Opinions: Does the New Mac Pro qualify as a Workstation?

[tamvly]

I have to say that throughout this thread I have been amazed at the level of intensity from people about their views. Is it or isn't it a workstation? I live in a professional world filled with labels. I don't like them a bit.

I'll stick with total cost of ownership and suitability for purpose which is derived from different needs and constrained by different budgets.

I don't care what you call it.

 

[Tesselator]

Ok, you win. The iCan is the ultimate example of computing design. Absolutely nobody needs any more power than it offers, now or forward into perpetuity.
...
...
...
We have reached the plateau and all is wonderfulness and daisies !!!

When you throw a tantrum like this it just makes it look like you have no argument.

Most or all of his points have been debunked with logical and reasonable probabilities and facts so this is his last resort. But I wanted to comment on something else here.

Many people are still using the MP1,1 from almost 8 years ago and the 3,1 from like 6 or 7 years ago - maybe even the majority of us? Is that healthy? Sure it's great for us end users. But if things are going right we are supposed to have a budget for a new machine about every three years or so. The fact that the previous MP's were so future-proof may have been a contributor to the probable fact that Apple's pro workstation line almost collapsed in on itself.

I'm reminded of similar situation in recent history. It was a company that made refrigerators. It really was the ultimate design! It ran on a small pilot flame supplied by a gas line and through the thermal expansion and contraction of a fluid in a closed copper system kept a nice even temperature a little above freezing. The only parts that ever wore out were the door seals which were owner replaceable. And so the company went out of business shortly after the market saturation period. I think they died in the early 60's IIRC - too bad they didn't start in the late 70's they could have survived by adding an LED on a differently shaped door or something. I dunno how long they lasted 3, years, 5, years, 10 years... the point here is obvious tho. Is that really what we want for Apple's pro line? Apple Inc. probably wouldn't wholly go under cuz they're so diversified but the pro line could close down and many speculate it recently almost did.

Is it so bad that Apple designs a machine which needs to be replaced every 4 years or so? I don't think it is myself. And our wings aren't being clipped either. All the logical arguments being presented with an open mind here and in the other threads tell us everything will be faster than before and all our toys will still work with only a slight dollar injection - and only a dollar injection will be needed in a very few cases. Even the most ferocious nay-sayers admit this. They say it's fine now but in 4 or 5 years, what then? and indeed, that's the question I wanna ask here too: What then? I figure a MP main unit cost each of us about 3 - 4K $ (USD) and it's good for 3 or 4 years from the looks of the nMP6,1 and guessing at it's price... that works out to $83.33 a month if indeed it's $1k per year. That sounds reasonable to keep the goose laying the golden eggs to me. Many of us pay about that much just for an 1g internet hook up.

So does it really matter that we will be hard pressed to update the thing after that 4 year period has expired? Would you rather have a MP6,1 with dual CPUs, six 16x PCIe slots, and 8 RAM slots never to see another MacPro released (ever), or would you rather have the latest fastest machines delivered to the public every 18 to 24 months which are still totally as expandable for the one-percenters out there willing to pay for the extra and somewhat absurd expansion they alone require?

Personally I think Apple is on the right track. Let those who need extreme expansion pay for it themselves and not tax the little guy just doing general photo/video/sound/music/3D editing in need of a workstation grade system. [Of course we'll need to see the sales price of the MP6,1 to see how on target this assumption is, but...]

 

[slughead]

Most or all of his points have been debunked with logical and reasonable probabilities and facts so this is his last resort. But I wanted to comment on something else here.

They weren't debunked, goMac just said "well you only need that kind of power if you work at Pixar, and they use renderfarms anyway so nobody needs 24 processors." There is no response to that, it's freaking ridiculous, akin to the misattributed Bill Gates quote about 512k of storage being enough for anybody.

It needs no response any more pointed than the one given. It is a flat out ridiculous statement. Some people work in small business or at home and would save a boatload of money by having the processors in the same box as the GPU and everything else as opposed to having a room full of servers.


So, goMac, to quote Mrs Krabappel (talking about Ralph Wiggim), the children are right to laugh at you.

Is it so bad that Apple designs a machine which needs to be replaced every 4 years or so? I don't think it is myself. And our wings aren't being clipped either. All the logical arguments being presented with an open mind here and in the other threads tell us everything will be faster than before and all our toys will still work with only a slight dollar injection - and only a dollar injection will be needed in a very few cases. Even the most ferocious nay-sayers admit this. They say it's fine now but in 4 or 5 years, what then? and indeed, that's the question I wanna ask here too: What then? I figure a MP main unit cost each of us about 3 - 4K $ (USD) and it's good for 3 or 4 years from the looks of the nMP6,1 and guessing at it's price... that works out to $83.33 a month if indeed it's $1k per year. That sounds reasonable to keep the goose laying the golden eggs to me. Many of us pay about that just for an internet hook up.

This is ridiculous, you just got done saying about how the Mac Pro users for the last 7 years have been enjoying long-lived machines, and then say "well isn't it great we're going to have toss these things after 3 years?" and "Well we can do all the old stuff, we just have to pay more for it." Yeah, it's still a "good deal", but technology is supposed to get BETTER over time, not more expensive.

Yeah, I agree, Apple's made their Pro machine into a disposable expensive-to-upgrade annoyance in an attempt to sell more units, and I also agree that it's possible they may have had to discontinue the line if they hadn't done that... but it still SUCKS! I am not in business to give Apple more money. I hope it fails and they're forced to bring the tower form-factor back.

 

[flat five]

That's because it's a WORKSTATION !!!! Just kidding.....

Maybe we can both reformulate our opinions.....

Okay... I've seen your Rhino work. Have a look at my Solidworks projects.

http://DG-Digital.com

on a bus--on a phone so I didn't get a proper view yet but those images look really nice #

does solidworks have it's own renderer or are you using something else?
I barely ever see people modeling actual welds on their parts.. u using geometry for that or are they textures?


good stuff

 

[Dr. Stealth]

on a bus--on a phone so I didn't get a proper view yet but those images look really nice #

does solidworks have it's own renderer or are you using something else?
I barely ever see people modeling actual welds on their parts.. u using geometry for that or are they textures?

good stuff

Solidworks has a built in renderer based on Modo but it's pretty weak. I use Bunkspeed Shot for my renders.

Welds are pure geometry. I prefer geometry whenever possible as I have much more control. Textures are a last resort for me.

----------

i hope it fails and they're forced to bring the tower form-factor back.

+1 !

 

[beaker7]

I'm here at SIGGRAPH and it's really weird. Everyone doing demos is running these old archaic dual CPU PC towers with lots of memory and expandability and IO throughput. FusionIO is demoing some 12 GB/s tech and how much faster it enables multithreaded particle caching and viewing. Clearly these guys don't read macrumors or they'd know they don't need all that stuff.

 

[wonderspark]

So does it really matter that we will be hard pressed to update the thing after that 4 year period has expired? Would you rather have a MP6,1 with dual CPUs, six 16x PCIe slots, and 8 RAM slots never to see another MacPro released (ever), or would you rather have the latest fastest machines delivered to the public every 18 to 24 months which are still totally as expandable for the one-percenters out there willing to pay for the extra and somewhat absurd expansion they alone require?

Personally I think Apple is on the right track. Let those who need extreme expansion pay for it themselves and not tax the little guy just doing general photo/video/sound/music/3D editing in need of a workstation grade system. [Of course we'll need to see the sales price of the MP6,1 to see how on target this assumption is, but...]

Yes, I'd rather have the same box with the updates applied to it. You make it sound as if the new Mac Pro will suddenly sell like mad, and become a major source of their income. I seriously doubt that, given they've just taken away half the reasons people buy these in the first place.

And why would you cheer the concept of reducing the lifespan of your devices? Do you really want to spend twice the money you do now keeping up to date?

Apple makes enough money to fill all the gaps, not just the low-hanging fruit. I think they spent more money making a whole new tube design than they would have updating the box. They make the iMacs and Mac Minis as the 'don't-tax-the-little-guy' devices. I think it's a cheap shot to force everyone into Mac Mini-esque workstations with slower TB2 cables going into a bunch of little boxes all over the place.

Maybe someone will figure out a way to swap one of the built-in GPUs with an Areca RAID card, and I can run the mini-SAS cables out the open hole in the tube. That would work great for me, actually.

 

[Tesselator]

They weren't debunked,

Yeah, they really were! If you had been reading along in this and the other 4 or 5 threads composing some 3 or 4 thousand posts as i have you would know I and at least 6 or 7 other people have shown all of his points to be utter rubbish. He has made only one credible point and it's credibility is even questionable - and that's the 4 RAM slots argument.

This is ridiculous,

You have successfully twisted my sentences to make a declaration of disagreement. This is pretty common on opinion forums these days. It's a shame tho because it doesn't contribute anything thoughtful or original. It just serves to disagree by perverting the original intent and meaning of the post you're disagreeing with. Oh well.

 

[goMac]

They weren't debunked, goMac just said "well you only need that kind of power if you work at Pixar, and they use renderfarms anyway so nobody needs 24 processors." There is no response to that, it's freaking ridiculous, akin to the misattributed Bill Gates quote about 512k of storage being enough for anybody.

It needs no response any more pointed than the one given. It is a flat out ridiculous statement. Some people work in small business or at home and would save a boatload of money by having the processors in the same box as the GPU and everything else as opposed to having a room full of servers.

So, as I said, if it's so easy, please share an example of needing 24 cores.

It's funny, for everyone insisting that 24 cores is so important, nobody has told me anything they'd actually use them for that requires them to be on the same box.

Coming up with an example should certainly be easier than a Simpsons quip.

This is really easy. Just give me an app. Some app where work can't be distributed and you need 24 cores on one box. Just the app name.

(And, in case it's not obvious, distributed work can be offloaded to more and more cores as your needs grow, so yes, I'm also aware of the "But maybe I need 24 cores later!" thing. No, it doesn't change anything.)

 

[slughead]

Yeah, they really were! If you had been reading along in this and the other 4 or 5 threads composing some 3 or 4 thousand posts as i have you would know I and at least 6 or 7 other people have shown all of his points to be utter rubbish.

I'm sorry, they debunked the part about never needing more than 12 processors in a workstation? Can you point me to that?

 

[wonderspark]

Have a look at my Solidworks projects.

http://DG-Digital.com

Just amazing work. I'm completely impressed.

 

[beaker7]

This is really easy. Just give me an app. Some app where work can't be distributed and you need 24 cores on one box. Just the app name.

Looking through my applications folder...

Maxwell
Realflow
FumeFX
Maya's native simulations
V-Ray
PRman

There are others that can technically be distributed but the performance hit makes it not really worth it. Or you can do it, but why, when there are plenty of dual socket machines available on the market.

 

[wonderspark]

So, as I said, if it's so easy, please share an example of needing 24 cores.

It's funny, for everyone insisting that 24 cores is so important, nobody has told me anything they'd actually use them for that requires them to be on the same box.

Coming up with an example should certainly be easier than a Simpsons quip.

This is really easy. Just give me an app. Some app where work can't be distributed and you need 24 cores on one box. Just the app name.

(And, in case it's not obvious, distributed work can be offloaded to more and more cores as your needs grow, so yes, I'm also aware of the "But maybe I need 24 cores later!" thing. No, it doesn't change anything.)

I only have six cores, but I'd like more next time around, because more means less time spent. After Effects uses all twelve threads, and I think it would use 24 or maybe even 48, but I've not had my hands on that many.

So... After Effects?

 

[tamvly]

So, as I said, if it's so easy, please share an example of needing 24 cores.

It is easy.

Run an Oracle database with multiple users attached via TCP/IP. You can use up 24 cores in a heartbeat.

 

[wonderspark]

So, how many of you After Effects users (or anyone that renders any work) send all your work to some online render farm? Do they let you render anything, unlimited, securely, 24/7/365 , instantly and free of charge?

I get the idea from some of these comments that this is the way it is today. I don't need internal compute power... just distribute the work somewhere else, instantly, for free. Is this correct?

 

[Tesselator]

Yes, I'd rather have the same box with the updates applied to it.

Mee too.

You make it sound as if the new Mac Pro will suddenly sell like mad, and become a major source of their income.

Yes, MacPro sales is the major source of funding for the MacPro line - this is my assumption. Are you saying that's wrong?

...they've just taken away half the reasons people buy these in the first place.

My assumption is that people buy them in order to get work done. Not so they can tinker with the insides after the machine's usefulness is or should have expired. Again, is that wrong?

And why would you cheer the concept of reducing the lifespan of your devices? Do you really want to spend twice the money you do now keeping up to date?

Actually I think it works out to about the same maybe. Right, MP1,1 as an example... by the time MP3,1 released people were upgrading the 1,1 CPU which at that time were like $600 each ($1,200 total) and 3 months later a GPU the X1900 or whatever it was for like $450. Then a year to 18 months later another GPU at $400 and probably some RAM at $800. Right about then bigger faster hard drives for $250 a pop. And now recently a dual SSD PCIe card at around $1k. And with all that it's still not as fast as the current 5,1 stock system with just a single SSD placed in bay1.

So it's not really twice the money, it's just a different sales model. A model I see as superior if you wanna have the fastest stuff possible or close to the fastest stuff - continually.

Apple makes enough money to fill all the gaps, not just the low-hanging fruit. I think they spent more money making a whole new tube design than they would have updating the box.

Both total speculations but I think it's about the same and the nMP6,1 is absurdly cheaper to manufacture!

They make the iMacs and Mac Minis as the 'don't-tax-the-little-guy' devices.

That would be a legitimate point if the Mini was as fast as the MP6,1 with dual GPUs and all. Or even as fast as the MP5,1. What are the speed differences anyway? Isn't the MacMini about a quarter to an eighth the system the MP5,1 is?

I think it's a cheap shot to force everyone into Mac Mini-esque workstations with slower TB2 cables going into a bunch of little boxes all over the place.

Both points have been long ago debunked. It will neither have cables going all over the place nor is it anything like a Mini.

Maybe someone will figure out a way to swap one of the built-in GPUs with an Areca RAID card, and I can run the mini-SAS cables out the open hole in the tube. That would work great for me, actually.

Are you so opposed to purchasing a TB2 to PCIe adapter for an extra $150 to $250? So your MP6,1 will cost you $3,250 where everyone else pays $3,000 even. OK, sounds fine to me. You will have your SAS interconnect that way. And since I don't need or want one I won't have to pay $3800 for a system that could support a card I'll never own. Yup, I'm fine with that math.

 

[Dr. Stealth]

This is really easy. Just give me an app. Some app where work can't be distributed and you need 24 cores on one box. Just the app name.

I work freelance in CAD Design and Product Visualization (rendering). Although I do pretty well I haven't been able to convince my wife that we really need to set up a render farm in the spare bedroom.

However, If I can render on 24 cores as opposed to 12 guess what? My render times are cut in half! This allows me to produce twice the amount of work in the same amount of time. Show me one business person that would not appreciate that.

 

[Tesselator]

I'm sorry, they debunked the part about never needing more than 12 processors in a workstation? Can you point me to that?

You haven't read any of the messages posted about Phi, SBC, and GPGPU devices over TB2? Hmm OK. How about the ones showing price performance? Or the ones showing that 12 cores is all there is at this time anyway - period? I and at least 20 others have brought those points to light.

The term "never" as used by you shows you haven't read even my latest post concerning what I guess is Apple's new (hail marry) sales strategy.

 

[slughead]

Yeah, they really were! If you had been reading along in this and the other 4 or 5 threads composing some 3 or 4 thousand posts as i have you would know I and at least 6 or 7 other people have shown all of his points to be utter rubbish. He has made only one credible point and it's credibility is even questionable - and that's the 4 RAM slots argument.

Please read the above posts about all the uses for > 12 cores.

You have successfully twisted my sentences to make a declaration of disagreement. This is pretty common on opinion forums these days. It's a shame tho because it doesn't contribute anything thoughtful or original. It just serves to disagree by perverting the original intent and meaning of the post you're disagreeing with. Oh well.

I'm not the only one that interpreted what you said as cheering for a shorter machine life span. I read your post again... got the same gist.

So, as I said, if it's so easy, please share an example of needing 24 cores.

See above posts by people who actually use them.

And yes, I'm sure a number of those could be done with distributed computing, the question is: is that what every business professional wants?

 

[flat five]

Looking through my applications folder...

Maxwell
Realflow
FumeFX
Maya's native simulations
V-Ray
PRman

There are others that can technically be distributed but the performance hit makes it not really worth it. Or you can do it, but why, when there are plenty of dual socket machines available on the market.

nah.. vray and maxwell can use more than 1 computer, can't they? not sure about the others

 

[slughead]

You haven't read any of the messages posted about Phi, SBC, and GPGPU devices over TB2? Hmm OK. I and at least 10 others have brought that to light.

Yeah, you can run a lot of things over TB2. You can also buy a mobo that supports more PCIe slots and more CPUs and get the same tasks done for a lot less money.

 

[beaker7]

nah.. vray and maxwell can use more than 1 computer, can't they? not sure about the others

V-ray can do distributed buckets over TCP/IP but its slower than having the cores in the same box, and can be prone to errors. Maxwell sort of can, for final renders.

The most time consuming part of work is not final renders though, its the iterative work cycle. Passing things off to the farm doesn't really work in that situation.

But really, high end workstation customers are evaluating the Mac Pro against its competitors, not against the old mac pro. The fact that the old one had up to 12 cores, and this one does too, is completely irrelevant. So if you are CPU resource bound, the question is, is OSX worth the performance hit?

 

[flat five]

And yes, I'm sure a number of those could be done with distributed computing, the question is: is that what every business professional wants?

i doubt it's what every business professional wants but i bet it's what the top end or most demanding pros want..

maybe the question shouldn't be "is this a professional enough computer computer for me?"... it should be "is this computer too professional for me?"
:wink:

 

[MacVidCards]

I'm sorry, they debunked the part about never needing more than 12 processors in a workstation? Can you point me to that?

Yes, for that matter, I'd like to see a single thing I have said that has been "debunked".

Cheerleading for the new 4 years-and-it's-done Mac-in-a-Can whilst posting from a 7 year old machine upgraded with a 2 year old GPU seems rather contradictory to me.

But if the Pom-Poms fit.....

Looking through my applications folder...

Maxwell
Realflow
FumeFX
Maya's native simulations
V-Ray
PRman
After Effects

Thank you beaker, I added AE.

To the "Who needs all those cores anyway ?" crowd:

So, can we declare "12 Cores is enough for everyone, forever" officially "debunked" now?

You can just move down that script Apple sent you to the next Bullet point and work on that one.

Might be "TB is the fastest IO ever"

Or perhaps it's "4 RAM slots is better than 8"

Or perhaps it's "The World needs fewer PCIE slots"

 

[Tesselator]

^^^ Already fully debunked...

I work freelance in CAD Design and Product Visualization (rendering). Although I do pretty well I haven't been able to convince my wife that we really need to set up a render farm in the spare bedroom.

However, If I can render on 24 cores as opposed to 12 guess what? My render times are cut in half! This allows me to produce twice the amount of work in the same amount of time. Show me one business person that would not appreciate that.

Me. I would fire you. Using your edit machine to do your rendering? Yup, you're fired. Of course you use one system to edit and one [typically headless] to render. It doesn't need to be a farm. If it's the MP6,1 a single TB2 attached SBC with between 4 and 60 cores (per device!!!) is available or you may select any other WS including another MP. I dunno about the Phi but in some scenarios you'll pay about the same for two separate 12-core systems as you would for one 24-core and since you're operating the CAD while the other system or systems are rendering you're already at twice the speed (even tho it's rendering on another [only] 12-core system). And the same is true for any SBC as well.

This argument should be a sign that you might wanna look for a different kind of work. If you don't have the tools to do the job and can't get them (because of wife or whatever) then it's time to expand your horizons.