Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)

koyoot said:
So he just have said what most people think currently. Without any substance or proofs, whatsoever.

Why then new Device ID's for new GPUs that are linked to Mac Pro frame buffer with 6 display outputs in macOS Sierra? Maybe it is that people are simply wrong with their thinking?
Click to expand...

At least he heard it from WWDC 2016 from Apple. It is a fact that Mac Pro didn't even updated for almost 3 years which is very ridiculous. This is one evident that Apple aware about their failure from the new Mac Pro due to compatibility, expandability, and performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tuxon86 and Hank Carter
flat five said:
sounds like you have lots of negative things to say about cloud rendering yet you've never actually used it.. is that right?
Click to expand...

No.

I have used cloud rendering services and a friend of mine actually sold his cloud company to a large tech firm. So, yes. I have experience with cloud computing.


well, the 60,000 cores are mostly useless to me.. none of the processes i use can scale to 120,000 threads.. i'm using somewhere between 64 and 128 cores of those supercomputers for a minute or two at a time... not all of it.. the cloud computers are built with super high core counts to allow for a lot of users at any given time.
Click to expand...

If you are rendering for a minute or two at a time the cloud may be financially viable given the budget of your project. But if you are crunching data for hours on end over a prolonged period and the files are dozens or hundreds of gigabytes big then it is financially not a viable solution. Just the upload / download times make it a unworkable solution.

----
re: local workstation.. you need a fast single core for virtually all processes leading up to a rendering.
if you're using a 12 core computer in this type of workflow, it goes like so:
do most of the work (well, ALL of the human work) on a single core at a slower clock speed than would be available on a quad.. render on the 12cores at a much slower rate than available via render farm..
Click to expand...

I use as many cores as possible at my desktop to setup the scene and then send the job to the farm or cloud for final calculation. Why on earth would I want to restrict myself to working on a single core of a multi core machine? To save wear and tear? Are you being serious?

single core clock speed is basically the #1 spec determining how well a 3D modeling application will run.. definitely not amount of cores.
Click to expand...

Maybe with consumer grade software. Professional software is multithreaded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevekr, ssgbryan and tuxon86
mavericks7913 said:
At least he heard it from WWDC 2016 from Apple. It is a fact that Mac Pro didn't even updated for almost 3 years which is very ridiculous. This is one evident that Apple aware about their failure from the new Mac Pro due to compatibility, expandability, and performance.
Click to expand...
I am having extremely hard time believing this at all. For number of reasons.

First and biggest one: Mac Pro 6.1 is not targeted at majority of pros. It is targeted at majority of Apple ecosystem professionals: FCPX, Logic, Photo editing, and Xcode platform with programming powerhouse for iOS and macOS. It is supposed to fit in Apple ecosystem, as the most universal machine performance wise.

Im still baffled why most pros refuse to see where it is aimed at?
 
mattspace said:
Low end Macs are the majority of the machines Apple sells, that's the primary market for the displays, it was the primary market for the previous TB display as well - which wasn't by any means a "pro" display.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to say that the TB display was aimed at Mac laptop users and was not only intended to act as a large external display, but also a basic docking station. Just look at the 'umbilical cord' that ships with the TBD which provides power and connectivity to a Macbook Pro, Macbook Air etc. It's a classic Apple - Jobso design concept
 
  • Like
Reactions: filmak
Hank Carter said:
Just look at the 'umbilical cord' that ships with the TBD which provides power and connectivity to a Macbook Pro, Macbook Air etc. It's a classic Apple - Jobso design concept
Click to expand...

Its absolutely classic Apple design - that non-removable cable is fatally flawed on an important detail, the y split is too short for the macbook air, which has magsafe on the opposite side from thunderbolt, and it'll inevitably break at the strain reliever on the thunderbolt side, necessitating a genius bar service fee to replace it.
 
Hank Carter said:
Maybe with consumer grade software. Professional software is multithreaded.
Click to expand...

Even in "professional software", there are still aspects that are single threaded.

And if you're talking about viewport performance in 3d apps (real time display), the two biggest factors will be the video card and single thread clock speed. Slowness in either one can bottleneck a viewport.
 
I think the Mac Pro has been a failure for Apple and they know it. But since they no longer live and die by the success of the Mac it's more of an annoyance than anything.

I know for a fact that the feedback they have received from the few pro customers (editors) they still speak to has been brutal in regards to the the closed design and reliability issues. But Apple are in a position to just ignore the problem, wait out the product cycle and fix it sometime down the road if they feel charitable.

The failure rate for the 6,1 has been brutal. They must have spent a fortune replacing GPU boards and servicing these machines. I work freelance in post production and have seen nMP units failing at almost every facility I've worked at in the past 1 1/2 years. Usually it's GPU failure after heavy sustained use. Many of us suspect it's thermal related, but Apple did have at least one recall for service due to a bad batch of GPU boards.

I don't think we will see a return to a full blown workstation like the 5,1. We will probably get a slightly more expandable machine with one or more GPU on PCI slots instead of the current proprietary connector and some internal expansion options. Probably one CPU. We're all going to have to drop a bundle on TB2 to TB3 converters. I doubt we will see drive bays and a large box like the 5,1. The price / performance ratio will be mediocre at best, but that will be the price we will have to pay if we want to continue to use OS X instead of Windows.
 
koyoot said:
I am having extremely hard time believing this at all. For number of reasons.

First and biggest one: Mac Pro 6.1 is not targeted at majority of pros. It is targeted at majority of Apple ecosystem professionals: FCPX, Logic, Photo editing, and Xcode platform with programming powerhouse for iOS and macOS. It is supposed to fit in Apple ecosystem, as the most universal machine performance wise.

Im still baffled why most pros refuse to see where it is aimed at?
Click to expand...

Not targeted?? Workstation itself is for highest performance. It's not about targeting but the performance. Then what about previous old mac pro users? You got the biggest point: Mac Pro 2013 lost all compatibility, expandability, and performance just because of the size. Who cares about the size if you are going to use it in house? What about Adobe programs? They are not even in Apple ecosystem at all. The new Mac Pro already had wrong concept for pro users.
[doublepost=1472486977][/doublepost]
Mago said:
Dont think so, A succes or Failure depends on what you pursuit, and I feel Apple aimed rigth with the tcMP.
Click to expand...

But, it did failed a lot of users.
 
mavericks7913 said:
Not targeted?? Workstation itself is for highest performance. It's not about targeting but the performance. Then what about previous old mac pro users? You got the biggest point: Mac Pro 2013 lost all compatibility, expandability, and performance just because of the size. Who cares about the size if you are going to use it in house? What about Adobe programs? They are not even in Apple ecosystem at all. The new Mac Pro already had wrong concept for pro users.
Click to expand...
That is what you think about Mac Pro "should" have been targeted. Apple designs hardware for their ecosystem. People who claim Mac Pro as a failure are missing the point completely. That is first thing. Mac Pro is the most powerful Mac there is.

You talk about Mac Pro from perspective of upgradeable towers. Not what Apple designed it for. It fits perfectly in their philosophy of computer design, it fits perfectly in their lineup, and fits perfectly in the nieche it was targeted at in their ecosystem.

Pros can rumble about lost upgradeability. But without bloody understanding for what it was designed: FCPX, Logic, Xcode, Photo editing, etc you will always came to conclusion that it is a failure. Maybe the only thing that is failed is that people think in regards to what it should be, not what it is?

And no all of this does not mean that Mac Pro should be slow, or weak in terms of performance. In 2013, when it was introduced was most efficient, and offered highest value professionally targeted computer.
 
mavericks7913 said:
http://www.pindelski.com/MacProTurbo/index.html

He mentioned about it.
Click to expand...
Who is this person from that website? If that quote was "true," 1) I think for those who are waiting for nMP wouldn't be here. I haven't heard anything from WWDC mentioning anything about dead nMP.
[doublepost=1472487618][/doublepost]
antonis said:
To be fair, you can add any external audio card to nMP (or to any Mac for that matter). I don't think that - regarding audio cards - the lack of internal upgrades is a real issue. On the other hand, though, I don't see what makes nMP so great for Logic Pro. Well, Logic Pro does run only on Mac, of course, but nMP has no h/w that favors specifically this application any more than any other modern Mac out there. FCPX sure, I hear that the dual GPUs come in handy. But for Logic Pro, I don't really see the true benefit. As a matter of fact, the enforced dual-only gpu (and the relative cost it brings) renders the nMP a non-ideal machine for a musician.

All the arguments regarding the old version of some h/w parts are valid, of course (like tb2 etc). But, let's be honest, the lack of h/w options and upgradeability is an entire Mac product line drawback rather than nMP's.
Click to expand...
As others mentioned, logic would be more of eco-system related...but it doesn't require much power from GPU, does it?
Just need more rams.
But for other programs....yeah...FCPX...
 
koyoot said:
That is what you think about Mac Pro "should" have been targeted. Apple designs hardware for their ecosystem. People who claim Mac Pro as a failure are missing the point completely. That is first thing. Mac Pro is the most powerful Mac there is.

You talk about Mac Pro from perspective of upgradeable towers. Not what Apple designed it for. It fits perfectly in their philosophy of computer design, it fits perfectly in their lineup, and fits perfectly in the nieche it was targeted at in their ecosystem.

Pros can rumble about lost upgradeability. But without bloody understanding for what it was designed: FCPX, Logic, Xcode, Photo editing, etc you will always came to conclusion that it is a failure. Maybe the only thing that is failed is that people think in regards to what it should be, not what it is?

And no all of this does not mean that Mac Pro should be slow, or weak in terms of performance. In 2013, when it was introduced was most efficient, and offered highest value professionally targeted computer.
Click to expand...

Designed for their ecosystem and had a lot of hardware failure? What a joke. They have no choice since it is a new one but it misses too much. If you are talking about the performance cMac Pro has better performance base on its price. Like I said, nMac Pro is too limited and failed product.
 
koyoot said:
I am having extremely hard time believing this at all. For number of reasons.

First and biggest one: Mac Pro 6.1 is not targeted at majority of pros. It is targeted at majority of Apple ecosystem professionals: FCPX, Logic, Photo editing, and Xcode platform with programming powerhouse for iOS and macOS. It is supposed to fit in Apple ecosystem, as the most universal machine performance wise.

Im still baffled why most pros refuse to see where it is aimed at?
Click to expand...
Most pro's voicing their dissatisfaction with the 6,1 Mac Pro know who Apple targeted and it's not them. Hence their dissatisfaction.
 
mavericks7913 said:
Designed for their ecosystem and had a lot of hardware failure? What a joke. They have no choice since it is a new one but it misses too much. If you are talking about the performance cMac Pro has better performance base on its price. Like I said, nMac Pro is too limited and failed product.
Click to expand...
Looking at recent information in threads regarding hang-ups it is directly linked to software issue than hardware.

Because for example reverting the computer back to previous versions of OS X completely eradicates the system wise hangs.

It is limited. Only for you. It also failed. For you. Speak only for yourself. All of your posts have been showing your point of view on this.

ITguy2016 said:
Most pro's voicing their dissatisfaction with the 6,1 Mac Pro know who Apple targeted and it's not them. Hence their dissatisfaction.
Click to expand...
Your point was so genuinely inventive, that I do not know at this very moment what to say, really. I didn't know that, after all!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pat500000
koyoot said:
Looking at recent information in threads regarding hang-ups it is directly linked to software issue than hardware.

Because for example reverting the computer back to previous versions of OS X completely eradicates the system wise hangs.

It is limited. Only for you. It also failed. For you. Speak only for yourself. All of your posts have been showing your point of view on this.
Click to expand...

Not only for me. A lot of pro users who worked in the company who had been using cMac Pro and then nMac Pro but start not to use nMac Pro anymore due to those issues. Stop avoiding the fact that Mac Pro is mis targeted and mis designed.
[doublepost=1472488597][/doublepost]What a terrible design.
 

Attachments

  • macproexpansion-640x375.jpg
    macproexpansion-640x375.jpg
    45 KB · Views: 90
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan
mavericks7913 said:
Not only for me. A lot of pro users who worked in the company who had been using cMac Pro and then nMac Pro but start not to use nMac Pro anymore due to those issues. Stop avoiding the fact that Mac Pro is mis targeted and mis designed.
Click to expand...
I am not avoiding this. Actually I have written that it was not designed for the target that was used to previous generation of Mac Pro.

It is isn't badly designed. It must fit in Apple's ecosystem, it must be efficient, it must bring highest possible performance in strict thermal envelope, and must be quiet.

And again: I actually agree with one thing, the GPU problems. But they are hard to diagnose where the problem lies. Reports say that reverting back to previous versions of macOS completely eradicates the hangs of display drivers.
 
koyoot said:
I am not avoiding this. Actually I have written that it was not designed for the target that was used to previous generation of Mac Pro.

It is isn't badly designed. It must fit in Apple's ecosystem, it must be efficient, it must bring highest possible performance in strict thermal envelope, and must be quiet.

And again: I actually agree with one thing, the GPU problems. But they are hard to diagnose where the problem lies. Reports say that reverting back to previous versions of macOS completely eradicates the hangs of display drivers.
Click to expand...

Not even efficient for apple ecosystem. What about video, graphic, design, and more? They require more RAM, better and more GPU, better cooling system, better or dual CPU, and more. For that it is limited. Also for external expansion, thunderbolt 2 is rare and not usable till thunderbolt 3 come out. Power cord on each external expansion is +. It's not targeting but abandon other pro users after all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan
mavericks7913 said:
Not even efficient for apple ecosystem. What about video, graphic, design, and more? They require more RAM, better and more GPU, better cooling system, better or dual CPU, and more. For that it is limited. Also for external expansion, thunderbolt 2 is rare and not usable till thunderbolt 3 come out. Power cord on each external expansion is +. It's not targeting but abandon other pro users after all.
Click to expand...
The problem for Mac Pro currently is that it was not updated since 2013. If it would have hardware from 2016 the problems would just jump into other things. Like, for example: It has space gray color of external case and I wanted Pink! It is bad design! How awful, awful design it is!

You get the analogy?
 
koyoot said:
The problem for Mac Pro currently is that it was not updated since 2013. If it would have hardware from 2016 the problems would just jump into other things. Like, for example: It has space gray color of external case and I wanted Pink! It is bad design! How awful, awful design it is!

You get the analogy?
Click to expand...

So funny. It won't still gonna have dual cpu, better gpu, better cooling system, PCIE slots, more RAM, and etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back