Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

nMP order Poll

Who order or will order new Mac Pro

  • Yes I already ordered one/or will order one soon

    Votes: 123 66.1%

  • No, I will not be ordering one as it has very limited upgrade options

    Votes: 13 7.0%

  • No, my classic MP is all I need

    Votes: 41 22.0%

  • I will switch to iMac

    Votes: 9 4.8%

  • I will be looking at other options (PC)

    Votes: 12 6.5%
  • Total voters
    186
I just switched to a Mac Mini i7 + ssd which arrives today. My 1,1 has been failing recently, having multiple kernel panics in a day, random shutdowns, overheating even with fans up, slow graphics at times, spinning beach balls too often, etc.

The nMP looks good, but having a 1,1 has left me never wanting any 1,anything from Apple ever again. It isn't that this 7 yo machine was a lemon, or that there was anything wrong for 6 of 7 years, but they dropped support for the 1,1 way earlier than they should have. There is no desire to drop $8K on a new wundermaschine and have it be unsupported in 4 or 5 years.

Also, I don't need that power at this moment, but will need it for a project coming in 2015 and beyond. So the new mini will be an efficient crossover device while my 1,1 is going to be a drive housing via ethernet.

I'll get the 2,1 or the 3,1 in September 2015. If there is a revision by then.
 
Can't vote as there's no option for "I haven't decided".

I'm in the situation of waiting for the next Mac Mini, as it may be enough for needs, at least for the time being. Plus it wouldn't be hard to swap it for a Mac Pro later if needed.
 
I'm gonna order a refurb or get one second hand but it won't be for at least six months.
 
Total side question but if you buy/preorder the nMP today, but it doesn't ship until February.. can you still deduct it as a 2013 expense since you technically ordered it in 2013? My CPA is out of town.. :confused:
 
AppleDroid said:
Total side question but if you buy/preorder the nMP today, but it doesn't ship until February.. can you still deduct it as a 2013 expense since you technically ordered it in 2013? My CPA is out of town.. :confused:
Click to expand...

I believe only if your credit card was charged in 2013.
 
Technically, I believe it has to be "put to use" before the end of 2013, so it would have to have been delivered by the end of the year. Having said that, I'm sure some will deduct it anyway, especially if it was charged in 2013, but hasn't been delivered yet...

But I'm no tax expert. :)
 
wildmac said:
I believe only if your credit card was charged in 2013.
Click to expand...

CH12671 said:
Technically, I believe it has to be "put to use" before the end of 2013, so it would have to have been delivered by the end of the year. Having said that, I'm sure some will deduct it anyway, especially if it was charged in 2013, but hasn't been delivered yet...

But I'm no tax expert. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks that is what I figured. Really wish they would have released it Dec 1st with more than, what seemed like, 10 available on the first day.

My other option was an iMac BTO from Apple but again they wouldn't charge my card until it ships 4-6 days. I waited too long. The good news is I have $4k more in my bank account and I have more time to "Wait and see" if the nMP is actually worth $1k more than an iMac right? ;)
 
Well, 4k minus uncle Sam's part that you didn't get to write off :D
But yes, you do get more time to consider...which I think is very important in a purchase this big. You can certainly write off whatever you purchase next year!
 
Ordered

I wanted to order a 12-core but ordered an 8-core instead. The hopes that in a year a 12 or 16-core chip will be on the market as a replacement convinced me to not pay the premium right now.

32GB
1TB
2xD700

Hopefully its here in a few weeks.
 
I have been lusting over the nMP for a few months now, but can't justify purchasing one now. I bought my 2009 MP to finish editing a feature length documentary, it worked great then, and it is still a relevant machine. If I had a big video project that I was going to embark upon in the next year I would consider the nMP, but I'm mostly working on smaller projects that my current MP can handle.

I did decide however to do some major updates to my 4,1 MP; SSD, doubled RAM, new GPU, added USB3, went from 10.6 to 10.9. You can see them in my sig below.

With all the updates I'm doing (over $1000 worth) I feel like I'm getting a new computer. And I feel like this updated 2009 MP will last me at least 2-3 more years for the work that I do with FCP.
 
For business and pleasure, working from home: 8 cores, 16GB RAM, D700s and 1 TB PCIe SSD. I expect to upgrade the RAM at some point. Due in February.
 
Ordered on the 19th and received on the 27th. It's so pretty.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1083.jpg
    IMG_1083.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 122
jblagden said:
Which apps actually make use of 6 cores?
Click to expand...
Six copies of any app.... Or six busy apps....

Seriously. Some people have workflows that can be paralyzed at the job level. Or, they are doing lots of different things at the same time.

You don't necessarily need one app that uses all six cores for a six-core to be worthwhile. Of course, if you spend most of your "wait time" on one app - if that app can handle six (or twelve) threads the six core will definitely be a winner.

More cores can make Safari snappier.
 
Last edited:
AidenShaw said:
Six copies of any app.... Or six busy apps....

Seriously. Some people have workflows that can be paralyzed at the job level. Or, they are doing lots of different things at the same time.

More cores can make Safari snappier.
Click to expand...
Right. Multiple cores are good for multitasking. My focus is processor power per core and cost. With a 3.9 GHz i3 processor, you get 1.95 Ghz per core. But with a 4 GHz i5 or i7, you only get 1 GHz per core. Multi-core CPUs tend to cost significantly more than dual-core ones and you don’’t get the same performance per core. I usually have 4-6 light apps running at a time. I usually have Mail, Messages, Safari (1 or 2 windows), TextEdit, and maybe iTunes and Preview. The only thing I do which requires a lot of processing power is playing games, and most games can only use 2 CPU cores. I’ve heard Battlefield 4 can use multiple CPU cores, though I don’t play it. I don’t know about Minecraft, though I’ve heard it’s CPU-intensive, possibly because the OS thinks Java doesn’t require much graphics processing power.

But do any of your apps use more than 2 cores on their own? Or do you just like multi-core CPUs for multitasking?
 
Last edited:
jblagden said:
Right. Multiple cores are good for multitasking. My focus is processor power per core and cost. With a 3.9 GHz i3 processor, you get 1.95 Ghz per core. But with a 4 GHz i5 or i7, you only get 1 GHz per core. Multi-core CPUs tend to cost significantly more than dual-core ones and you don’’t get the same performance per core. I usually have 4-6 light apps running at a time. I usually have Mail, Messages, Safari (1 or 2 windows), TextEdit, and maybe iTunes and Preview. The only thing I do which requires a lot of processing power is playing games, and most games can only use 2 CPU cores. I’ve heard Battlefield 4 can use multiple CPU cores, though I don’t play it. I don’t know about Minecraft, though I’ve heard it’s CPU-intensive, possibly because the OS thinks Java doesn’t require much graphics processing power.

But do any of your apps use more than 2 cores on their own? Or do you just like multi-core CPUs for multitasking?
Click to expand...

I believe the CPU speed is applicable for each core of the CPU. e.g. My W3690 has 6 cores. And each of them can work at 3.46GHz (not considering turbo boost at here). And they can all work at 3.46GHz instantaneously.

Video encoding / rendering can easily use all 6 cores. Even Chrome with some flash content can use more than 2 cores.

In fact, I intentionally limit Handbrake not to use more than 10 threads, which will make me able to use my computer very close to it's "normal speed" when video encoding in the background. Sometimes even limit it to 8 threads if I want to do more work when it's encoding. Otherwise, all 6 cores 12 threads will be 100% utilised only by this single apps, and my machine will clearly shown less responsive.
 
jblagden said:
Right. Multiple cores are good for multitasking. My focus is processor power per core and cost. With a 3.9 GHz i3 processor, you get 1.95 Ghz per core. But with a 4 GHz i5 or i7, you only get 1 GHz per core. Multi-core CPUs tend to cost significantly more than dual-core ones and you don’’t get the same performance per core. I usually have 4-6 light apps running at a time. I usually have Mail, Messages, Safari (1 or 2 windows), TextEdit, and maybe iTunes and Preview. The only thing I do which requires a lot of processing power is playing games, and most games can only use 2 CPU cores. I’ve heard Battlefield 4 can use multiple CPU cores, though I don’t play it. I don’t know about Minecraft, though I’ve heard it’s CPU-intensive, possibly because the OS thinks Java doesn’t require much graphics processing power.

But do any of your apps use more than 2 cores on their own? Or do you just like multi-core CPUs for multitasking?
Click to expand...

processes.png


That's just Chrome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back