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.
This is not a "Pro" machine.
- Thread starter timehacker11
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Great, so what? Your SAS costs more. If you could purchase an empty TB box, you could probably do it for a lot less.
I'm not sure how much faster the SAS is, but I can't imagine TB being too slow for anything. So you're mad because a TB array is a 10% slower than your homemade SAS?
Just buy this http://www.attotech.com/products/product.php?scat=31&prod=102&sku=TLSH-1068-D00 or wait for another cheaper product to come out. Or here's an idea... you can keep your current Mac Pro.
I don't know why people are panicking about a machine that's not even out yet. People get obsessed with meaningless benchmarks and make up things the new Mac Pro can't do even though they don't need it in their workflow.
Buy an iMac then you'll have a neat desk.
Seriously? This has to be the most idiotic comment ever. An iMac will never have the power a Mac Pro wields in terms of multicore CPUs and multiple pro-desktop class GPUs.
An iMac is what Consumers need. The Mac Pro needs to make honor to the "Pro" name.
Neither panicking nor mad, and I already stated I was keeping my current Mac Pro, so that's not your idea, it's mine. I'm not trying to make enemies, so don't take it personally. I'm pointing out the folly of calling Thunderbolt The Answer To Everything.
Many of those corners are illusory, because folks don't like the idea of detached storage. My NetApp trays have combined I/O that can smear most benchmarks here while using traditional disks, the bottleneck being the 10GbE links (all four of them). Thunderbolt 2, by comparison, will realistically cap out at 1500MB/s per port for data (after things like overhead). With the nMP having SIX Thunderbolt 2 ports, that's a potential for 9000MB/s for disk storage if you're really craving the I/O, which, while nowhere near the power of an SAS card in an x16 slot loaded with SSDs, is still ******* insane for all but the heaviest data churners. If you're devouring more than 9GB/s now in I/O, then your options are limited anyhow to something akin to PCIe storage in a custom built enclosure or server cluster.
I'm sorry that it might not meet the needs of specialty use scenarios, but that's why they're special in the first place. I wager that for 99% of MP users, the nMP is adequate if not overkill in the GPU range. And I wager Apple is thinking the same thing. After all, they know what most Mac Pros are configured with, and clearly they believe six TB2 ports are more than enough to satiate most of the demand.
Neither panicking nor mad, and I already stated I was keeping my current Mac Pro, so that's not your idea, it's mine. I'm not trying to make enemies, so don't take it personally. I'm pointing out the folly of calling Thunderbolt The Answer To Everything.
Thunderbolt being the answer to everything is idiotic at best. Unless LightPeak makes an appearance, Thunderbolt should stay hidden.
USB 3.0 can easily provide and no need to create an alternate port or cables.
Neither panicking nor mad, and I already stated I was keeping my current Mac Pro, so that's not your idea, it's mine. I'm not trying to make enemies, so don't take it personally. I'm pointing out the folly of calling Thunderbolt The Answer To Everything.
Naw I'm not trying to start a fight or anything. If your current Mac Pro works, then you should be happy with that. We're always looking to the future of course, because the future will eventually be the present (wait, what?!?). TB certainly isn't the answer to everything, but I do feel it has moderate value even though it was a little slow to adopt.
----------
wait, what? that doesn't even make sense.
I agree with that - it does have moderate value, and I really do hope they make it much, much better. I want LightPeak, man!
USB 3.0 can easily be implemented without the need of creating or adding a new type of port to new computers. Furthermore, USB cables are out there already in massé. USB 3.0 is backward compatible with them. So the whole new type of cable is out the window.
the new Mac Pro has USB 3.0. I don't understand what you're saying. I think you can also get a USB 3.0 card for the current Mac Pro, but maybe I'm wrong.
Nope, you're not wrong. I have a USB 3.0 card. Well, USB 3.0 and eSATA, two ports each. Works just as well on Mountain Lion as it did on Snow Leopard.
Clearly you missed the point and haven't given much thought to what I said and the context of what I'm saying. Go back and reread everything, hopefully you should be able to comprehend.
I think you said TB is useless because USB 3.0 is better. But that doesn't make sense either as they're used for totally different things. So that's why I'm asking you to clarify. I'm trying to cut you some slack as English probably isn't your first language.
No and no.... there is a precedent for the current argument over USB 3.0 v Thunderbolt in my posts.... go back a few posts.
The posts below me should help things move along. The main topic is how using Thunderbolt as the answer to everything is idiotic. Why? Desk clutter and expenses of buying new equipment to help do things the previous generation Mac Pro could easily do (DVD, add more HDDs).
Neither panicking nor mad, and I already stated I was keeping my current Mac Pro, so that's not your idea, it's mine. I'm not trying to make enemies, so don't take it personally. I'm pointing out the folly of calling Thunderbolt The Answer To Everything.
No I am not. That is just hand waving crap that you are making up. You attributed the difference to SAS and Thunderbolt. It is not.
That experiment that barefeats ran shows just as much, if not more, about RAID card differences as it shows about Thunderbolt 'speed'. SAS is not really a factor.
The drives cost is higher than the storage sub-system hardware. Even 6 of those drives would be more; $1,200 ( 6* $200 ). If more to SSDs either capacity is going to drop dramatically or the cost will skyrocket much higher.
[/quote]
....
Mind you, the Pegasus R6 won't do anywhere near 800+MB/sec in RAID 6.
...[/quote]
That is drive and RAID controller dependent. 6 SSDs and might (if not throttled by the controller's parity engine. )
Even more evidence that really talking about differences in RAID controller performance than anything to do with the enclosure-to-system interconnect speeds.
The general 'claim' is that Thunderbolt is the root cause issue. There is gating issue with the Pegasus before the data ever hits the Thunderbolt network. That is what I'm pointing out.
Yes you can push more data through a x8 link than a x4 link. That pragmatic issue is how much is that going to cost you. Real projects have multiple constraint dimensions to them. Budget, capacity , and bandwidth. More than a few of these extreme benchmarks are drag racing events. Most businesses aren't run leveraging Top Fuel drag racing cars.
Apple's hyperbole "Thunderbolt is the fastest, most versatile I/O technology there is. " is bogus. It isn't the fastest possible alternative. The pragmatic question though is it fast enough for most people. For 900+ MB/s folks, yes it is.
It takes extra effort and expense because Thunderbolt never was targeted for that kind of work. For "capacity is secondary to bandwidth" issues the MP 2013 has at least one PCI-e SSD in a single slot.
For a SAN header node 3000MB/s probably has far more wide spread market traction than for a single user workstation. The new Mac Pro is not a good match to be a SAN header node. It is far more aimed at being a client to a node with that kind of throughput so that 3-4 folks can concurrently get 1000MB/s like throughput to the machines on their desks.
Awwwwkay... I see you're one of those. Every forum has some. You keep missing the point that we are talking about SOLUTION, which implies a combination of devices and factors to remedy A PROBLEM.
PROBLEM: As the dataset and images to be processed grows exponentially, the user needs the fastest way posible to access those datasets and images in a constant read/write fashion TODAY AND THE NEAR FUTURE.
SOLUTION: Raid based drive array using the fastest affordable controller and enclosure, which incidently TB isn't. You can't even buy or install a tweaked or better TB controller card in the nMP, while you can shop around for a better performing SAS one. Hell, you can even install more than one in your old MP.
The ultimate goal of Apple toward TB isn't to produce the best and most performing data transfert technology. It's to have the smaller and more discrete connector capable to do the job while being nearly invisible as to not impact the design too much. Form over function...
----------
And here you have it... It can't do the job that the old model could and there is no way to add an expansion card to do it...
I'm not a pro. I do however need storage and am not rich. I loved my 2008 mac pro very much. It has decent power 10,000 geekbench 32bit and plenty of ram 32gb but best of all it has 2 important things, a removable graphics card and storage. After the news of the new mac pro which was a giant let down I decided to pick up a 2010 dual cpu machine and am very happy with it. I threw in a $120 sonnet tempo SSD PCIe card and an 840 pro ssd and it flies at full speed so that takes care of the link speed issue. The mac pro can hold 6 hard drives and 2 more ssd drives in the pcie card. That is 8 drives and can also hold up to 128gb of ram and I can replace those CPUs with 2 6 core 3.46ghz westmeres when I am ready. I will hold out as long as I can with this setup. Staying on snow leopard anyway and love it.
Its just really sad that in 2013 and lets be honest the new mac pro is a 2014 machine because that's when it will be for sale, is not a double powerhouse to the 2012 machine. Thunderbolt externals is not the answer don't care what people say. My mac pro is quiet with all the extras inside of it and I can guarantee an external enclosure will add fan noise so staying away from that. I was really hoping for an aluminum silver smaller mac pro even if I had to give up something but could at least at some hard drives to it.
How nice would it have been to have a dual processor mac pro released with 2 x 12 core cpus, same case but with usb 3 and the pcie hard drive built into the motherboard. That would have been the best. Not to mention my OCD is kicking in imagining a round computer sitting on my desk. LOL. Straight lines please.
Its just really sad that in 2013 and lets be honest the new mac pro is a 2014 machine because that's when it will be for sale, is not a double powerhouse to the 2012 machine. Thunderbolt externals is not the answer don't care what people say. My mac pro is quiet with all the extras inside of it and I can guarantee an external enclosure will add fan noise so staying away from that. I was really hoping for an aluminum silver smaller mac pro even if I had to give up something but could at least at some hard drives to it.
How nice would it have been to have a dual processor mac pro released with 2 x 12 core cpus, same case but with usb 3 and the pcie hard drive built into the motherboard. That would have been the best. Not to mention my OCD is kicking in imagining a round computer sitting on my desk. LOL. Straight lines please.
It is not 1500MB/s per port. More like 1500MB/s per controller for TB v2.
more like 4,500MB ( presuming nothing like a 4K display on the one of those ).
The six ports are more likely a nod to legacy connections a current Mac Pro user would likely have. 1 or 2 DVI (or perhaps display port ) monitor. That's two ports down (primarily for backwards compatibility mode). If eventually gets one of the new 3rd party super duper 4K monitors that is another port purely in backwards compatible DisplayPort v1.2 mode. (so 2-3 ports down). One or two x4 cards. So 1-2 more ports down for a decent number of users if they minimize transition costs and get chain-enders. So left with about 2.
In short, pure display mode is likely going to consume a good fraction of the ports. Not all of it them going to thrown at PCI-e data bandwidth.
People. Notice that this claim is made without any tests or evidence what so ever. It's a whim the author has, and it then turns into assertive statements.