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.
MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macpro 2016
- Sort by reaction score
I have to say. I laughed my ass off with this
. First, did you gave any evidence to credit your claims. All you did is Trumpish: "People say..."
I have to say. I laughed my ass off with this
All you did is Trumpish: "People say..."
https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/the-new-mac-pro-is-a-failure
I have to laugh too since you also have lack of infos with your reasons.
Well everything would be fine if it would be written in 2013 or early 2014, when the computers actually shipped. In 2015, and 2016 we have still the same machine that was available in that time. And because of it hasn't been updated since that time the concerns are raised.
Which is fair enough. Nobody in their own mind would look at MP in 2016 and say that it is great machine spec wise. There are many better. But it has nothing to do with design of the computer.
There are actually only 5 GPUs in the world in 2016 that have better performance per watt ratio than 2013 Mac Pro, for example. People that have bought in in 2014 are still happily using it, without any problems, because it is actually pretty fast machine still.
October is the date of supposedly next Apple event on which Apple can introduce updated Mac Pro. And quoting myself, even if it will be updated, the problems will shift to for example color of the external case. Is it bad design then?
Only for those who think about it that way. Which is fair enough. There are however people who enjoy that design, like for example fellow forum user, linuxcooldude. Mostly I see the concerns about the computer form people who do not own the computer at all. People who own it have quite different point of view on it. Which is very interesting context, don't you think?
Which is fair enough. Nobody in their own mind would look at MP in 2016 and say that it is great machine spec wise. There are many better. But it has nothing to do with design of the computer.
There are actually only 5 GPUs in the world in 2016 that have better performance per watt ratio than 2013 Mac Pro, for example. People that have bought in in 2014 are still happily using it, without any problems, because it is actually pretty fast machine still.
October is the date of supposedly next Apple event on which Apple can introduce updated Mac Pro. And quoting myself, even if it will be updated, the problems will shift to for example color of the external case. Is it bad design then?
Only for those who think about it that way. Which is fair enough. There are however people who enjoy that design, like for example fellow forum user, linuxcooldude. Mostly I see the concerns about the computer form people who do not own the computer at all. People who own it have quite different point of view on it. Which is very interesting context, don't you think?
Many people aren't very interested in performance per watt. That seems to be something limited to Mac Pro users and only since Apple released the 6,1 Mac Pro.
Your example is ridiculous. It trivializes the very valid concerns pre 6,1 Mac Pro users have with the 6,1 Mac Pro.
Perhaps they don't own it because it doesn't meet their needs? And the people who own it, unsurprisingly, like it because it meets their needs...which is why they bought it.
I do not think Apple cares about "most" people interests. They seem to have designed the computer for that specific user, who does enjoy highest possible efficiency from each watt consumed. Apart from other key things about MP6.1 like for example silence.
I thought that you are intelligent enough to understand simple analogy to the situation, without any specifics?
Well, that is the point from the beginning. Which appears that people who complain about Mac Pro 6.1 design, let alone the specs, are missing. It is bad design only for those people, who miss the design of MP5.1 and previous. It is not bad design in essence. So I am glad that I have made it clear, that even half witted ape can understand this point.
Only for those people? Because of that design, they force to use thunderbolt 2 which is still not even common cable yet and become more messy with parts, cables, and more.
My 5,1 is, for all intents and purposes, silent. As for efficiency they could have made it more efficient by offering a single graphics card solution. Apparently they're not that interested in efficiency. They were going for the cool factor. They got you hook, line, and sinker.
I am...which is why I say it's a poor analogy.
Yes, in essence they made a cool looking, somewhat powerful computer. Which is why people are dissatisfied with it. They placed form over function.
[doublepost=1472493901][/doublepost]
At the same time moving all the power consumption and noise to external devices. 6,1 Mac Pro is only more efficient / quieter than the 5,1 because it does less. Configure it, through external peripherals, to do some of the things the tower used to do and that efficiency / quietness evaporates.
So it is a bad thing to have something future oriented?
I think that the computer would have the same 27 GFLOPs/watt with one D700 as with two FP D700's. The closest GPU that came to this efficiency level in 2014 was GTX 970 with 24.5 GFLOPs/watt.
I do not want to comment on this
. Or I will. You did not get the analogy, if your response was so serious .Somewhat powerful? There was no GPU that would be able to output 7 TFLOPs of compute power in 258W thermal envelope in 2014. Only 2015 have brought us there with Fiji GPUs.
Again. There is only 5 GPUs in the world that are more powerful than Mac Pro from 2013(!) was.
About function. I think the design goals are perfectly reflecting what it has to be. Small, Efficient, externally expandable computer. That is its function. Whole point of this discussion started from misunderstanding this by the "pro's".
So it is a bad thing to have something future oriented?
I think that the computer would have the same 27 GFLOPs/watt with one D700 as with two FP D700's. The closest GPU that came to this efficiency level in 2014 was GTX 970 with 24.5 GFLOPs/watt.
I do not want to comment on this
Somewhat powerful? There was no GPU that would be able to output 7 TFLOPs of compute power in 258W thermal envelope in 2014. Only 2015 have brought us there with Fiji GPUs.
Again. There is only 5 GPUs in the world that are more powerful than Mac Pro from 2013(!) was.
About function. I think the design goals are perfectly reflecting what it has to be. Small, Efficient, externally expandable computer. That is its function. Whole point of this discussion started from misunderstanding this by the "pro's".
Future oriented? Like having only one USB-C port on Macbook? Only lighting port on iPhone 7? Selling better charger separately for iPad Pro? lol.
And what all of this has anything to do with Thunderbolt? Have you been sleeping last months and missed the situation of TB?
None of which changes the fact there are two video cards resulting in double the power consumption. If Apple really wanted to reduce power consumption they could have omitted one of the video cards.
It's a stupid analogy. Attempting to say others do not understand it is not going to change that. We understand it which is why I am saying it's stupid.I do not want to comment on this
Again...most people don't care.
The problem is it doesn't have to be what it is. It's what it is because Apple decided to make it that way. Form over function.
Ridiculous feature that Apple represented to us like adding 6 thunderbolt ports which isn't good.
Am I being trolled right now? O_O I think it is time to stop responding to your posts.
Exactly the point I was making. Only you are making from the computer design the problem. It is not the matter of computer.
Efficiency is highest possible performance in smallest possible thermal envelope. Which I think for 2013 Mac Pro actually did very good on that front.
It's been of interest since the Power Mac G5. Half that machine was cooling hardware, and you were lucky to get a full 5 years out of one without something in the cooling system dying, especially on the later models.
[doublepost=1472496297][/doublepost]
Ugh. All the fussing about El Capitan. I've set up RAID under El Capitan. Sigh.
One last thing. So why ALL I see in threads regarding GPUs in this very forum, and sub forum, is that most important part of GPU performance is its efficiency? Why do everybody drives their mindshare about particular GPU brands based on the efficiency?
It is a matter of the path Apple chose to take with the design. That is what people are complaining about.
It's easy to make something efficient when you remove capability and/or reduce performance. Want something even more efficient? Purchase a Mac Mini.
[doublepost=1472496969][/doublepost]
I can't comment on those threads as I haven't read them.
[doublepost=1472497223][/doublepost]
It wasn't efficiency they were concerned with. It was Apple wasn't able to increase performance due to heat issues. They even had to resort to water cooling to squeeze out a few hundred extra MHz. Meanwhile over in Intel land clock speed was increasing.
Having said that I'm not saying increase efficiency is a bad thing. However in something considered a workstation the focus on efficiency at the cost of increased capability and / or performance is not something most are concerned with. I've been working with Macs for decades and it wasn't until the 6,1 Mac Pro was released did I see any real concern about efficiency and only from those people defending the form over function of the 6,1 Mac Pro.
It is the fact that El Capitan WAS meant to fix and focus on bugs and errors but didn't fix them properly yet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Remember, that idioms and sayings don't work well between cultures... and especially between different languages.
This was a great attack ... long time to happen in here.
Peace.
Please calm down, we 're going to lose this thread too.
OS6-OSX we urgently need a graphic here...
long time to happen in here.Peace.
Please calm down, we 're going to lose this thread too.
OS6-OSX we urgently need a graphic here...Wise Advice guys, we are short in "next Mac Pro" thread names to just re-open another "Waiting for new Trash Can Mac Pro..."This was a great attack ...
Peace.
Please calm down, we 're going to lose this thread too.
There's no denying that the nMP is a fine machine, and quite powerful.
I guess people would be a little less pissed if Apple had at least lowered the price. I mean 3 years, same specs, same price. That's insane. 3 years after it was introduced, this new Mac Pro should cost 50% less by now. If they were chasing new customers, they would have changed its price, at least to reflect the fact that it is now dated. The fact that it's still the same implies they're not very interested in the Mac Pro line these days. I hope they still are though.
I hate these stupid car analogies, but if I'm buying a 2013 model in 2016 even if it's never been used, no way I'm paying the same price as 3 years ago...