platform this will vary.
It is not about the operating system. These kind of machines are a complete package from hardware to software. That's what manufacturers of the actual applications you'd run on those devices will look at and certify.

On the Hardware side, they are both PCs. And the difference in enterprise and consumer is not just the software. Of course you users will not tell a difference between enterprise and consumer for thier everyday tasks.
Be careful with "everyday tasks" because it highly depends on the user. In our case it is mostly calculations and 3D work.

Workstation hardware = Reliable, higher binned part. You pay for that! Hence they cost more.
Exactly: enterprise hardware/software is all about the guarantee that it works. Consumer hardware/software isn't. Unfortunately that has the added side effect that some abuse this. Making sure things really do work means that you have to work with the software people since you need both hardware and software. Part of that is the certification process.

However, reality dictates that this isn't always the case. As one of the sysadmins it is my job to fix problems and we see lots of them. Software is quirky but so is hardware. We've seen crappy hardware support from HP and Dell as well as crappy software support where the company says it will work but in reality it doesn't. Graphics cards are notorious. Lots of bugs get fixed by installing new drivers. But you can't simply install a new version because there are different kinds of drivers. You need to know the software that has to run on the machine because some will only certify against a particular driver. Install the wrong one and things won't work. In some cases a new version of the software also requires a new driver version. These drivers can only be installed and used when you have the enterprise grade hardware that goes with it. You can't use these on the consumer version of the same hardware.

These guarantees work nice on paper but reality is a different beast. That last part is what you seem to be missing and that's why I called you naive.

If you do not understand the difference between Xeons and their consumer counterparts, your completely missing the point.
Yep and you've just given a very good example to show that you do not understand the hardware nor what I'm saying ;) Remember that Titan-K6000? The same hardware: it has the same components, same architecture. Like I said, the only difference between consumer grade and enterprise grade is the guarantee that things work. In your example the more reliable version of the exact same hardware will get the enterprise grade stamp, the less reliable version of, again, that exact same hardware will get the consumer grade stamp. This is called cherry picking and they do it for consumer grade hardware as well (high end vs low budget). That's the reason why things will work with consumer grade hardware. It is just not guaranteed to work. The only thing you pay for is that little guarantee it'll work, the certification.

Again, this works nice on paper but doesn't in reality. In our case we take use of the fact that the consumer grade and enterprise grade version are the same hardware. We can cut costs here by using the consumer grade version. This does not have an effect on the TCO, our way of administering the computers or the users workflow/business. We test in advance as we always did (we do not trust the manufacturers or certifications since we know how computers work in reality), we replace hardware as we always did (either the component or we get them a temporary machine to continue their work) and we fix software problems like we always did (and also here we can give them a temporary machine to continue working).

Its all about hardware mate, not certification.
Nope, that isn't true at all. It is mostly about the certification because a computer is not purely hardware. A computer is hardware AND software. If you want a reliable computer you need to make sure that the hardware is at its finest as well as the software. That's what certification is about. You can only guarantee something works if you look at the entire picture. However, certification is part of the process. The other part is how you run your IT (take a look at ITIL to get an idea of what things you need to do) and how you arrange things like replacements and repairs (aka the support contract that you can't get with Apple but do get with Dell and HP).

Simply put: hardware is only one small part of the story. There is more to it, an awful lot more to it. Also, do not underestimate the quality and power of modern hardware. The quality and performance gap is very narrow.
 
You choosing to take certain software written for OS X, and in this case post production which tends to be dedicated to Mac pros, so you get the benefits of a specialised software, written for dedicated hardware and turn that into an argument that the Mac pro is better supported. Well hell yeah, that is obvious as. You using macs for post production work...... of course your going to think they are amazing. Its like me saying my gaming PC is better at gaming than any mac, with better driver support, better software support etc.... not a relevant argument.

You seem to be arguing that citing post production as an illustration of my point is as irrelevant as citing gaming would be... in a discussion about professional workstations, and in particular about the new Mac Pro, for which the post production market is obviously a key target of Apple's. This is... odd.

I was talking pro use in general, for software that runs on both windows and macs. I can also take certain software that run alot better on windows and making sweeping statements how windows are much better supported, better performance etc.

Look, clearly vendors can choose to support the Mac so badly that Windows ends up being better for their software. It's not my claim that this is somehow impossible.

My argument, rather, is that because of the more predictable, controlled nature of the Mac platform, vendors can provide a level of reliability and consistency with their apps that is effectively unachievable when your software might be run on any combination of a huge range of possible hardware in the Windows world. Additionally, because Apple itself assumes roles played by 3-5 separate parties (depending on how your count) on the Wintel platform, the Mac can often deliver better on the "it just works" metric, which can be rather important in professional contexts.

----------

The D700 isn't "a little" different. The lack of ECC is effectively a Deal breaker for a lot of actual "professionals."

But mostly not professionals that were buying Macs in any case.

Edit: By the way, If indeed the 7970 performs the same or better as the D700 in professional applications, then I will damn well compare it to the D700. The line between workstation and consumer graphics is a blurry one, especially in this case.

In other words you're still insisting that performance is the key dividing line between workstation and consumer classifications, despite the fact that this is manifestly false even on Windows, where it's not at all hard to find consumer parts that perform as well as or better than workstation parts.
 
As a lot of people have already said on this thread, it all comes down to the graphics cards and we don't yet know for certain what the D700s correspond to.

Personally I think that they are closest to the S9000 rather than the W9000. The S9000 cards are about a $1000 a piece cheaper than the W9000 so this would account for the $2000 difference whilst still being pro graphics cards rather than consumer ones.

This makes sense to me, Apple are charging a surprisingly reasonable price for the graphics cards but I can't believe they are will charge a major discount - they have just reduced the Apple tax but made it up on the CPU costs which they have marked up by a large margin (as most workstation manufacturers do).
 
ITs a good value, back then in todays dollar a hard drive by itself was 10,000 dollars.

oldpc-1.jpg
 
Yep and you've just given a very good example to show that you do not understand the hardware nor what I'm saying ;) Remember that Titan-K6000? The same hardware: it has the same components, same architecture. Like I said, the only difference between consumer grade and enterprise grade is the guarantee that things work. In your example the more reliable version of the exact same hardware will get the enterprise grade stamp, the less reliable version of, again, that exact same hardware will get the consumer grade stamp. This is called cherry picking and they do it for consumer grade hardware as well (high end vs low budget). That's the reason why things will work with consumer grade hardware. It is just not guaranteed to work. The only thing you pay for is that little guarantee it'll work

When you accuse someone of not knowing hardware, make sure your not talking FUD. Such such FUD. I'd recommend you do you research in the future. If you think the K6000 and Titan are the same, you are me discussing hardware is a waste of time. Sounds like your just a power user who has a very simplistic view.

Here is a link to help you understand why the K6000 costs a hell of slot more than a Titan. The Titan is the same architecture as the K6000 but did not make the cut, and does not have all the features.

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-...00-Graphics-Card-Visual-Computing-Professiona

Research research ..... I'll leave you to it. This discussion is going nowhere, let's agree to disagree, good luck.
 
It's fine if you disagree with me but you may want to do some research who you are talking to (aka practice what you preach!). I am definitely not a high end user nor any other kind of user. I support such users and design and manage the systems they work with. Part of that is knowing the hardware AND the software as well as their requirements and budget. There is simply so much more to it than just the hardware. You are overlooking all the other aspects and that makes for a very very bad advise towards anybody needing a computer.

Also, you are focusing only on the cpu, mem and gpus. How about the other components? The NICs, the sound chip, the psu, the ssd and so on. If we look closer the ssd is an ordinary consumer component that Samsung makes and there is only 1 of it in the machine. The machine will be useless if the disk will fail. So much for the Xeon, ECC and professional GPU madness... Something similar can be said for the single psu that is in the machine and the consumer sound chip that is used (any audio professional will have to resort to something else). At least with the old Mac Pro you could fix the disk problem by using RAID. When you build it yourself or you get one from Dell or HP they solve this and the sound chip problem too and maybe even the psu.
 
In other words you're still insisting that performance is the key dividing line between workstation and consumer classifications, despite the fact that this is manifestly false even on Windows, where it's not at all hard to find consumer parts that perform as well as or better than workstation parts.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The W9000 blows away the 7970GE at many professional Windows Apps. That and ECC are the #1 and #2 reasons anyone pays $3500 for the card.

Yes, they have better support, but this hogwash about "can run 24/7" is a total joke. Non-reference coolers on 7970's beat the pants off the W9000.

How many would prefer to save $3000 if they could get the same performance?
 
You have no idea what you're talking about. The W9000 blows away the 7970GE at many professional Windows Apps. That and ECC are the #1 and #2 reasons anyone pays $3500 for the card.

Yes, they have better support, but this hogwash about "can run 24/7" is a total joke. Non-reference coolers on 7970's beat the pants off the W9000.

How many would prefer to save $3000 if they could get the same performance?

Totally a broken record but...

Big vendors that buy large quantities of these chips buy them for AMDs support. I've no idea what gets negotiated, but I'm sure they'll be huge discounts for big installations!
Their secondary market tends to be desktop workstations used for running specific applications (mostly on Windows) that meet their hcl and are guaranteed to work (and enable software switches) - They're businesses with a specific use and just want a product that does the job, it's easy to justify the premium and for the vast majority, there's no other purchasing route.
There's very few individuals that trundle down to the shops and pick up a workstation gpu unless they are application shackled (which, ignoring their own marketing and the firepro branding of the nMP, apple are helping to mitigate).

This (should be?) is a tech forum and a bunch of enthusiasts discussing performance. With decent code I see 7970 performance pretty much identical to w9000, which isn't surprising as they're basically the same thing. ECC doesn't really provide that much of a bonus. Very simply, the error detection on consumer radeon boards subtly gets rids of the 'sparklys' on games the same as it reduces the throughput on ggpu workloads when one occurs. The real-world price premium of full ecc for a vendor is very small, as is the compromise to 99.9% of workloads (100% for the nMP considering the rest of the hardware?). A standard api like opencl that apple is obviously focusing on makes this whole "omg workstation parts are amazing" argument even more moot. amd aren't gimping opengl or opencl etc on their consumer parts (multiple generations) anything like nvidia do (even on their workstation products). It's all about the software and product segmentation, branding doesn't make the hardware magical; Unfortunately some uses are forced to use expensive equipment by proprietary applications and their business practices, but that doesn't mean the 10x price premium is 10x the hardware quality - I'd like to think the situation is improving. Old mac pros/hackintosh benchmarks/apps running non-biased code (obviously we can't get away from some of them) on equivalent consumer cards proves this point far better than any of my ramblings.
 
With decent code I see 7970 performance pretty much identical to w9000, which isn't surprising as they're basically the same thing.

I agree--if things were coded that way, workstation GPUs wouldn't perform much better than consumer GPUs.

However, that's moot. If as a practical matter you can't get a consumer card that runs those particular apps as well, you'll have to spring for the workstation card. Forget the technical ability of the cards, if in the real-world you can't get that speed, it doesn't matter.

Currently, the W9000 blows away the 7970GE at certain pro apps, in spite of them being nearly identical cards.

This is why it would be interesting to me to see how the D700 does in those same apps--to see if they have the same optimizations that you pay thousands of dollars for in the PC world.

Will it be the same as a W9000? No, it's hugely underclocked and has no ECC. But it's an option for Pros who use those apps and don't need ECC, whereas a rebranded and downclocked 7970 is not.
 
I agree--if things were coded that way, workstation GPUs wouldn't perform much better than consumer GPUs.

However, that's moot. If as a practical matter you can't get a consumer card that runs those particular apps as well, you'll have to spring for the workstation card. Forget the technical ability of the cards, if in the real-world you can't get that speed, it doesn't matter.

Currently, the W9000 blows away the 7970GE at certain pro apps, in spite of them being nearly identical cards.

This is why it would be interesting to me to see how the D700 does in those same apps--to see if they have the same optimizations that you pay thousands of dollars for in the PC world.

Will it be the same as a W9000? No, it's hugely underclocked and has no ECC. But it's an option for Pros who use those apps and don't need ECC, whereas a rebranded and downclocked 7970 is not.

Yeah, there's no getting away from needing certain hardware for certain applications unfortunately (incredibly frustrating when it's artificially limited), but I actually think osx and the nMP is a good platform to help improve things.

Unless I'm missing something glaringly obvious (I don't understand why this wasn't focused on), the anandtech review showed a pretty good example of this with the 4k fcp rendering test :

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/6

The default GT 120 GPU gives us a slight indication of what a slower GPU would do to FCP performance here. What took the new Mac Pro with its dual FirePro D700s under 15 minutes to do, took an hour and 45 minutes to do on the 2009 model with entry level GPU. The same system but with a Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 dropped its render time to 18 minutes.

If that's the case, why wasn't this picked upon in their 'DIY' comments and why aren't people that work with video and FCP just putting multiple $300 consumer cards in their existing hardware - Again, am I missing something? Why would you buy a nMP if you can get way more for way less on their flagship application on existing in-warranty (if that's a requirement) equipment?
 
If that's the case, why wasn't this picked upon in their 'DIY' comments and why aren't people that work with video and FCP just putting multiple $300 consumer cards in their existing hardware - Again, am I missing something? Why would you buy a nMP if you can get way more for way less on their flagship application on existing in-warranty (if that's a requirement) equipment?

Because you can't put multiple cards in existing hardware, except shorties like the old GT 120's (I happen to have two of these). Two 7970's requires too much power and connectors for the old Mac Pros, though some people have cobbled together ways to do it.

Plus the new machine has new features, TB 2.0, USB 3.0, Flash, noise, power, etc.
 
The Anandtech review has some more info about the GPUs: GPU choices. Some interesting parts: only 1 GPU used for the display(s) and the other used for computations, memory on the cards is the non-ECC version and it uses CrossFire X instead of CrossFire Pro in Windows. I'd say that the comparison with consumer cards is actually spot on. The only thing different is that the cards in the Mac Pro are allowed to use the FirePro drivers.

This also greatly shows there is a lot more to a system than slapping in some components targeted at the professional market. It is about getting the entire system up to a certain level. It also shows that consumer and professional hardware is the same with only very minor differences. But if you really now your stuff this doesn't come as a surprise. Apple isn't the only one doing this.
 
Unless I'm missing something glaringly obvious (I don't understand why this wasn't focused on), the anandtech review showed a pretty good example of this with the 4k fcp rendering test :

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/6

If that's the case, why wasn't this picked upon in their 'DIY' comments and why aren't people that work with video and FCP just putting multiple $300 consumer cards in their existing hardware - Again, am I missing something? Why would you buy a nMP if you can get way more for way less on their flagship application on existing in-warranty (if that's a requirement) equipment?

I think you're right, I don't think Apple's made an artificial distinction between the Radeons and the FirePros in OS X. I'm waiting to see Barefeat's Dual 7970 Vs D700 FCP comparisons -- it may be the case that a 2009-12 Mac Pro with dual $300 cards will run better than the nMP (higher clock). Such a system would be a heck of a jerry-rig (Re: power), but an interesting test.

Heck, for that price, you might as well get dual R9 290X and blow the nMP to smithereens.

Again though: really would like to see the performance in Pro Windows apps
 
Heck, for that price, you might as well get dual R9 290X and blow the nMP to smithereens.

I find it more interesting to build the best machine possible for the best price rather than just using up a budget for the sake of it :)
The 290's with non-reference coolers are better bang for the buck (well, they're cheaper, faster, quieter and cooler) than reference 290x's if you have to spend a budget and/or want ultra-hd game fps.

The 7970 (or 280x) are by far the best cards for performance/£ .... assuming you can wrestle them out of the grasp of the cryptocoin miners!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.