No storage--Apple may have done you a favor!

[VirtualRain]

Seriously silly picture. USB3, thunderbolt cards? Any reasonable 2012 update should have had those without blinking an eye. You have to remember you're basically comparing a 2010 machine to something from that will appear late 2013.

It's just as realistic a configuration as the original photo which was simply comparing the same configuration on a 2012 to that on a 2013. (BTW, there are no TB cards in the 2012 side, just GPUs, PCIe SSD, USB 3, FC, Video interface)

The GPU issue is a very special case, since vast majority of people don't even want 2 high end GPUs. And its not like its hard to plug them in anyway.

If you're on a FCP X workflow, you will want two later this year when an update starts supporting it. And it is hard to plug two high-end GPU cards into a 2012... you need a supplemental Power Supply (not shown) and you end up with only one other slot free.

Fiber cards expansions is basically a wash. Either you need an internal card or an external adapter to thunderbolt. Either way, its not exactly built in.

Same goes for video interface, USB 3, PCIe SSD, and audio interface (note how they conveniently left that out of the original photo)... If you do need this stuff, where are you going to plug all those things in? You've got 4 slots and need as many as 6 PCIe cards where two GPUs consume or cover 3 slots.

----------

Exactly. A lot of MP users, myself included, will not need dual GPU cards because most of the software we use can't take advantage of them anyhow. And it's absurd to suggest USB3, Thunderbolt and other tech that is standard on even the lowest end Macs would not be built-in to the MP—even if it retained exactly the same form factor.

I was under the impression the original diagram compared a 2012 Mac Pro to a 2013 Mac Pro. Real systems. Not imagined or the result of wishful thinking.

And if you don't need dual GPUs or USB 3, then the 2012 Mac Pro should serve you well.

 

[freejazz-man]

If you knew anything at all, you would know that the term cloud computing is just an issue of rebranding. The concept of slim clients has existed for decades. If you were using a slim client system, you wouldn't need a full workstation. Some people do this with large clusters where time must be reserved in advance. As for storage, current infrastructure makes it impractical to deal with terabytes of data through cloud storage. I even mentioned that backups would still be external , yet you chose to ignore it. I hope you enjoyed your nonsensical rant.

You can say whatever you want about what 'cloud computing' means, but you are still referring to the technical concepts that I'm outlining, whether you'd like to recognize it or not. Apple is providing a number of services that make it so you don't need to store your data locally. And you completely ignore how I'm referring to how even PROCESSING is moving off the workstation and into the cloud. Not your LAN, but the cloud. You know, the Internet. You know, not your computer. You know, a place much further away than a box next to your workstation. In fact, slim clients existing for decades is my entire point. However, if you haven't noticed the trend in their popularity over the last few decades, that's your problem. Talk about nonsensical rants, I'm sorry the cloud touched you in a naughty spot, but that doesn't mean you need to sperg out whenever anyone refers to the concept of utilizing large-scale computing to ease end-user requirements.

 

[slughead]

Sometimes a picture is worth a million words:

Image

Holy cow they totally copied my idea! I'm actually flattered (plus theirs is way nicer), this is hilarious.

----------

Seriously silly picture. USB3, thunderbolt cards? Any reasonable 2012 update should have had those without blinking an eye. You have to remember you're basically comparing a 2010 machine to something from that will appear late 2013.

The GPU issue is a very special case, since vast majority of people don't even want 2 high end GPUs. And its not like its hard to plug them in anyway.

Fiber cards expansions is basically a wash. Either you need an internal card or an external adapter to thunderbolt. Either way, its not exactly built in.

So true. People are comparing a 3+ year old computer to the iTube and not what's commonly available on the PC side. Of course anything made with this generation of parts is going to have advantages--but you should compare such a product with other computers with the same generation of parts.

 

[MacVidCards]

He, He

Nice graphic

 

[pprior]

...And you completely ignore how I'm referring to how even PROCESSING is moving off the workstation and into the cloud. Not your LAN, but the cloud. You know, the Internet. You know, not your computer. You know, a place much further away than a box next to your workstation. In fact, slim clients existing for decades is my entire point. ..,

Yah, for those of us who have been around computers for 30 years plus we have seen this fad come and go. "thin computing" never is a viable option for bulk of users for a wide variety of reasons.

There are notable multibillion dollar companies that have gone out of existence due to reliance on this foolish strategy.

The "cloud" like facebook, is a flash in the pan. Here today, gone tomorrow.

 

[Tesselator]

Yah, for those of us who have been around computers for 30 years plus we have seen this fad come and go. "thin computing" never is a viable option for bulk of users for a wide variety of reasons.

There are notable multibillion dollar companies that have gone out of existence due to reliance on this foolish strategy.

The "cloud" like facebook, is a flash in the pan. Here today, gone tomorrow.

Yeah... Not really though. It works nice for the phone and tablet market. And then update and upkeep the storage space from the desktop. You're right tho, before all these hungry handhelds invaded us, on-line storage and processing was a failed notion for the most part.

 

[SDAVE]

He, He

Nice graphic

lol.

Right now I have 4 PCIe cards in my Mac Pro. That means I have to get 4 thunderbolt replacements.

What a waste.

 

[thekev]

You can say whatever you want about what 'cloud computing' means, but you are still referring to the technical concepts that I'm outlining, whether you'd like to recognize it or not. Apple is providing a number of services that make it so you don't need to store your data locally. And you completely ignore how I'm referring to how even PROCESSING is moving off the workstation and into the cloud. Not your LAN, but the cloud. You know, the Internet. You know, not your computer. You know, a place much further away than a box next to your workstation. In fact, slim clients existing for decades is my entire point. However, if you haven't noticed the trend in their popularity over the last few decades, that's your problem. Talk about nonsensical rants, I'm sorry the cloud touched you in a naughty spot, but that doesn't mean you need to sperg out whenever anyone refers to the concept of utilizing large-scale computing to ease end-user requirements.

Moving processing out to remote servers does happen. It is not something mainstream at the desktop level, where many things have suitable power. Render farms are sometimes remote. You generally have to schedule time to use one. Where do you see these solutions being used within the next 3 years in a seamless manner? Are you anticipating static data sizes and fios everywhere? You are just regurgitating fads based on what is theoretically possible rather than looking at the anticipated usage patterns of the majority of individuals and businesses who will buy this thing.

 

[FluJunkie]

He, He

Nice graphic

This sums it up perfectly.

 

[Tesselator]

I thought that comparison graphic was pretty dishonest. For truth I liked mine better - even if I have to say so myself.

Typical MacPro Pre 6,1​

 

[VirtualRain]

lol.

Right now I have 4 PCIe cards in my Mac Pro. That means I have to get 4 thunderbolt replacements.

What a waste.

Not if your cards include GPUs, PCIe SSD, or USB 3.0.

 

[thekev]

I thought that comparison graphic was pretty dishonest. For truth I liked mine better - even if I have to say so myself.

Typical MacPro Pre 6,1​

Nice audio setup.

 

[beaker7]

I thought that comparison graphic was pretty dishonest. For truth I liked mine better - even if I have to say so myself.

Typical MacPro Pre 6,1​

The new one has dual built in keyboards, 24 port switches, and surround sound?

 

[Tesselator]

The new one has dual built in keyboards, 24 port switches, and surround sound?

Few computers do. But that's not the point. No one who uses their MacPro as their main machine has it set up with nothing external connected to it. Indeed, most people have 6 or 8 external devices hooked up. So showing it standing there by itself as if it's self-contained compared to the MP6,1 is a complete joke! And a dishonest joke at that!

If someone is going to show what a system looks like then they should show it honestly.

 

[SDAVE]

Not if your cards include GPUs, PCIe SSD, or USB 3.0.

Sure,
but I have a capture card and an audio professional device. Yes, the other 2 are PCIe to SSD cards and a USB3.0 card...but at least the old Mac Pro could be expanded internally and closed up, with nothing staying outside.

Right now I have all the 4 HDD bays full of HD's (mixture of sizes) and 2x SSD's for RAID 0 for OS, and 2x 512GB Crucial M4's for editing via a Velo X2. That's 8 drives. Can you do that with the new Mac Pro?

 

[beaker7]

Few computers do. But that's not the point. No one who uses their MacPro as their main machine has it set up with nothing external connected to it. Indeed, most people have 6 or 8 external devices hooked up. So showing it standing there by itself as if it's self-contained compared to the MP6,1 is a complete joke! And a dishonest joke at that!

If someone is going to show what a system looks like then they should show it honestly.

I see. Other than monitors I only have an Ethernet cable and an eSata sock on mine.

Will skip the 6,1 as I'd need to buy far too many extra boxes to replicate what I've got now. At least 5. Not to mention the limited CPU.

Hopefully 7,1 will meet my needs.

 

[Tesselator]

Hopefully 7,1 will meet my needs.

I doubt it tho. I mean if they actually go through with his design then they'll likely commit to it for at least three generation cycles.

 

[wallysb01]

I doubt it tho. I mean if they actually go through with his design then they'll likely commit to it for at least three generation cycles.

If it really does terribly, I could see them not upgrading to Haswell, since its a socket change. Now, had they done this with Sandy Bridge processors, we could have been locked into at least 2 cycles.

 

[Tesselator]

If it really does terribly, I could see them not upgrading to Haswell, since its a socket change. Now, had they done this with Sandy Bridge processors, we could have been locked into at least 2 cycles.

Hmmm, maybe, but I'm not sure processor architecture has much to do with the tubular form factor. So unless the bay-less tube is a crash-n-burn which I doubt, we will probably see more then one revision (6,1 -- 7,1 -- 8,1, etc.) delivered in that design.

 

[VirtualRain]

Sure,
but I have a capture card and an audio professional device. Yes, the other 2 are PCIe to SSD cards and a USB3.0 card...but at least the old Mac Pro could be expanded internally and closed up, with nothing staying outside.

Right now I have all the 4 HDD bays full of HD's (mixture of sizes) and 2x SSD's for RAID 0 for OS, and 2x 512GB Crucial M4's for editing via a Velo X2. That's 8 drives. Can you do that with the new Mac Pro?

How do you have a GPU, a capture, card, a pro audio device, a pair of PCIe SSD cards, and a USB 3 card in your Mac Pro?

Assuming I misread something, the new Mac Pro can probably match your PCIe SSD (and kick it's ass performance wise) and USB 3 needs while offering you dual GPUs which will help your video workflow tremendously (depending on your software support for OpenCL). That leaves your audio interface (most of which are external USB devices now anyway) and HD storage needs, which can probably be solved with a couple of 4TB drives in a USB 3 enclosure for relatively little investment. So it seem to me, like most people here who have taken the "I hate the new Mac Pro stance"... your concerns are largely hyperbole.

 

[OS6-OSX]

Assuming I misread something, the new Mac Pro can probably match your PCIe SSD (and kick it's ass performance wise)

The key phrase is "can probably". You don't have his write/read numbers and zero from the MP 6.1 but make this statement? Well here are my numbers, and with data show me how my PCIe will compare to the MP 6.1's "Great TB"! How many drives SSD's or HD's will it take to "match" it? Please list price of all drives, enclosures, cables and write/read speeds.

Not taking the hate the new MacPro stance, just not standing in the line to purchase one.

 

[VirtualRain]

The key phrase is "can probably". You don't have his write/read numbers and zero from the MP 6.1 but make this statement? Well here are my numbers, and with data show me how my PCIe will compare to the MP 6.1's "Great TB"! How many drives SSD's or HD's will it take to "match" it? Please list price of all drives, enclosures, cables and write/read speeds.

Not taking the hate the new MacPro stance, just not standing in the line to purchase one.

Ok, maybe not kickin ass, but in the same ballpark. (What's your setup?!)

I have an SSD array that does 1300 MB/s writes too, but that doesn't mean Im not looking forward to ditching it for a larger single bootable volume that can do 1200MB/s (as announced). Mine's a kludge, and like most upgrades I've done to my Mac Pro full of compromises, quirks, or worse.

 

[OS6-OSX]

(What's your setup?!)

Old School! The ATTO R644>Int 4x 7200rpm HD's>Ext 7200rpm HD's in an OWC SAS box.
New School-The Sonnet http://www.sonnettech.com/product/tempossdpro.html?tab=1 was not out when I configured my MP.
This forum is definitely divided into the two camps.
I just like being on the "pro PCIe" pretty much for fun!
When it really comes down to it, get the box you need!
If you are into the movie scene, no one in the audience yells out "hey, I bet this movie was edited on the new MP 6.1"! Then someone else stands up and yells "No it was the 5.1"!

 

[SDAVE]

How do you have a GPU, a capture, card, a pro audio device, a pair of PCIe SSD cards, and a USB 3 card in your Mac Pro?

Assuming I misread something, the new Mac Pro can probably match your PCIe SSD (and kick it's ass performance wise) and USB 3 needs while offering you dual GPUs which will help your video workflow tremendously (depending on your software support for OpenCL). That leaves your audio interface (most of which are external USB devices now anyway) and HD storage needs, which can probably be solved with a couple of 4TB drives in a USB 3 enclosure for relatively little investment. So it seem to me, like most people here who have taken the "I hate the new Mac Pro stance"... your concerns are largely hyperbole.

I will omit the USB 3.0 card and the GPU card, because those are available either way.

1. Black Magic Ultra 4k card (I have to get a $300 external PCIe enclosure to thunderbolt adapter....OR buy a new device that replaces the functionality, somehow. Taking this route, I will still lose money).

2. Pro audio card, this is used for ProTools and I cannot afford to buy a new one. So it goes into another PCIe enclosure ($300).

3. PCIe SSD (Velo x2), sure this can be omitted, but that means I can't put in SSD's, so I have to get TB based external SSD's or a huge RAID system with SSD's, which costs a TON of money. The 2x Crucial SSD's and the Velo X2 only cost me $900 total, giving me 1TB of space and amazing performance. My internal HDD's are used as backup devices and then I use external USB 3.0 hard drives to do daily backups of the backups.

Get where it's going? Thunderbolt is still very expensive. Enclosures are nonexistent. USB 3.0 is cheaper, sure. But you are not going to get the same performance of SATA III (RAID 0) or Thunderbolt 1 or 2 with USB 3.0

My OS drives, I omitted from this because the OS is on a super fast PCIe flash based device on the new Mac Pro...but come on, it will only be used for the OS and not for holding actual data like large video files, etc. How big do you think Apple is going to have the onboard flash storage? 256GB? 512GB? That's not enough.

I think Apple just wants the Mac Pro to be a device that's just a "head", ie all the connections need to be external either via gigabit network (which is not fast enough for certain things) or Thunderbolt. Also what will happen if we want to go on a Fibre-channel network? Will there be a TB2 > Fibre-channel adapter? And how much will that cost? $10,000?

The Mac Pro is like the Mac Mini, but much faster and with more ports.

Anywho, this doesn't stop me from doing work, I still have my trusty '08 Mac Pro until it poops out.

 

[APlotdevice]

Though personally I have little interest in this or any Mac Pro, do hope the new one is a success. Why? Because it would drive up demand for, and thus drive down cost of, thunderbolt peripherals.