People Who Complain About the New Mac Pro Misunderstand It

[grooveattack]

Ummmm I might have missed something here (I skipped a lot of the personal attacking posts)

But whats wrong with this set up: http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpressiii.html

Getting maybe 2 or 3 of these and that way giving you virtually limitless expansion? Red rockets, graphics cards, SSD raid etc. what ever you want in a small rack under your desk?

Surely any minor hit in performance is out weighted by the ability to simply throw what ever you want in one of these racks when ever you want.

Like I said, think I might have missed something if this set up annoys people. It makes a lot of sense to me. A couple of 4K monitors, a 35TB Raid, A bunch of cards and SSDs etc. tucked away happily in a small rack. Two years down the line I will simply change whats in the rack.

I think essentially the mac pro is moving to be just a processor in a box type machine. Where thats got the raw horse power and all the extras are left to the user to sort out as they want

 

[JesterJJZ]

I think essentially the mac pro is moving to be just a processor in a box type machine. Where thats got the raw horse power and all the extras are left to the user to sort out as they want

If there was a dual CPU option I might actually agree with you.

 

[grooveattack]

If there was a dual CPU option I might actually agree with you.

Is there any advantage in having two 6 cores or one 12 core??

(I ask this because those bench marks seemed positive. https://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/19/apples-new-mac-pro-begins-showing-up-in-benchmarks/ )

 

[HurryKayne]

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.

So in theory an external GPU BOX could get that Aggregated 24X PCIe Speed?

 

[beaker7]

Is there any advantage in having two 6 cores or one 12 core??

(I ask this because those bench marks seemed positive. https://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/19/apples-new-mac-pro-begins-showing-up-in-benchmarks/ )

They look about right. Marginal increase over the old gen. Just think of how fast it could be with a second CPU.

But hey, it's small though right?

 

[JesterJJZ]

Is there any advantage in having two 6 cores or one 12 core??

(I ask this because those bench marks seemed positive. https://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/19/apples-new-mac-pro-begins-showing-up-in-benchmarks/ )

No, the advantage is two 12 core.

 

[wallysb01]

...I doubt many here use an app that requires 128GB RAM. At that point the cost of the memory, licensing whatever app requires that much memory and training costs will far outpace the initial hardware costs. Training is going to be the biggest cost for any complex app. Even if it's a single person shop and you only pay in your time, it's still opportunity cost for your time.

People costs are almost always the most expensive thing in any business. And I don't know if you were exactly using that fact to justify increasing hardware costs or not, but I would disagree if you were. Just because you spend 10x as much (or 100x) on item A over item B, that doesn't mean an additional X% of the cost of item B is trivial or inconsiquential. And you mention the very reason that is, opportunity cost. If you can get basically the same machine for $1000 less, that is $1000 you can put somewhere else to help you make more money.

----------

No, the advantage is two 12 core.

If Apple kept the old design with 2 processors, we wouldn't see 2x12 core options. The best we'd probably get, if they stuck to the 95W limit, would be 2x2660s. Which would be 20 cores at 2.2GHz. Maybe they would use the 2670s if they could go up to 115W.

That is vs. the 1x12 at 2.7 GHz. So simple math puts the 2x2660s ahead 44 to 32.4. Still about 36% improvement, but not 2x. Or if the 2670s are used its 50 vs 32.4, or about a 54% increase over the 1x2697.

 

[Wild-Bill]

If Apple kept the old design with 2 processors, we wouldn't see 2x12 core .

But adventurous end users would have the ability to install 2 x 12 core processors....,

 

[scottsjack]

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding about most of the compalints about the new Mac Pro.

How's that Cool-aid taste? Hummmmm.

Are you writing ad copy for Apple? The new Mac mini Pro looks like a very powerful, limited use, throw-away computer. Quit trying to sell it to us.

 

[wonderspark]

What has concerned me is that Thunderbolt is said to have a max throughput of 10Gbps in two channels, and TB2 will combine those two channels into a single 20Gbps channel. Since that's the maximum theoretical speed right now, and every two ports are behind a single controller which shares that speed, it indicates that the max theoretical data speed from the six TB2 ports will be 7.5GB/second.

Based on The Foundry's use of Mari on the prototype/demo units that were quickly optimized for the new Mac Pro, it may turn out to be fast enough after all for more common software, once other like Adobe make it happen, if they do. It's more uncertainty and cost that makes me skeptical, given that TB isn't exactly ubiquitous.

If I were to get the new Mac Pro along with some external expansion gear to facilitate my current RAID system, I have to trust that TB stays valid. PCIe is mature and effective, so it's hard to see steps backward, even if they turn out to be strides forward in the future.

 

[subsonix]

once other like Adobe make it happen, if they do.

Premiere Pro CC have full support for OpenCL.

http://blogs.adobe.com/premierepro/2013/05/improved-gpu-support-in-adobe-premiere-pro-cc.html

 

[portishead]

How's that Cool-aid taste? Hummmmm.

Are you writing ad copy for Apple? The new Mac mini Pro looks like a very powerful, limited use, throw-away computer. Quit trying to sell it to us.

I haven't seen 1 person not be able to do their job because of the new Mac Pro. Just a lot of angry folks overreacting for no reason.

 

[wallysb01]

But adventurous end users would have the ability to install 2 x 12 core processors....,

That is true.

 

[portishead]

That is true.

These are just people who want bragging rights. It probably doesn't make financial sense to even do that. You could just purchase another machine and create a render farm.

If you can name me 1 person who can do a job with 12 core x 2, but can't with 12 core x 1, I'll apologize.

 

[jamesjingyi]

How's that Cool-aid taste? Hummmmm.

Are you writing ad copy for Apple? The new Mac mini Pro looks like a very powerful, limited use, throw-away computer. Quit trying to sell it to us.

I think that Apple has decided that most of their consumers are not into upgrading their current specs and more into buying maxed out machines with expendable storage. They also know the need for smaller computers. Put the two together and you come out with a smaller Mac Pro.

I think it would have been better however if they also updated the old case with the new specs and features so that consumers could choose between the two.

The fact is however that the new Mac mini Pro will certainly be future-proofed for many years to come, but of course, new models will be released every year...

 

[beaker7]

I haven't seen 1 person not be able to do their job because of the new Mac Pro. Just a lot of angry folks overreacting for no reason.

Not yet.

----------

These are just people who want bragging rights. It probably doesn't make financial sense to even do that. You could just purchase another machine and create a render farm.

If you can name me 1 person who can do a job with 12 core x 2, but can't with 12 core x 1, I'll apologize.

You can, you just take twice as long to do it. Literally, twice as long.

 

[derbothaus]

They also know the need for smaller computers.

When was this tidbit decided? It was stylishly planted. Same argument of stupidity on the thin-ness of the new iMac. Did your desk magically shrink? Did your legs or face become swollen all of a sudden creating a demand for less computer?
How small is too small? I would think when you loose basic functionality and hobble the expandability choices.

 

[Radiating]

Well actually it's worse than you think on both systems

In the current Mac Pro its believed that the top two x4 slots actually share 4 PCIe lanes through a switch as there just aren't enough lanes in the current chipset to support each slot having dedicated lanes.

On the new Mac Pro, each of the three TB controllers is allocated 4 PCIe lanes which is switched between the two ports connected to it.

So if you just compare x4 expansion options between the current Mac Pro and new Mac Pro, you have the current with two slots sharing 4 lanes and the new system tripling that with three pairs of TB ports each sharing 4 lanes.

This seems like a pretty important fact about the new vs the old machine. It seems like Apple's engineers really thought the new machine through and tried to improve upon the old one in literally every way possible. I added this to the infographic on the first post.

Regarding the PCIe 3.0 x16 ports, the good new is that the default cards are both removable and replacable:

The bad news is that Apple uses a proprietary connector (Apple loves proprietary connectors), seen in the image above on the bottom of the left most card.

So technically speaking we have a machine that is faster and more expandable in every way. Aesthetically speaking the aftermarket needs to come up with some neat solutions for expansion because once you start doing advanced upgrades things will get very messy.

 

[portishead]

You can, you just take twice as long to do it. Literally, twice as long.

Twice as long to do what?

 

[ShinySteelRobot]

This has got to be a joke. The new Mac Pro will come with the exact same port bandwidth as the last gen with extras. 2 16x slots for each video card

This is delusional. The old Mac Pro used standard PCIe video cards for upgrades. The new Mac Pro video cards use a proprietary form factor (i.e., bonded to a huge custom heat sink and no standard rear bracket) and Apple has given no indication they're upgradable. Also, because of the tiny, tiny marketshare of Mac Pro, no 3rd party manufacturer will make these custom video cards for general sale. Therefore, no internal upgrades/expansion for video after your purchase.

Furthermore, since Thunderbolt doesn't support channel aggregation, we are extremely limited in external video expandability. Basically any high end video card made since 2010 will easily overwhelm Thunderbolt 2 bandwidth. Therefore, no external upgrades/expansion for video after your purchase.

To summarize, once you get a Mac Pro, that's the graphics you've got for the life of the machine. No upgradability for video.

Apple just did everyone a huge favor, we are literally getting at least the exact same port configuration we had plus a bunch of extras with better core system performance.

If by "huge favor" you mean "Apple will now force us all to buy a new Mac Pro every couple of years to keep up with new video technology", then yes, Apple did us a huge favor. Ironically that huge favor will also be great for Apple's bottom line.

 

[portishead]

This is delusional. The old Mac Pro used standard PCIe video cards for upgrades. The new Mac Pro video cards use a proprietary form factor (i.e., bonded to a huge custom heat sink and no standard rear bracket) and Apple has given no indication they're upgradable. Also, because of the tiny, tiny marketshare of Mac Pro, no 3rd party manufacturer will make these custom video cards for general sale. Therefore, no internal upgrades/expansion for video after your purchase.

Furthermore, since Thunderbolt doesn't support channel aggregation, we are extremely limited in external video expandability. Basically any high end video card made since 2010 will easily overwhelm Thunderbolt 2 bandwidth. Therefore, no external upgrades/expansion for video after your purchase.

To summarize, once you get a Mac Pro, that's the graphics you've got for the life of the machine. No upgradability for video.



If by "huge favor" you mean "Apple will now force us all to buy a new Mac Pro every couple of years to keep up with new video technology", then yes, Apple did us a huge favor. Ironically that huge favor will also be great for Apple's bottom line.

I don't get it. All this fuss because you can't upgrade your video card in 3 years? Technically, we don't know that's even true.

 

[beaker7]

Twice as long to do what?

A given work task.

Unless a dual CPU model is announced, my company is switching to PC because they will allow us to do twice as much work as the new
Mac Pro would in a given time.

It's likely to be more than twice as much, given the lack of CUDA support, but who knows, they may offer nVidia options.

 

[portishead]

A given work task.

Unless a dual CPU model is announced, my company is switching to PC because they will allow us to do twice as much work as the new
Mac Pro would in a given time.

That's not specific enough. 2 CPU's isn't necessarily going to make your workflow twice as fast.

Rendering maybe, but who sits on their machine watching it render? It's extremely inefficient.

 

[beaker7]

That's not specific enough. 2 CPU's isn't necessarily going to make your workflow twice as fast.

Rendering maybe, but who sits on their machine watching it render? It's extremely inefficient.

Uh...lighting and visualization artists spend all day doing test renders.

Fluid sims run on workstations or other single machines and are generally not farmable.

These are the tasks we do.

If we sat there doing email and Photoshop all day, this machine would be just fine.

 

[Larry-K]

But adventurous end users would have the ability to install 2 x 12 core processors....,

My middle name is "Adventure".

But my first name is "No", and my last name is "Please".