If you're using any application that needs 128GB of ram then you can afford to spend $2000 more to get the new 32GB dimms which will come down in price soon enough.
You cannot seriously be using this as rational for your argument, can you?
If you're using any application that needs 128GB of ram then you can afford to spend $2000 more to get the new 32GB dimms which will come down in price soon enough.
If you're using any application that needs 128GB of ram then you can afford to spend $2000 more to get the new 32GB dimms which will come down in price soon enough.
The new Mac Pro supports SAS and Fiber just like the old one did. In fact thunderbolt fiber chanel cards are the same price as PCIe fiber chanel cards $600 (Apple Fiber Chanel card vs Promise Thunderbolt Fiber Chanel Box)
6 4x interfaces that can be aggregated are better than 4 16x interfaces that cannot be aggregated. 95% of PCIe cards do not use 16x, and even the ones that do like RAID cards and Video cards do not make use of more than 4x over 99% of the time. I benchmarked RAID cards and a GeForce Titan over thunderbolt and even though both cards needed 16x for a few brief micro second, the performance hit was less than the typical sample to sample variation from card to card, most cards simply do not need 16x and will see very little performance hit when run at 4x.
For the extremely rare very high end application that actually NEED 16x to the point where it creates meaningful slow downs, thunderbolt supports aggregation, meaning you can use all 6 of those thunderbolt cables to get 24x PCIe speed.
Thunderbolt is better for rare high end applications and better for being able to do more stuff. It has the flexibility to give you more speed or more slots as you need them.
Again I have an Echo Express Pro, and a GeForce Titan, and I've run them over a single thunderbolt 1 cable. There is no 1/2 or 1/4 slow down, the slow down is within the size of the sample variation from card to card, meaning it matters more what week your card was made then if it's over thunderbolt 1 or internal pcie 16x according to the passmark database.
Thew New Mac Pro can support 35 TB, and 4 optical drives just fine, and do way more.
You seem to have this misunderstanding of the capabilities of the new Mac Pro. It is more capable than the old version.
Right, so cost shifting is OK, How much do you think it cost Apple to add 8 DIMM slots to the old MP? never mind that fact that many DP machines have 16 DIMM slots.
Those that want fiber already have the card, I notice you left out SAS.
Except I don't believe your benchmark because I also hang out in a non-Apple world and have seen benchmarks that prove otherwise and it's still only windows. I've also yet to see a TB box w/ 6 inputs that would actually give me 24 real lanes
Sure it can as long as it's all external which is unacceptable. You don't seem to understand that that in its self is a deal breaker.
If you're using any application that needs 128GB of ram then you can afford to spend $2000 more to get the new 32GB dimms which will come down in price soon enough.
You seem to have this misunderstanding of the capabilities of the new Mac Pro. It is more capable than the old version.
The new Mac Pro is the first high end workstation that has ever been made that you can take with you in carryon luggage. That's a big deal.
Everything is a trade off, Apple decided to trade form factor for the upgrade cost of the RAM at the extreme high end (128GB), they weren't being too cheap to add extra RAM slots, they needed the space to acheive other design goals.
I will agree that thunderbolt development could improve, especially on the speed side, but I don't think anyone is questioning IF anybody will get around it it, just when and how expensive it will be, and how quickly it will come down in price.
The new Mac Pro is the first high end workstation that has ever been made that you can take with you in carryon luggage.
Seems like there's a lot of assumptions here that my bean counters probably won't buy?If you're using any application that needs 128GB of ram then you can afford to spend $2000 more to get the new 32GB dimms which will come down in price soon enough.
The new Mac Pro supports SAS and Fiber just like the old one did. In fact thunderbolt fiber chanel cards are the same price as PCIe fiber chanel cards $600 (Apple Fiber Chanel card vs Promise Thunderbolt Fiber Chanel Box)
6 4x interfaces that can be aggregated are better than 4 16x interfaces that cannot be aggregated. 95% of PCIe cards do not use 16x, and even the ones that do like RAID cards and Video cards do not make use of more than 4x over 99% of the time. I benchmarked RAID cards and a GeForce Titan over thunderbolt and even though both cards needed 16x for a few brief micro second, the performance hit was less than the typical sample to sample variation from card to card, most cards simply do not need 16x and will see very little performance hit when run at 4x.
For the extremely rare very high end application that actually NEED 16x to the point where it creates meaningful slow downs, thunderbolt supports aggregation, meaning you can use all 6 of those thunderbolt cables to get 24x PCIe speed.
Thunderbolt is better for rare high end applications and better for being able to do more stuff.
Again I have an Echo Express Pro, and a GeForce Titan, and I've run them over a single thunderbolt 1 cable. There is no 1/2 or 1/4 slow down, the slow down is within the size of the sample variation from card to card, meaning it matters more what week your card was made then if it's over thunderbolt 1 or internal pcie 16x according to the passmark database.
Thew New Mac Pro can support 35 TB, and 4 optical drives just fine, and do way more.
You seem to have this misunderstanding of the capabilities of the new Mac Pro. It is more capable than the old version.
The new Mac Pro is the first high end workstation that has ever been made that you can take with you in carryon luggage. That's a big deal. Everything is a trade off, Apple decided to trade form factor for the upgrade cost of the RAM at the extreme high end (128GB), they weren't being too cheap to add extra RAM slots, they needed the space to acheive other design goals.
I'm sure the resale value would be pretty good on a fiber chanel card, regarding SAS, yes the price is $600 vs $300 with thunderbolt, but this is backwards thinking. Thunderbolt interfaces are NOT inherently expensive, they are simply marked up. This is like complaining about how USB devices are marked up too much and trying to stick with paralell ports at the turn of the millenium. A few years from now this argument will be beyond laughable. Apple said they built the Mac Pro with an eye to the future.
Every single benchmark of the dozens I have seen says the same thing. There is around a 5-15% performance hit. If you've seen benchmarks that show otherwise feel free to post them because they would be way out of line with everything else done by various reviewers and I'd be very interested in learning about them.
I will agree that thunderbolt development could improve, especially on the speed side, but I don't think anyone is questioning IF anybody will get around it it, just when and how expensive it will be, and how quickly it will come down in price.
If external bothers you that much, then I propose this solution:
Image
What??The new Mac Pro is the first high end workstation that has ever been made that you can take with you in carryon luggage.
OP, tell your bosses at Apple you tried but nobody was interested in warmed over dog poo, even when you called it chocolate cake.
And please show us how you connected a Titan via TB in OSX, should be interesting since nobody else can.
What??
The last time I checked, most professionals care more horse power, and expandability and not whether it will fit in the over-head bin of a plane.
Since it lacks severely in the internal expandability where and how will the professional carry the external storage with them on the plane when they take their new Mac Pro with them.
They won't
I'm not getting the logic you're using to defend your position. The machine looks interesting, its a unique design but it also looks extremely expensive (read flash storage) but hamstrung with the lack of expansion.
If Apple wanted to sell horsepower they would sell horsepower, instead they are selling last year's performance with some slight updates in a new form factor this is the first high end workstation that has a small form factor which may not make sense to a lot of people but it means you can use it in many more settings than you could the old machine. One of those settings is traveling creative professionals. They make a flight case for the old Mac Pro, they weigh 75 lbs and are the size of a freezer and I know people that carried a full sized computer on planes with them because they had to. Lugging around a flight case to 3 desitinations in a week because you have to edit in a hotel room.
The Mac Pro isn't hamstrung by expansion though. It's hamstrung by lack of support from the aftermarket industry, and poorly implemented hardware.
The biggest thing that needs to happen is that cheap flawless 15" PCIe expansion boxes need to show up and thunderbolt driver support needs to be improved. If I were Apple I would pay companies to make thunderbolt drivers and release my own 15" PCIe 500 watt expansion box for $200.
If Apple wanted to sell horsepower they would sell horsepower, instead they are selling last year's performance with some slight updates in a new form factor
I don't want to take it with me, If I did checked baggage is fine it's a computer.
I care very little about the resale value of Fiber Cards, and yes SAS gets even lower than $300.
I don't need to post benchmarks you do, in OSX of course.
TB development is basically dead what you have is really what you're going to get no matter how bad Intel/Apple want it to be.
I shall ask again what new does this MP bring to the table? TB???
You're right,
Thunderbolt expansion cards will always be twice the cost of everything else, and spending a few hundred bucks more is the end of the world.
Video cards don't work in OSX and they never will, all driver development for future technology has stopped forever.
Thunderbolt development is dead and nobody will ever do anything worthwhile with all it's potential.
The Mac Pro doesn't bring anything new to the table. Flexibility is wrong and nobody should ever want to have a machine that is physically and performance wise bigger or smaller than exactly what the old Mac Pro gave you.
Good points all around.
This is such a stupid thing to say and its parroted all over these boards. People with big computational needs still have budgets. And even if you don't, why would you want to spend 4x as much on RAM, just because they give you 1/2 the slots.....?
Dear original poster,
Why do you care?
One of those settings is traveling creative professionals. They make a flight case for the old Mac Pro, it weighs 75 lbs and are the size of a freezer and I know people that carried a full sized computer on planes with them because they had to. Lugging around a flight case to 3 desitinations in a week because you have to edit in a hotel room is quite difficult.
Because it's ridiculous. People who criticize the Mac Pro are short sighted to the point where it is mind blowing. It's beyond comprehention to me that people can sit in the middle of a technological revolution and literally make claims like:
"The technology will NEVER improve"
"Prices will NEVER come down"
"NOBODY on earth needs this added flexibility"
"Nobody will EVER make software to support this new technology"
These sorts of viewpoints seem incredible to me considering the exact opposite has happened in every technological revolution in history. The technology did improve. Prices dropped like a stone. Flexibility revolutionized the industry (remember the invention of the laptop or mini ITX tower anyone?). And driver support always follows hardware support.
So I care because I am shocked that some people could think in such a self centered backwards looking way.
How does the new Mac Pro not meet your current needs? The new Mac Pro is better in literally every single performance and expandaility criteria a computer can possibly have compared to the computer it replaces. Literally every performance criteria is better.
Processor:
Max Processor Performance: 10% faster than last gen 12 core (1x 12 core X2697 vs 2x 6 core X5675)
Max Cores: Same (12)
Max Processor Power Consumption: 30% lower
If the new Mac Pro doesn't meet your needs when the old one did, then your needs must be imaginary.
I don't doubt there is a need somewhere for some that travel with workstations. I've known it to happen from time to time. However in my experience most production out in the field relies on laptops that are more than suitable for rough cuts or the other kind of work done on the road. The vast majority of high end creative work is not mobile, nor does it need to be. So this smaller size does help out a select group of users, though I'm sure if you took a poll of all workstation users you'd find that an extremely low percentage would look for mobility as a defining feature, especially if it comes at the expense of internal expansion.
I don't doubt there is a need somewhere for some that travel with workstations. I've known it to happen from time to time. However in my experience most production out in the field relies on laptops that are more than suitable for rough cuts or the other kind of work done on the road. The vast majority of high end creative work is not mobile, nor does it need to be. So this smaller size does help out a select group of users, though I'm sure if you took a poll of all workstation users you'd find that an extremely low percentage would look for mobility as a defining feature, especially if it comes at the expense of internal expansion.
Did you figure out a way to run the second CPU over Thunderbolt as well?
Otherwise it will be less than half as fast as it's competition from a CPU standpoint.
The last Mac Pro was updated in 2010. A machine that is, at best, equal from a CPU standpoint to it's predecessor and, at best, half as fast as competition is a non starter.
This Mari that everyone keeps brining up was on Linux first and the will likely continue. So why buy Apple vs a DP RHEL box? Make a compelling business case why Apple is better.
In that case dual CPUs may make little difference since that application relies heavily on GPGPUs, and the new Mac Pro comes configured with two, and performed better than previous boxes for Mari specifically.