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.
New Mac Pro, One Year Later
- Thread starter mrxak
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have the greatest Mac Pro in existence. I built it myself and it has all the expansion I could ask for. You may call it unofficial, a hack or wrong. I call it thinking outside the box... Or if you want to get technical, thinking outside the "tube".
Yeah, this still makes no sense. They don't want you to have a powerful computer because they want you to use the cloud so they give you a powerful computer.
If they wanted people to use the cloud, we'd all be talking about the Mac Mini right now. As simple as that. There is no place for dual GPUs or a 12 core CPU in a computer aimed at cloud computing. Period.
What do sales channels have to do with whether two systems compete for the same users?
And you can buy a Z-series at Best Buy. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchp...t=n&iht=y&usc=All+Categories&ks=960&keys=keys
It makes perfect sense but you just don't want to listen. The software out there isn't ready for cloud computing or live streaming. But that's the direction they are moving in which should be obvious to anyone with a keen eye. Apple, Steam, Microsoft and Adobe are already running basic apps in browsers or live streaming them. Within a few years those web apps will be no different to the locally installed versions and they'll stop offering downloads. Few years after that they'll move compute power to the cloud too.
Last edited:
My point remains, those aren't necessarily competing products, as much as HP wants to "win the numbers game". Apple figures if they can cover (not penetrate) 95% of the pro/prosumer market with their nMP offerings, they'll be OK letting HP or whoever fight over the rest. It rarely makes financial sense for a big company to chase that fringe 5%. Same reason GM doesnt try to make a $500K Ferrari-fighter. They do pretty good with a Corvette, which is more car than most people know what to do with.
And I can buy a nMP from Costco!
We are talking about specifications of workstation-class computers here, not where you can buy one from. My personal view is Apple didn't go far enough and what is the current nMP should be the 'Mac' with the mini below it and a more expandable Mac Pro above it.
The Z840 sits in the space above the current nMP in terms of performance, expandability and price for that matter. Max one of these out and they aren't cheap, but they have more grunt than the nMP. It doesn't matter that you can buy one from Best Buy, Walmart or wherever, it is simply a more expandable workstation than the nMP.
The fruits of Apple's desertion of the high end professional workstation market ripen with every reason why Apple shouldn't have done it with HP's marketing this foolish manoeuvre selling their own gear.
You're just reinforcing my point. Apple is chasing the 95%+ of the market that doesn't need the HP, shops at Costco, etc. that's where the money is, and selling the nMP at Best Buy and Costco only helps Apple with their profits and economies of scale for this model.
Both of these statements are kind of worthless without any corroborating evidence. I would say that it's self-evident Apple is skating to where it believes the puck will be, and I think HP is clearly catering to a market that a certain segment of would-be Apple buyers feel closed out from. But whether or not Apple's moves have been successful or not, or whether HP's marketing either works or is a long-term viable business in its own right... we don't know.
Apple wraps its Mac Pros in with its Macs, so it's an opaque number; I'm going to guess that the Mac Pros are part of those record Mac numbers, but considering how small the pro Mac market has always been, who knows whether it's been "worth" it or according to Apple's projections.
HP's Enterprise Group and Services haven't changed staggeringly or significantly the past few quarters, so I don't think the Mac Pro had led to any tangible "bump" for their benefit (then again, we don't even know how big a potential bump could even be, so interpreting the numbers for signs of disaffected Mac Pro users is fruitless.) HP is no longer in a death spiral, but it's uncertain whether its spinoff plans will result in a stronger pro market either.
In other words: whether the Mac Pro has "failed" or "succeeded" is impossible to say unless you're a top executive at Apple.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Apple clearly set their sights on the workstation market with the nMP, but it falls short. It's a nice product and I quite like mine, but having owned one I can see the shortcomings.
It still makes entirely no sense. If the software isn't out there for cloud computing yet, and the Mac Pro is not built for cloud computing, then the Mac Pro is not a machine intended for cloud computing.
Look, if everything is in the cloud, why would I buy a $3000 Mac Pro? I'd buy a $600 Mini. Even the lowest end config of the Mac Pro would be seriously overpowered and overpriced.
There's no logical connection here connecting the new Mac Pro to cloud computing.
----------
I hope Apple is paying attention to these sorts of things. Dual CPU boxes are done, but Apple should be looking at this sort of thing as it points to underwhelming GPU performance and the need for upgradability.
If you work in an Apple enterprise shop the nMP makes sense, if you are a jobber it's not a good setup. The problem is Apples market has traditionally been jobbers so it's a big break. If my Mac was allowed on the network I'd have bought a nMP last summer but since it's stand alone I went old.
OK, let's face it BeatCrazy, you think that the MP is the coolest thing out there and just about everybody must buying them. That's cool, believe it, live it. Those who live in the real world tend to think otherwise but like I said, that's OK.
I clearly had said they are removing features and sealing Macs one step at a time to get people used to the idea of running everything in the cloud but you're not reading what I said, you are interpreting what I said. No problem, very common when conversing with the written word.
To achieve the vision of cloud computing they first have to start with a computer's periphery and then work inwards. The CPU is the last thing that would need to be reduced to a super energy efficient unit wih just enough power to process streamed apps. In 10 years all the most powerful CPUs and GPUs will be installed in giant farms serving cloud apps. Processing will occur on those farms and we will simply be paying for how much compute power we consume. This makes sense, not just environmentally, but also financially. Many people right now buy a computer far more powerful than they need and some of us wish we could have more power but are limited by physical and financial constraints (how big a computer can be or how expensive it is to purchase).
The above sounds like I should be very supportive of cloud computing and the direction the Mac Pro is taking. Yes, I support the vision. But as I said earlier in this discussion, I don't like the top-down approach with Apple cajoling us by impairing and hobbling computers, and not giving end users a voice. We should be offered full on workstations alongside smaller console versions like the nMP. When we feel comfortable with cloud computing and when we are sure our data and privacy are properly protected, that's when we can decide ourselves that we prefer to work in the cloud instead of purchasing expensive towers.
Very importantly, I want to see peer to peer cloud computing. If I don't want some corporation's farm rendering a 3D scene for me then I should be free to distribute the workload to people I know personally and pay them for the energy I use instead. In that sense, there can still be a market for people who want powerful computers. But right now no big playing company is talking about that. They only talk about streaming apps to us.
I love how they have these huge comparison charts, and then brag on pricing. "Oh cool, the machine is $560 cheaper than the base Mac Pro? Let's click buy and see how the stock configuration measures up..."
- Much slower processor, even though it is a 6-core
- 4 GB of RAM...how insulting.
- 500 GB 7200 RPM SATA drive...wonderful.
- No graphics card included...yikes.
Not saying the HP isn't a great workstation when you load it out. But to put up all of these comparison charts and then offer what they are offering is insulting. For $560 more dollars, you get a much faster (although lower core count) Xenon, 8 more GBs of RAM, PCIe storage, and dual GPUs which are of decent quality.
I think that order page is messed up due to some bad site management and design. They can't go from telling you it costs $2500 for an amazingly specced system with a direct comparison to a Mac and then telling you it's $2500 for a bare bones system with no graphics.
Just checked out their page. LMAO. what a rip off.
All these charts and ads and they don't even include a graphics card and the machine comes with 4gb RAM and a 500 GB HDD. LOL .
Even this claim alone doesn't add up. They added several features that point away from the cloud: dual GPUs and six Thunderbolt ports.
Why double the stock GPU count on a machine that is supposedly getting people used to the cloud?
----------
This is why Apple dropped the dual CPUs. Yes, PCs have them. But PCs that have them are crazy expensive. If you want, you can even go to four CPUs on a Windows workstation. But HP has to fudge the numbers a bit to get the HP price looking like the Apple price.
It's the same as it always has been. If your budget is unlimited, you can always buy a more powerful Windows box. If you're price conscious, the Mac is usually the best bang for the buck. Usually.
Man, that's funny...
And the GPU add ons aren't even factory installed. Have fun with that, IT department!
Yep 32 core version costs $11360 according to the only review
http://www.studiodaily.com/2014/11/review-hp-z840-workstation/
12 core Mac Pro costs $9599. At the base price the Mac wins, but as you max out the specs the HP wins. Still, much cheaper to build your own.
SNA was cloud computing 30 years ago and it failed because centralized computing cannot provide the creativity needed. The if you look at an iPhone 6 and compare it to a 1970 IBM 360, you will see the progress is moving functionality into silicon chips. While there is a group of people who think central process is future, the reality it will be the ability to create custom silicon. When you understand the functionality of running a calendar system off of an iPhone, instead of on a main frame, then you understand the cloud can really only be a communication network, not central processing network.
If you look at Adobe's model, you have conform to the least common denominator as their cloud software tries to accommodate the masses. As soon as someone offers custom silicon for individual needs, they will fail like SNA did. In 10 years, if I want to render 5K video to three formats, I will be able to order a rendering cube. Adobe will be trying to get everyone to conform to there least common dominator software.
The cloud may become backup storage, but it will not become a processing engine. The latency of the cloud will render that useless. Yes, you could run sna applications on the cloud quite effectively, but you will not be able to run future application on the cloud efficiently.
Lets say I want to render a new paint job for my video paint on my car. At 5k resolution, you will have to have silicon in the car to render the new colors and a high speed connection from the workstation to the rendering engine in the car.
If you think of trying to do that over a cloud, it will never work.
If you look at Adobe's model, you have conform to the least common denominator as their cloud software tries to accommodate the masses. As soon as someone offers custom silicon for individual needs, they will fail like SNA did. In 10 years, if I want to render 5K video to three formats, I will be able to order a rendering cube. Adobe will be trying to get everyone to conform to there least common dominator software.
The cloud may become backup storage, but it will not become a processing engine. The latency of the cloud will render that useless. Yes, you could run sna applications on the cloud quite effectively, but you will not be able to run future application on the cloud efficiently.
Lets say I want to render a new paint job for my video paint on my car. At 5k resolution, you will have to have silicon in the car to render the new colors and a high speed connection from the workstation to the rendering engine in the car.
If you think of trying to do that over a cloud, it will never work.
Yeah, that's the basic problem with the cloud. Processing power is outpacing bandwidth. The rate at which my phones processing power has increased has eclipsed the rate of change in my internet connection. When you look at cost, speed and efficiency, rendering locally wins by a huge margin, and that's only getting better, not worse.
Every time in computing everyone starts to go the direction of the cloud, the internet speeds are just never up to the task. Cloud computing can't even handle 1080p video right now, and we're moving to 4k which will make things even worse.
(And don't forget: Bandwidth is a shared resource. Getting one machine onto on connection rendering 4k footage is one thing. Now try to cram a building full of editors onto that single connection.)
The most interesting thing about the Mac Pro is it's basically making a statement that Apple feels we already have enough processing power at our desks. Why go to the cloud? You don't even need dual CPUs. You already have everything you need at your desk,