If you really like numbers, then do you know you are the 600th post on this thread? Congratulations, english teacher!!!
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
If you really like numbers, then do you know you are the 600th post on this thread? Congratulations, english teacher!!!
ahh.. yes. capitalization.. the difference between me helping my Uncle Jack off a horse and helping my uncle jack off a horse.
I'm with you
I hate the new design
just got another mac pro to get me over the failure of the new mac mini "PRO" that will last as long as the cube did
we want internal upgradability with an optical drive
The forgotten item is that Haswell uses Z87 chipset which is hard wired for a minimum of 4 SATA 6gb ports. So, you are PAYING for those 4 SATA ports, you just can't access them since Apple has walled them off from the world in order to sell more TB chips for their dear friends at Intel.
For a couple bucks they could run some wires to eSata ports but then you wouldn't be forced into the TB club.
So with either 2012 or 2013 you are PAYING for SATA ports. You just don't get to use them anymore, despite paying for them.
So the "you're better off with external" argument gets tossed in the bin with the "4 RAM slots is more than 8" bit of nonsense.
Next?
Nothing gets tossed in any imaginary bin. That's ludicrous! Whether or not external is better or worse depends on several factors such as overall amount of expansion, the price performance of that expansion, the compatibility or support for future (potentially faster) devices, and so on.... Not whether or not Apple decided to wire the eSATA ports.
Silly nonsensical argument.
Silly nonsensical argument.
And the unreleased Mac Pro already cannot support the fastest (soon to be released) single SSD (3000MB/s)...
http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/18/samsung-enterprise-ssd-NVMe-XS1715/
TB2 is too slow and without internal/accessible PCIe slots, the nMP can't even handle this generation's top SSDs , let alone the top SSDs in the next 3 years.
Such a shame...
GL
http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/18/samsung-enterprise-ssd-NVMe-XS1715/
TB2 is too slow and without internal/accessible PCIe slots, the nMP can't even handle this generation's top SSDs , let alone the top SSDs in the next 3 years.
Such a shame...
GL
Wow! That's very cool! 3GB/s from a single drive... Awesome!
I wonder how much that'll cost?
Sorry, I disagree. When there's a capability feature that exists, it has been "paid for" even if it is not being used.
Granted, it is often cheaper to use an off-the-shelf design that has extra widgets instead of a perfectly tailored custom design, and in this regards some of these extras can be thought of as "free", but this is really an "Apples vs Oranges" cost comparison: the off-the-shelf chip is cheaper not because it contains more, but because it has higher production volume to lower costs. Essentially, the extras on the OTS chip resulted in a 'tax' which was paid by all of its customers, and the magnitude of this 'tax' is less than the cost of a low production volume customized run.
Or in other words, the OTS chip provides a more favorable cost:benefit ratio because the cost went down, not because the benefit went up.
Getting back to this specific case, all that is really being said is that the cost:benefit of the nMP may notionally have be able to have been made even better had this particular "benefit" been employed, since most (presumably) of its costs were already paid. Of course, this is still just notional and has its own technical assumptions. Specifically, it is being assumed that the cost to wire up those "paid for" SATA ports is reasonably low.
If the "wiring up" cost were to be excessive, then they become not worth bothering with, and what this is driving at is that TB very well might be the cheaper alternative...but even here...
...we all know that eSATA is another technological option to provide a capability, so adding wiring from the board to external port(s) doesn't really sound like all that significant of a cost to be a barrier. What's IMO more likely is that Apple made policy decision that they don't ever want to sell a Mac which comes standard with an eSATA port, even thought that has a benefit potential for some of their customer base.
-hh
There are already much faster disks around that is not supported in the current Mac Pro. This is enterprise gear, often costing many times more than a Mac Pro for a single drive. Not to mention that they often lack OS X drivers.
Yes, there are faster disks out there (FusionIO), but the point is that there is no possible way to maximize the use of these drives. It just pains me to see the new Mac Pro being technologically bottle necked by Thunderbolt 2 even before it is released.
GL
What do you mean there is no possible way to maximize the use?
The point I'm trying to make is that the current model is also bottle necked, if you choose to go out into the land of esoteric enterprise gear. In practical terms it has little baring on the Mac Pro, because it's a different market with different users.
If storage throughput is all you care about there is no reason to restrict yourself to 1 drive. Use multiple FDR InfiniBand cards going to your SSD SAN, it's possible after you spend ~$40,000 on the gear. Oh, there are no InfiniBand drivers for OS X.
I knew you would.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I have zero affiliations with MacVids, or any other real or potential relevant conflicts of interest that require disclosure or recusal.
An amazing claim.
So if one judges something by its merits but not within the context of alternative 'something elses' (which is what you're suggesting, right?), then just how do we know that this new something is 'better'?
Or even any different at all?
I'm sorry, but I'm missing how this could be ever be construed to be anything close to a scientific process at all.
-hh
Rofl such a shame? Why do you care? According to your signature, you don't even use macs. Also tb 2 is too slow, are you trolling or just stupid? 20gigabit/sec is too slow?
The only problem is you seem to feel because the mac pro doesn't include supercomputer-military grade processing abilities, then it's useless. Maybe you'll also lament the lack of quantum-computing technology in it too?
No.
--
I have no idea what you're talking about. It kinda seems like you're purposefully extruding everything, adding things that aren't there at all, and willfully going against common sense assumptions just in order to make a post.
It's like if I were to say: "I like airplanes." you would reply: "I've never wore my pants backwards or inside out - ever! And my paper straws melt even in the air".
I'm like, whaaaat? Huuh?
I can't follow you. You're not making any sense to me.
(And no, that's not a personal attack. I just don't understand you is all.)
Last edited:
Let's try some simple math for you.....
3000MB/s * 8 bits per byte = 24,000Mb/s (or ~24gigabits/sec)
24 Gb/s > 20 Gb/s (Translation: TB2 is too slow)
And if you bothered to look at my signature, you should have also looked at my post history. I have owned many many Macs including several Mac Pros.
Oddly enough, I am a Principal Systems Engineer in the military industrial complex and I am responsible for designing many of the major weapons systems in use today.
Thanks for playing.
GL
No, the forgotten item is that the new Mac Pro is not Haswell.
Ehhhh. That's an enterprise SSD. I think it's probably even going to stay out of the price range for Pros over the next 3 years. It's like expressing disappointment that my house doesn't have a launch pad for when I get a rocket ship.
And a $8-10k computer isn't an "enterprise" workstation? I think adding 40-50% of your budget for storage isn't unheard of.
GL
I'm sorry, you are right. Silly me.
But sadly that means that there are 6 (SIX) SATA ports that have been bought and paid for on each and every new 2013 MP. All 6 (SIX) have simply walled off from use to help teach us to use TB. If we are good and remember to buy TB accessories Apple will give us a fish cookie. If we buy LOTS of TB accessories, Apple may be super nice and give us 2 (TWO) fish cookies.
Thanks for the correction.
And just want to point out that 6 > 4.
Also, I decided to do a quick search...
Here is a PCIe SSD that was released three years ago...
http://www.techpowerup.com/134638/lsi-announces-warpdrive-slp-300-enterprise-pci-e-ssd.html
It has roughly the same performance as the "standard" SSD to be included in the new Mac Pro...at the time it cost over $11,500
So, in 2-3 years from now, well within the Mac Pro's expected life, there will be SSDs with this type of performance in the $500 range. Yet the new Mac Pro will not be able to support it.
My opinion is that bottlenecking the nMP's I/O to TB2 speeds for the entire life of the workstation is a bad decision. Technology moves too fast to artificially limit yourself.
GL
Last edited:
I hope you're not wearing white.
Kool-Aid stains are holy HECK to get out and I see a drenching in your future.
I am unable to recall a time where computers went BACKWARDS in terms of connectivity speeds. Having TB2 replace PCIE is like having FW800 replaced by FW400.