To the best of my knowledge SMP doesn't care how many processors you have..
If they did remove it they'd cut off current MP's and a few months is too little support even for Apple.
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.
The Mac Pro Criticism
- Thread starter Simplybetter
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To the best of my knowledge SMP doesn't care how many processors you have..
If they did remove it they'd cut off current MP's and a few months is too little support even for Apple.
Wouldn't it be a kernal limitation? As OllyW pointed out anyway there is support for early 2008 Mac Pros... Which begs the question is this the right time to release this product? I can see why some professionals will want 24cores but you have to admit that 12 core is a huge amount of computer grunt. I wonder why they haven't held of just one more quarter to do what they have done now but include a better, higher core number, ddr4 supporting beast. Not that you can really deny that for now and for possibly up to a year this update should be sufficient.
Haswell EP won't be out until late 2014 early 2015.. Along with DDR4 especially ECC DDR 4
The kernal uses SMP (Symmetrical Multiprocessing) basically it can use as many identical cores as you can provide it. You need SMP even for the a lowly dual core..
12 cores is equivalent to 12 processors for an operating system. The fact that the 12 cores are cramped inside that tiny cute spiny box is irrelevant
So your saying that this Mac Pro will suffice until at least 2015 how ever you just want there to be dual processors to take advantage of 24 cores?
I knew about needing it for dual/quad/hexa and octa core processors I'm just curious about its technical limits, not even the most hi end workstation has more than dual processors and according to you (and I'm not trying to disprove your point I'm purely just interested) you can have as many cores as you can provide so why hasn't there been tri processor or quad processor motherboards if that's the case?
Frankly, I don't care what the MP looks like. My MP 3,1 sits under my desk.
Like everyone else, I was hoping for an update that addressed my own particular needs - SATA3, USB3 and TB PLUS a bunch of room for HDDs and SSDs, excellent support for multiple monitors and the ability to add cards as needed. So much for the disk drive slots and the card slots.
I sympathize for the folks who need a workstation - I don't. But I would like the ability to add and subtract as technology marches on. And I dislike the trend of form over function, however elegant that form may be.
So I guess I'll wait to hear of folks' real world experiences with the nMP when it arrives. Whether it justifies the cost of admission is to be determined.
Like everyone else, I was hoping for an update that addressed my own particular needs - SATA3, USB3 and TB PLUS a bunch of room for HDDs and SSDs, excellent support for multiple monitors and the ability to add cards as needed. So much for the disk drive slots and the card slots.
I sympathize for the folks who need a workstation - I don't. But I would like the ability to add and subtract as technology marches on. And I dislike the trend of form over function, however elegant that form may be.
So I guess I'll wait to hear of folks' real world experiences with the nMP when it arrives. Whether it justifies the cost of admission is to be determined.
I don't want it to be anything..
I said we've never had more than two processor in MP's or PM's. This is the first not to have 2 processor as an option for quite a long time.
The E7 4XXX is the 4 processor, it refreshes to V2 after E5 26XX
Google Supermicro MBD-X9QR7-TF-B..it's a 4 processor socket 2011 board
"7 teraflops of computing power is more than enough for any professional workstation."
LOL, so was 512K. What a stupid statement.
You don't have any idea how much money I have (hint, it's not a limit on an mac pro of any sort), or what my needs are (hint: can already have 12 cores now in a machine basically 3 years old, and the radical new design for the top machine has..... 12 cores).
I"m not rendering 4K video, but I've had dual CPU machines basically since they were first available. Over the years I've seen all my cpus/cores maxed out over and over and over again and typically it's a limiting factor for much of what I do on my machine.
So quit embarassing yourself and telling us what we need and how much power is "enough."
You're right, I wouldn't have enough ram, because they only put 4 slots in. 2 CPUS, 8 slots for ram (minimum) and replaceable video cards and I'd live with this design. As it is, I stand by my assertion that it's the headless iMac, not a mac pro.
LOL, so was 512K. What a stupid statement.
You don't have any idea how much money I have (hint, it's not a limit on an mac pro of any sort), or what my needs are (hint: can already have 12 cores now in a machine basically 3 years old, and the radical new design for the top machine has..... 12 cores).
I"m not rendering 4K video, but I've had dual CPU machines basically since they were first available. Over the years I've seen all my cpus/cores maxed out over and over and over again and typically it's a limiting factor for much of what I do on my machine.
So quit embarassing yourself and telling us what we need and how much power is "enough."
You're right, I wouldn't have enough ram, because they only put 4 slots in. 2 CPUS, 8 slots for ram (minimum) and replaceable video cards and I'd live with this design. As it is, I stand by my assertion that it's the headless iMac, not a mac pro.
Upgrade strategy
One thing that interests me in this is where this takes us in upgrade strategy.
Lets assume that a TB connected chassis will emerge that will allow most (not all) users to migrate their various peripherals, hard drives, PCI Cards etc into it.
This means that we then have a situation where the base machine can be very easily swapped by simply unplugging the thunderbolt cable and replacing it.
If as some have speculated the MacPro can be built relatively cheaply then rather than keeping the old box and upgrading all the components such as graphic cards and memory, and having to live with the limitations of the old machines bus speeds, outdated peripherals technology etc just sell the old Mac Pro and buy a new Mac Pro with the latest graphics cards, CPU etc.
If the price is right a "pro" user could afford to do this every year. This could be a much more cost effective way to go than keeping the chassis and upgrading the components. It also means you have access to the latest versions or TB USB etc all the time.
One thing that interests me in this is where this takes us in upgrade strategy.
Lets assume that a TB connected chassis will emerge that will allow most (not all) users to migrate their various peripherals, hard drives, PCI Cards etc into it.
This means that we then have a situation where the base machine can be very easily swapped by simply unplugging the thunderbolt cable and replacing it.
If as some have speculated the MacPro can be built relatively cheaply then rather than keeping the old box and upgrading all the components such as graphic cards and memory, and having to live with the limitations of the old machines bus speeds, outdated peripherals technology etc just sell the old Mac Pro and buy a new Mac Pro with the latest graphics cards, CPU etc.
If the price is right a "pro" user could afford to do this every year. This could be a much more cost effective way to go than keeping the chassis and upgrading the components. It also means you have access to the latest versions or TB USB etc all the time.
I understand that but if the latest CPU/Graphics card in the Mac Pro is good enough to meet your needs at the time you buy it, it may be cheaper to replace the whole machine every year rather than try to upgrade the graphics cards.
Second hand prices for mac pros are reasonably strong so the cost would likely be cheaper than buying the new cards.
I understand that there may be some that are not happy than with the cards that come in the machine but for many this could be cost effective
I can't disagree with that line of thinking. A computer is a tool for me so I am happy to get rid of it and get another one when it no longer does the job. I think a nice thing this time around is that they are actually putting some semi-decent graphics cards appropriate for a workstation, as opposed to an insult, like the 5770.
They've been around for years.
----------
Or decent audio cards.
----------
Tis a good point, and is exactly what I used to do with my PCs - I'd keep a GPU, all the HDs and so on, and just upgrade motherboard/cpu/ram. In a sense it'd be great doing the same with the nMP, though it'd still rankle that I can't rackmount the damned thing!
I don't see why that would be from a pure computing point of view. Unless decent audio cards have some incredible bandwidth requirements that I am not aware of, I am fairly sure that TB 1 is sufficient. According to Sonnet TB 1 is sufficient for a Red Rocket card.
Yep, a lot of the audio chaps have precisely the same problem - they were crying out for more PCIe slots, more internal storage, and please please please make them rackmountable. None that I know of care two hoots what the thing looks like: that's what machine rooms are there for.
I've already posted this once today, but I'll bung it in here for a laugh:
Lots of nice neat PCs and extraneous hardware, then Magma expansion chassis to try and cope with the limited slots in the current shape MPs, which themselves have to be dumped on shelves as there's no other way of mounting them. Yes this tube thing will take up less space, but it'll still be dumped rather than tidily racked away.
In my own rig, I love the way my PCs slide out on rails, I flip the lid off, change things and slide them back in. Crawling around unplugging and shouting at the MP is a pain.
On the other hand, I'm not a detractor in the sense I am muchly relieved that the nMP has arrived at all. Yes I'd love it to have more power (to be the quantum leap the older ones were in their time), but I'm just glad the pro market isn't entirely forgotten in this world of iThings.... will wait to see the prices to find out if my studio will remain Mac-centric though... as others have said, "not being able" to afford one is very different from "choosing not to".
That looks awesome, but you'll be happy to know that Sonnet is now making a TB extension box that is rack mountable and has space for 3 PCIe cards.
I don't see why that would be from a pure computing point of view. Unless decent audio cards have some incredible bandwidth requirements that I am not aware of, I am fairly sure that TB 1 is sufficient. According to Sonnet TB 1 is sufficient for a Red Rocket card.
Latency more than bandwidth - Avid and RME amongst others have tried either TB directly or putting audio cards in TB enclosures and have run in to problems - yes it works, but there is a corresponding latency hit compared with directly installed PCIe equivalents. I don't understand it as I don't entirely comprehend the technology, but Avid for one have pulled their high-end TB range as they couldn't solve it. I agree it's clearly not a bandwidth issue, even with 128 channels running off a single card (though many rigs have 3-4 cards in a single machine, if not more, as audio is far lower bandwidth than video, but latency is critical for audio.
Things like this:
How do you know what the maximum size per stick of this RAM will be? Even the Mac Pro 4,1s and 5,1s are already capable of reaching 64GB with four sticks of RAM. How much RAM do you need?
The bad thing about the sneak peek is
we will have to put up with the moanin & groanin for several months.
we will have to put up with the moanin & groanin for several months.
Yep, the Magma 3-slot one has been around for a year or so, and one can but hope they'll do a TB2 version of their 5U 8-bay rack. It's an added cost to the capital outlay for the machine though, and one which could have been avoided by different design decisions. Like I said above, it's not the straw that breaks the camel's back, but an example of one design suiting part of the market but not all. To drop 5k on a machine is one thing, to have to add another 3k on "accessories" to make that machine work for you is another.
MADI? I know MIDI, but MADI?
Latency with TB could potentially be an issue. I know nothing about computer audio, apart from making a computing device play noises using a programming language, and I have no idea what that card does, but it looks awesome. I actually want one now because it looks so awesome.