New Mac Pro, One Year Later

[EdDuPlessis]

SNA was cloud computing 30 years ago and it failed because centralized computing cannot provide the creativity needed. a rendering cube. Adobe will be trying to get everyone to conform to there least common dominator software.

Without enough bandwidth, speed, processing power, users, payment systems, security, etc...of course it didn't take off 30 years ago.

But I'm afraid anyone who underestimates where it will be a decade from now is going to be eating their words. You are already doing so much in the cloud right now and it isn't going to stop there.

 

[goMac]

Without enough bandwidth, speed, processing power, users, payment systems, security, etc...of course it didn't take off 30 years ago.

But I'm afraid anyone who underestimates where it will be a decade from now is going to be eating their words. You are already doing so much in the cloud right now and it isn't going to stop there.

Because my iPhone already has enough processing power to chew through 1080p video. Why do I need to go to the cloud?

We're in an age where we have an overabundance of power locally, with a lack of bandwidth available.

 

[robeddie]

just got mine last month, and holy freaking shiyot. Just a better experience than my 4.1. Thunderbolt is just crazy crazy fast. Love it.

Clearly a young man still in his infatuation stage ... combined perhaps with a spoonful of confirmation bias.

----------

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.

Broken english aside. I'm assuming you're saying Apple chose style over substance, in a computer that costs 4-friggin-thousand dollars. If that's the point you're trying to make - you nailed it.

Apple's obsession with style over substance has become almost comical at this point.

 

[EdDuPlessis]

Because my iPhone already has enough processing power to chew through 1080p video. Why do I need to go to the cloud?

We're in an age where we have an overabundance of power locally, with a lack of bandwidth available.

I spoke about the future and then you bring up the present as if nothing is going to change. Don't argue just for the sake of having an internet argument. You forgot that more and more people in the future will own a computer, phone, tablet, watch and be connected online. A forecasted five billion more people will want to be connected within our lifetime, if not they will be very angry, hungry and hard to manage. More and more people will be energy consumers and we will not have solved the energy crisis yet. You might not even be able to switch on the lights in 10-20 years let alone chew through your videos on your phone. So be happy that cloud computing can become a reality so that your local devices won't have to consume so much power. If corporations want to stay in business they will have to do it this way becaus energy crisis and population growth effects them too.

But having said that, your very low energy devices in 10 years could very well be more powerful than what you have today. It's just that the processing power will be mostly used for real time analysis of your health and environment instead of rendering Call of Duty XX, which like many apps will be streamed.

 

[goMac]

I spoke about the future and then you bring up the present as if nothing is going to change. Don't argue just for the sake of having an internet argument. You forgot that more and more people in the future will own a computer, phone, tablet, watch and be connected online. A forecasted five billion more people will want to be connected within our lifetime, if not they will be very angry, hungry and hard to manage. More and more people will be energy consumers and we will not have solved the energy crisis yet. You might not even be able to switch on the lights in 10-20 years let alone chew through your videos on your phone. So be happy that cloud computing can become a reality so that your local devices won't have to consume so much power. If corporations want to stay in business they will have to do it this way becaus energy crisis and population growth effects them too.

But having said that, your very low energy devices in 10 years could very well be more powerful than what you have today. It's just that the processing power will be mostly used for real time analysis of your health and environment instead of rendering Call of Duty XX, which like many apps will be streamed.

Again, at current rates local processing power is outpacing the growth of internet connection speeds. Why would I send a job halfway around the world when the phone in my pocket can do the same task?

It's an answer in search of a problem.

Energy consumption is neither here nor there. It doesn't matter whether the computing is done locally or remotely, the energy consumption is the same. Actually, the energy consumption for a cloud is slightly more as you have to have equipment to sling the bits around.

 

[TruckdriverSean]

While I do believe in the future power of cloud computing, I don't see the nMP as being much of a sign of it. Rather, Apple is looking at it from a modular unit approach. Modular to them is modules made by Apple though, not the "parts straight from vendors" approach to modularity we've been accustomed to.

So you purchase a CPU/GPU module with storage just for the OS, core apps and the workflow items needed today. Move that off into storage modules most companies already own. When CPU/GPUs need upgrading, go to Apple and get another module.

More people working on the same bit of work? Just share your large storage module and get more CPU/GPU modules (nMP's)

I'm not saying this is good or bad, just saying this is what their doing in my opinion, not prepping us for a cloud that they've consistently failed at. Apple is a hardware company at heart.

 

[burnsranch]

If you take a calculator and hook it to the cloud so all you send are the numbers and the functions you can see this is a stupid idea. My calculator is now solar powered. There is no reason my computer processor cannot be solar powered like my calculator in 10 years or so. If you look at all the processors intel makes, it is easy to see they are a couple of generations from custom processors. You will send your data via the cloud and they will send you a new solar power custom powered process for 19.95.

The issue with technology is once you move the bar forward, you have to fill in with people who want to do the same things only faster.

If you think about the cost of energy to send data at high data rates of speed verses my solar calculator you can see even with fiber, a cloud calculator does not make much sense.

 

[shaunp]

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.

It is cheaper to build your own and you will get a fast machine. There is one word however that ensures corporates will almost never build their own - support.

----------

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.

Yeah agreed., it makes sense for the individual but not as a corporate purchase.

----------

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 .

The Z840 will be more expensive as is the Dell T7910, but if you want to max one of these out then cost probably isn't an issue. I actually think the nMP is good value for money, but it's a different class of workstation.

 

[AidenShaw]

multiple responses, common fallacy

I love how ....

Just checked out ....

Yep 32 core ....

Funny that all of these arguments jack of the price of the non-Apple by building it out to the specs of the Apple - but nobody considers that some people might not need all the stuff that Apple includes in the bundle. ...or that some people might need stuff that Apple can't do.

• Do you want less than 12 GiB of RAM - no choice, that's the minimum
• Do you need dual faux "workstation class" graphics - no choice, it's standard

And the flip side is what Apple won't give you.

• Need CUDA or Nvidia graphics - not from Cupertino
• Need more than 64 GiB of RAM - not from Cupertino
• Need more than 12 cores - not from Cupertino
• Want 12 cores at 3.4 GHz base - not from Cupertino
• Want multi-port 10 GbE on PCIe 3.0 - not from Cupertino
• Need 80 lanes of PCIe 3.0 - not from Cupertino
• Need PCIe slots - Cupertino throws up in its mouth

As someone so aptly said - the MP6,1 is a nice FCPX hardware dongle. It's not a world-class workstation.

 

[sigmadog]

Apple's obsession with style over substance has become almost comical at this point.

Exhibit A: Apple Watch

 

[AidenShaw]

Exhibit A: Apple Watch

I love mine. I just wish that the battery would last past lunchtime.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple's mastery of the "upsell"

My husband was guilted (by his brothers) in to getting my mother-in-law a new laptop for a holiday gift - her PowerPC MacBook is really no longer "usable".

80+year old woman who does occasional email, random surfing (focused on cat videos), and some very light ecommerce.

For her needs, the $899 11" MacBook Air is way, way overkill.

But, 80 year old eyes need a 15" screen - so Apple's upselled an $899 Air to a $1999 Pro.

Does the filter let me say "Bastards"?

 

[unibility]

Funny that all of these arguments jack of the price of the non-Apple by building it out to the specs of the Apple - but nobody considers that some people might not need all the stuff that Apple includes in the bundle. ...or that some people might need stuff that Apple can't do.

• Do you want less than 12 GiB of RAM - no choice, that's the minimum
• Do you need dual faux "workstation class" graphics - no choice, it's standard

And the flip side is what Apple won't give you.

• Need CUDA or Nvidia graphics - not from Cupertino
• Need more than 64 GiB of RAM - not from Cupertino
• Need more than 12 cores - not from Cupertino
• Want 12 cores at 3.4 GHz base - not from Cupertino
• Want multi-port 10 GbE on PCIe 3.0 - not from Cupertino
• Need 80 lanes of PCIe 3.0 - not from Cupertino
• Need PCIe slots - Cupertino throws up in its mouth

As someone so aptly said - the MP6,1 is a nice FCPX hardware dongle. It's not a world-class workstation.

Computers are an open market item. There is always a choice of purchasing your next machine from other companies or build one yourself.

 

[TruckdriverSean]

Funny that all of these arguments jack of the price of the non-Apple by building it out to the specs of the Apple - but nobody considers that some people might not need all the stuff that Apple includes in the bundle. ...or that some people might need stuff that Apple can't do.

• Do you want less than 12 GiB of RAM - no choice, that's the minimum
• Do you need dual faux "workstation class" graphics - no choice, it's standard

And the flip side is what Apple won't give you.

• Need CUDA or Nvidia graphics - not from Cupertino
• Need more than 64 GiB of RAM - not from Cupertino
• Need more than 12 cores - not from Cupertino
• Want 12 cores at 3.4 GHz base - not from Cupertino
• Want multi-port 10 GbE on PCIe 3.0 - not from Cupertino
• Need 80 lanes of PCIe 3.0 - not from Cupertino
• Need PCIe slots - Cupertino throws up in its mouth

As someone so aptly said - the MP6,1 is a nice FCPX hardware dongle. It's not a world-class workstation.

Wait wut?

I thought your point was that you thought (by missing the fine print) that HP makes the same machine for a lot less?

But now the target is they don't make machine low-spec enough? Or they don't make them expensive enough? I'm getting dizzy.

Every manufacturer makes what they make. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy it. I know everyone says they know that fact, but I'm not sure they actualy understand.

 

[AidenShaw]

I thought your point was that you thought (by missing the fine print) that HP makes the same machine for a lot less?

HP gives you options - as hard as that might be for Apple customers to understand.

 

[reco2011]

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.

Do you have any data to support this? How many nMP's is Best Buy and Costco selling? I can't imagine it's a whole lot given the consumer focus of both retailers.

 

[goMac]

My husband was guilted (by his brothers) in to getting my mother-in-law a new laptop for a holiday gift - her PowerPC MacBook is really no longer "usable".

80+year old woman who does occasional email, random surfing (focused on cat videos), and some very light ecommerce.

For her needs, the $899 11" MacBook Air is way, way overkill.

But, 80 year old eyes need a 15" screen - so Apple's upselled an $899 Air to a $1999 Pro.

Does the filter let me say "Bastards"?

The 13" Airs are a little cramped, but not too bad... With all the talk of the Air moving standardly to 12" it might be time to see the return of the 14" consumer notebook.

 

[TruckdriverSean]

HP gives you options - as hard as that might be for Apple customers to understand.

Ok. But how many configurations are you purchasing when you get say, one computer?

Possible answers:
A) 1
B) 87
C) 128
D) π

I keep trying to see it differently, but near as I can tell the answer is just one. So manufacturer-X either makes the config you want or they don't. Just because they make 134,217,728 possible configurations of one machine doesn't change the fact that a person purchases just one of those configurations.

Apple, love 'em or hate 'em, figures they're making a limited number of configs that hit square in the profitable middle.

 

[MMcCraryNJ]

Funny that all of these arguments jack of the price of the non-Apple by building it out to the specs of the Apple - but nobody considers that some people might not need all the stuff that Apple includes in the bundle. ...or that some people might need stuff that Apple can't do.

The marketing page that you linked to is filled with BS. Whether or not you tried to make the point that the comparable HP system was cheaper, HP *clearly* is. "All the pros are moving to our system! Look at what we give you! That crappy Mac Pro is $3,000! Ours starts at $2,439!"....and then when you actually click to see what you're getting at that price point, it's equivalent to a workstation version of a barebones PC you'd pick up from Newegg.

"Some might not need all the stuff Apple includes"...You would have a point if actually buying the base config wasn't so close to the pricing of the base 4c Mac Pro. I mean, it's literally a waste of money when you factor in how much the extra $500 and change gets you. Also, it's my understanding that the Xenon chips don't have onboard graphics (although I could be wrong about that). If that's the case...you wouldn't even be able to boot the computer HP will sell you as its base machine. That's laughable.

"Or some people might need stuff Apple can't do"...which is why I mentioned the HP workstations are nice when you load them out. However, that wasn't the point you were making at first, nor was it the point of the marketing webpage HP has set up.

You're also sort of trying to play the "false equivalencies" card. The way you are talking about the HP makes it seem as if you don't believe the same kind of people are deciding between these two machines. "Oh, well, people who aren't well served by the Mac Pro would buy this". Well, HP clearly thinks otherwise, as they have set up this page to try and dissuade potential Mac Pro buyers with misleading pricing and configuration claims.

HP is just another entity attempting to tap into the internet rage when Apple removed internal expansion, except to actually buy a system comparable to the $2,999 Mac Pro, you need to spend a lot more. And they are so afraid of people figuring that out that they created a huge page full of misleading charts and price comparisons in order to get people's money.

 

[EdDuPlessis]

Computers are an open market item. There is always a choice of purchasing your next machine from other companies or build one yourself.

And because of that when my Mac Pro tower finally has to be replaced I will probably build my own Windows machine for the first time since 2002. I will still support Apple's products and energy efficiency ethics, but not respect their lack of choice and marketing tactics.

 

[SuperMatt]

My husband was guilted (by his brothers) in to getting my mother-in-law a new laptop for a holiday gift - her PowerPC MacBook is really no longer "usable".

80+year old woman who does occasional email, random surfing (focused on cat videos), and some very light ecommerce.

For her needs, the $899 11" MacBook Air is way, way overkill.

But, 80 year old eyes need a 15" screen - so Apple's upselled an $899 Air to a $1999 Pro.

Does the filter let me say "Bastards"?

Um... Why does an 80-year old need a laptop? Her needs could have been met by an iPad or probably even better by a Mac mini with a large 3rd-party monitor. That or a used 17-inch MacBook Pro.

 

[MRrainer]

I had to chuckle about this gem from the HP page:

"The thing we were terrified about when switching over to PC’s, was learning Windows, but it wasn’t as bad as we thought... "

That can hardly count as an endorsement for Windows.
;-)

 

[Nosferax]

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.

That 95% don't really need a workstation either...

 

[AidenShaw]

Um... Why does an 80-year old need a laptop? Her needs could have been met by an iPad or probably even better by a Mac mini with a large 3rd-party monitor. That or a used 17-inch MacBook Pro.

She hates touch and the screens are too small, and doesn't want a screen visible (the laptop lives in a desk drawer most of the time).

 

[MRrainer]

I do agree, though, that if you need more performance than a MacPro offers, HP and Dell will give you that (or you can build your own, from a SuperMicro Barebone or whatever). Price becomes a secondary consideration, then.
(Same as with anything beyond the 6core nMP or a fully loaded riMac with i7)

The high-end memory configurations are only achievable via LR (Load-Reduced) DIMMs, though.
The data sheet for the new Gen9 servers mentions that 64GB LR-DIMMS (that's DDR4) are only going to be available in 2015 (Q1, presumably).


Now sure how much sense having a "PC" with 1+TB RAM makes (instead of offloading it to a server) - but the gear exists and there is a market.
How large that market is, OTOH, is subject to debate.
Similar to the markets that form around alcohol or tobacco, it's probably not a growing market. Rather, market-share is shifted back- and forth.
In that respect, the nMP is actually quite ingenious in that it (also) appeals to impulse-purchasers. Nobody purchases a Z-workstion on impulse. A nMP on the other hand...