That's an awful lot of gibberish to say the nMP is great because it is built to work on 1 bit of Software. And because it is the fastest at that there is nothing wrong with it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Poll - How will Apple update the Mac Pro?
- Thread starter hurtmemore
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's an awful lot of gibberish to say the nMP is great because it is built to work on 1 bit of Software. And because it is the fastest at that there is nothing wrong with it.
I think they innovated the Mac Pro to death. There was nothing wrong with the old tower design. If they had wanted to they could also easily have popped out i7 versions of it.
It's just pure laziness what they did to their desktop line. The software suits aren't enough to warrant purchasing these machines and I bet a lot of people already moved on because they tired of sub par specs for sky high prices. There are so many different ways they could have invested in their desktops but never did.
It's just pure laziness what they did to their desktop line. The software suits aren't enough to warrant purchasing these machines and I bet a lot of people already moved on because they tired of sub par specs for sky high prices. There are so many different ways they could have invested in their desktops but never did.
The iMac can already be spec'd up pretty high with masses of RAM and storage. There's not really much scope for going further with an "iMac Pro" because you're never going to get Xeon processors into that form factor and super powerful graphics cards.
I suspect the Mac Pro and Mac Mini will be killed off later this year. I expect a new iMac around October-November and then that will be the moment when all the creatives and professionals have to make their choice. I think most people will sensibly transition to an iMac.
I suspect the Mac Pro and Mac Mini will be killed off later this year. I expect a new iMac around October-November and then that will be the moment when all the creatives and professionals have to make their choice. I think most people will sensibly transition to an iMac.
If they're smart, and they decide to continue having a Mac Pro, they'll give up on the trashcan design, and retreat to a tower format (which is so much more appropriate for a workstation).
If they decide to give up on workstations entirely, I could see an 'iMac Pro' being a feasible alternative for a lot of creatives who don't need mega-performance. If they can squeeze a top-end 10-core i7 into it, allow up to 64GB (or more) of RAM, and give the body enough space/ventilation to fit a full-size GPU, that would suffice for the vast majority of people doing photoshop, video editing or light colour-grading.
They'd need to make the thing thicker, sure. But I can't see any customer ever having a problem with that.
If making the iMac physically bigger (to accommodate a proper GPU) is simply too thoroughly against Apple's design aesthetic (which, I'd guess it probably is), then full, unencumbered support of EGPUs over Thunderbolt 3 would become necessary to make it a viable 'pro' option.
If they can't muster that much at least, I think they'll probably lose the rest of us. At this stage, I'd be willing to give up FCPX for better hardware, so ProRes remains pretty much the only reason I just spent a small fortune on a cMP 5,1 build instead of moving to a PC.
If they decide to give up on workstations entirely, I could see an 'iMac Pro' being a feasible alternative for a lot of creatives who don't need mega-performance. If they can squeeze a top-end 10-core i7 into it, allow up to 64GB (or more) of RAM, and give the body enough space/ventilation to fit a full-size GPU, that would suffice for the vast majority of people doing photoshop, video editing or light colour-grading.
They'd need to make the thing thicker, sure. But I can't see any customer ever having a problem with that.
If making the iMac physically bigger (to accommodate a proper GPU) is simply too thoroughly against Apple's design aesthetic (which, I'd guess it probably is), then full, unencumbered support of EGPUs over Thunderbolt 3 would become necessary to make it a viable 'pro' option.
If they can't muster that much at least, I think they'll probably lose the rest of us. At this stage, I'd be willing to give up FCPX for better hardware, so ProRes remains pretty much the only reason I just spent a small fortune on a cMP 5,1 build instead of moving to a PC.
The Mac Pro is already dead. Not updating a product for over 1000 days is equivalent to dropping it. The problem is people haven't yet realized this.
The question everyone should be asking, will Apple resurrect the already dead product line that is the Mac Pro?
The question everyone should be asking, will Apple resurrect the already dead product line that is the Mac Pro?
We're not likely to see supported eGPU solutions from Apple. TB3 with display support will require custom gpu's which means we are right back to where we started with the trash can.
According to Apple, FCPX runs just fine on a MBP. No need for a workstation and I think any updates from Apple are gonna be tailored to fit their software and that's it.
You can encode prores on using FFMPEG on a PC if you have to switch.
Get rid of the super drive (bays) and hard drive bays (or keep just one or two) of the cMP, keep all the PCIes and the dual-CPU capability, add TB2/TB3 ports, and make it black and shining. Then you will have something significantly smaller than the cMP and looks probably almost as nice as the trash can. Everybody will be happy.
When have Apple ever 'retreated' and accepted 'defeat'?
Not gonna happen.
I think it's Trashcan update, evolutionary/minor tweak to the design, or bust.
Not gonna happen.
I think it's Trashcan update, evolutionary/minor tweak to the design, or bust.
Not according to people here. Just a new processor generation should make things a million times better.
And....obviously more cores at a higher clock speed will be better. That wasn't my argument at all.
[doublepost=1490112879][/doublepost]
"Or bust"? That is the definition of defeat there.
[doublepost=1490113219][/doublepost]
It is not dead. Name a better computer for Final Cut Pro X. And do not bring Adobe into this either. Apple does not make computers for Adobe. It is not that "OMG HORRIBLE" at XCode and Logic Pro X either. And Adobe products DO perform well, they are just built around CUDA. Can't blame Apple for that. Adobe is the developer for those programs. It is not Apple's job to build a computer for competitors.
If I need a killer FCPX computer, everyone will agree that the Mac Pro is still the best. Not the new laptops, or the iMac.
Last edited:
I mean yeah technically speaking the nMP is still the least slow option for FCPx. That will be the case until the end of time. But imagine how fast FCPx would be on modern hardware...
Also some people run other programs in addition to FCPx in the real world.
Do you have a separate workstation for each application?
If Apple wants to continue to sell the largest hardware dongle ever, then the nMP serves that role for FCPx.
Oh I agree. But let's also take a look at Intel. They haven't been blowing previous generations away with their newer processors. The way people here talk about the Mac Pro, you would think that NOTHING will even OPEN on the Mac Pro unless it is developed by Apple. That is not the case. It DOES work with Premiere. It DOES work with Photoshop. It DOES work with 3d Studio Max in Windows.
Are some programs better developed for NVIDIA and CUDA? Obviously! That is why there is a choice.
Would two processors or higher clocker/core processors make these programs better? Obviously! But people really need to just chill out. This is like me complaining to Dell because the OptiPlex line only has core ix processors when I really should get the Precision workstations with Xeons.
And actually I do have one workstation with a NVIDIA card and one workstation with an AMD card. One Dell, one Mac.
This isn't the late 1990s or early 2000s anymore. Heck, I still use my 2010 Mac Pro running Windows and Adobe CC 2017 and *gasp* it STILL performs well. We have reached a plateau in the desktop market. I know someone that still uses their 2006 Mac Pro for their Photoshop work.
I guess its just a matter of tradeoffs.
Option 1: Use FCPx on nMP. FCPx runs great. Everything else runs at ~30% of the speed of modern industry standard 2p workstations. (like 3d rendering)
Option 2: modern workstation, use premiere, everything is fast.
You really have to be married to FCPx and/or MacOS to make that trade.
This. Using a nMp today is all about trade offs. And it's only going to get worse.
Not necessarily. Compare my 2010 Mac Pro 3.33Ghz 6-core system to the best ~3.4Ghz 6core processor in 2015 when I built my custom computer. Performance is about the same. How does EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM run at 30%? Maybe if you are comparing 3.5Ghz 6 core to a 20 core system! But that is not a fair comparison.
EDIT: This is like saying my friends computer absolutely sucks because he has a Core i5 processor and I am comparing it with my Xeon.
That's the difference. You can buy a "workstation" today with more than 20 cores and much faster GPU's. Apple doesn't currently sell one that can compete with current hardware.
Again, for all other applications except FCPX, you are making a trade off in speed to stay with Apple.
The sad thing is, Apple knows this and doesn't care.
How much of a benefit would that provide though? Newer Intel processors these days barely offer any performance benefit over previous generations. Kaby Lake is only 25% faster than the ones three and a half years ago.
The GPUs are very reasonable. It completely destroys my GTX 980 (in my 2010 Mac Pro) in terms of FCPX Performance. Heck, even the four year old Sapphire HD 7950 is a bit better. I do not play games on my Macs, I use them for work. My general rule is:
NVIDIA: gaming + CUDA programs
AMD: FCPX
No that the MacBook Pros have TB3 and USB-C, I expect the Mac Pros to follow soon.
[doublepost=1490116211][/doublepost]
How much will that 20 core processor system cost you?
Comparing similar processors, how much slower is the Mac Pro? Do not compare a 6-core with a 20 core. Obviously the 20 core will win.
if I am in the market for JUST a 6-core system, how is EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM going to ONLY RUN at 30% performance compared to a Dell workstation that is 6-cores at the same clock speed?
You do realize that this is why we have options right? You expect Apple to have thousands of configuration combinations like Dell does? I can choose from 20 or so processors, 10 or so RAM options, and more!
If you need a 20 core system with triple SLI and other stuff like that, I agree that getting a Dell or something else is good. But compare 6-core to 6-core processors (or x-core to x-core whatever the Mac Pro has), how is the Mac Pro 30% as fast as other computers?
What would you guys be saying if I yelled "NEVER buy a GTX 1080, or a Titan" And my explanation as to why "Because the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 has 24GB of VRAM.
Just a blanket statement "Mac Pro has horrible performance" is just as useful as a statement that says "The GTX 1080 has horrible specs". And in MY VIEW, the GTX 1080 would be considered "a lot of tradeoffs".
EDIT: Where do you find processors with 20 cores? I looked at Dell and Newegg. Are they AMD processors or something?
Last edited:
I dunno about the possibilities of an iMac Pro, they'd have to design a completely new enclosure for that particular line alone, and it wouldn't share any parts with the regular iMacs. From a business standpoint they'd be better off making a Workstation-type machine if they're going to have all-new parts.
That is, unless Apple goes completely bonkers and tries to stuff more powerful processors into the chassis of the current gen iMac (which has cooling issues with the current hardware).
That is, unless Apple goes completely bonkers and tries to stuff more powerful processors into the chassis of the current gen iMac (which has cooling issues with the current hardware).
How will Apple do it? Likely ship the same product specs, same price, Product Red (and make it a pink/red instead of a dark bold red), drop the 4 core model.
6,1 is that last mac pro. So, if that's not anyone's cup of tea....have a nice day (walks out of the building and slams the door).
But I don't need a killer FCPX computer. I need a workstation.