Apparently HP thinks so as the Z840 can be configured with dual 18 core processors.
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.
Wanting to get a nMP soon. when is the 7,1 coming out?
- Thread starter Korican100
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apparently HP thinks so as the Z840 can be configured with dual 18 core processors.
The Z840 doesn't run IMovie....
/jk
Seriously, though, the MP6,1 is really the "Mac Prosumer" model. This is fine, but just because Apple decided not to stay at the leading edge doesn't mean that the leading edge isn't needed by some people.
that is a $24k machine, which is even bigger than the classic mac pro.
We have those in our Avid edit suites and they are very capable machines.
However, IME I'd not put HP on the same level of quality as Apple.
We make regular full back ups of the Z840's because for whatever reason they tend to fail out from under us several times a year. Usually during a world series or super bowl.
There is also no dual GPU equivalent on the Z840 side. Not saying it doesnt exist, but their higher powered GPUs are all Quadros not FirePros.
Apple explicitly stated the entire point of the NMP was to shift processing power from CPU to GPU and use OpenCL. Nvidia doesnt play that. And apparently your darling HP doesnt use AMD except as it's entry level card.
We're both spouting anecdotal evidence here but I've not encountered a single problem with the HPs (and Boxx) I've been working on the past couple of years. And there's nothing stopping anyone from throwing some Firepros in any of those machines if they want. Not sure why you're implying that's an Apple benefit.
They may have a good point with backing OpenCL, but it's the developers who ultimately decide that and CUDA still wins out in many arenas. Besides, CUDA may be Nvidia's bread and butter, but it's not like they don't support OpenCL.
Again for me too: Put a Z600 into the same room as a 6,1 and find out yourself. Open up and upgrade both too also. I have worked on many Z systems for years as I do both Mac and Windows and am a specialist in bridging both.
Last edited:
First, lose the attitude. My comment was intended to address whether multiple CPU configurations were still necessary given the high core counts current processors are able to achieve. It was not intended to pit Apple versus HP. It was merely to say HP thinks multiple CPU configurations are still desirable given they offer two workstation configurations that permit them.
With that said I'll address your irrelevant, to my post, comments:
"that is a $24k machine"
And? It's a workstation class system intended for professional use. You know that whole "Time is money" thing we keep hearing about when it comes to the Mac Pro. It offers 36 cores with 72 threads. But if you want to buy one I believe they start out at a lower price point than the nMP.
"which is even bigger than the classic mac pro."
Again: And? It's a workstation class system intended for professional use. It's considerably more configurable than the nMP. The only people who seem to care about size are nMP users who had no issues with size until the nMP was released. Now it appears to be the only thing that matters to them even if it comes at the cost of functionality. But if size is important than I suggest looking at a Z440 system...it's a much more comparable system to the nMP than the Z6x0 and Z8x0 series systems.
"However, IME I'd not put HP on the same level of quality as Apple. "
Why am I not surprised? The Z series workstations are quality systems with a proven record of reliability. Only someone in denial would think otherwise.
"We make regular full back ups of the Z840's because for whatever reason they tend to fail out from under us several times a year."
That's impressive given they were just released within the last month.
"There is also no dual GPU equivalent on the Z840 side. Not saying it doesnt exist, but their higher powered GPUs are all Quadros not FirePros."
Here we go with the "If it's not done exactly like Apple did it then it is irrelevant". The Z8x0 series (along with the lower end z6x0) series can accept multiple, high end video cards. The fact they may not be exactly what Apple is offering doesn't negate the fact they can be configured with dual, high end video cards. In fact many people would argue the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 is a better card than the FirePros. But you know what? If you really want what Apple is offering there's nothing preventing you from buying a couple FirePro's and installing them in a Z840 system.
----------
I also find my cMP to be a very quiet system. I'm not sure I understand why owners of nMP think their systems are the only quiet systems around. Even my trusty Gateway Q6600 from 2007 is whisper quiet (though it's not in the same league as the Z series or Mac Pro's). Somehow Mac users have got it in their minds only Macs are quiet.
Mine is too, I keep mine pretty clear of dust and with the thermal paste done by me it runs cool.
However the first nMP I ever setup I put on my office desk, underneath was my 3,1 and I have 3 other windows systems in the office.
On full twin GPU load in Win 8 it is far, far quieter than anything I have apart from the HP EX495 microserver, which has just the one tiny fan inside it a passively cooled 65w Q9550S CPU so rather a lesser beast than a single core Xeon workstation
For what they are they are brilliant - but they are no cMP which by far I prefer!
I guess this is my issue with it. I don't find it that impressive given the tradeoffs Apple made with it. I don't feel it's really comparable to either the cMP, the Z8x0, or the Z6x0 systems. Perhaps the Z4x0 is the best comparison.Mine is too, I keep mine pretty clear of dust and with the thermal paste done by me it runs cool.
However the first nMP I ever setup I put on my office desk, underneath was my 3,1 and I have 3 other windows systems in the office.
On full twin GPU load in Win 8 it is far, far quieter than anything I have apart from the HP EX495 microserver, which has just the one tiny fan inside it a passively cooled 65w Q9550S CPU so rather a lesser beast than a single core Xeon workstation
For what they are they are brilliant - but they are no cMP which by far I prefer!
Last edited:
The Dell Precision T3610 is also similar in power to the MP6,1, except that it isn't sold with E5-26xx v2 CPUs.
http://www.overclock3d.net/articles/gpu_displays/amd_r9_390x_fiji_gpu_specs_leaked/1
Here comes the most important part of new Mac Pro, and the only unknown we had.
R9 390X/FirePro D710 would be a beast.
Here comes the most important part of new Mac Pro, and the only unknown we had.
R9 390X/FirePro D710 would be a beast.
I would reccomend that it perhaps you that have attitude which is better off lost.
We have a lot of Z8XX's.
They are basically the same machine whether you are talking about the 800, 820 or 840. Our procedure for dealing with the flakiness of our Avid/Z800 series suites has remained unchanged since the original Z800, as we saw no improvement in reliability with the 820, and given how shoddy the Elitebooks we used to buy, and the Z220's are in general. I am happy that as a company we are shifting to Dell for PCs and more Apple stuff overall.
I get that you are just pointing out that dual processor workstations exist.
So long as Intel makes chips that can do that, HP and others will makes such boxes. The NMP is obviously not trying to contend with those types of boxes. It leans on GPU power instead.
On a semi-related note, all of our Z800 series boxes have tons of drive slots and card slots...that are empty. I just wanted to point that out for the NMP haters that are so butt hurt over the lack of drive slots and card slots.
If anyone has a solid experience with HP good for them. I can tell you that of our ewaste it is almost all HP gear that died. Sure some Apple stuff goes in there too. When it no longer can be used due to obsolecence (and stupid corporate policy that wont let me donate it to a school or non-profit).
That all said we aren't speccing NMP's for any of our creatives next year. Why? The most goofy reason. No Kensington Lock Slot! We simply don't have room in most of our edit suites to install lockable cases in lieu of a cable lock. We kind of did want these for our After Effects positions too.
Instead we are going to sit on our current HP's and Classic Mac Pros for a year and instead are spending IT budget on much more mundane upgrades.
Wow "butt hurt" - haven't seen that in awhile.
How's the homophobia treating you?
Really? What part of the following comment, which wasn't directed at you, leads you to this conclusion:
"Apparently HP thinks so as the Z840 can be configured with dual 18 core processors."
You seem to be the only one. Everyone else holds them up as solid, reliable systems. With that said if you have so many problems with them why do you keep buying them?
Irrelevant to my point.
You seem to be the only one. Everyone else holds them up as solid, reliable systems.
Another example of form of function.
I agree, it's in a class by itself and nowhere near a replacement for my 3,1 or any cMP. It's an insanely quiet, very powerful compact dual GPU single socket xeon workstation that only uses 438w. With the d700 the best new Macintosh gaming rig you can buy.
Hence why when one comes up I will be going 5,1 dual, as its only bootcamp ahci issues with Intel rst and >2.2tb drives that I have to replace it as other than that I am still satisfied with my 3,1.
Yet all of the competitors can also run dual GPUs (if not more). Apple is certainly trying to compete with those other boxes.
Apple made a decision, and that decision was size.
Sure, and if you really want to go nuts you can configure a 4 processor machine with 72 cores. Yet even the old Mac Pro never shipped with a 4 CPU config.
There have always been CPU markets Apple has chosen not to play in. I bet a primary driver was a lack of sales for the 12 core oMP.
My comment wasn't intended to say Apple should compete in this space. It was merely to address your comment regarding whether there is a need for such configurations. Clearly there is given HP is selling not one but two models which support such configurations.
I've always wondered about the cost efficacy of those "fringe" SKUs as well. Admittedly thanks to the mysteries of After Effects it doesn't make much sense to go with high-core count systems as I'll often be left with renders that are faster turning multi-processing off, but I'd feel like even if you can afford $50K workstations, they're still going to "decay" insofar as capabilities at a similar rate as lower-end stuff, and your cost/year when you change them out will be higher. Or, more practically from my end, I would probably be better off getting two lower-specced six-core Mac Pros than a single 8-core BTO SKU, just because I can have two editors working on machines that are faster than what they replace.* A monster workstation isn't as helpful as more, cheaper, and plentiful workstations for me.
Sadly seems like the MacRumors forums don't have many of the people who could provide varied answers to my questions
*The same can be said for buying iMacs as well; on a recent deadline for a big conference we were producing the multimedia for, a 2012 iMac was far more useful than an '08 and '09 Mac Pro at renders and playback of multiple 1080p video tiles. While you lose some flexibility due to PCIe slots, etc., I think Thunderbolt has removed most of the reasons for PCI cards in our environment. So depending on how you break it down it's probably far more economical to just buy a new iMac every X years than upgrade an old or new Mac Pro and try and keep it for longer.
I've always wondered about the cost efficacy of those "fringe" SKUs as well. Admittedly thanks to the mysteries of After Effects it doesn't make much sense to go with high-core count systems as I'll often be left with renders that are faster turning multi-processing off, but I'd feel like even if you can afford $50K workstations, they're still going to "decay" insofar as capabilities at a similar rate as lower-end stuff, and your cost/year when you change them out will be higher. Or, more practically from my end, I would probably be better off getting two lower-specced six-core Mac Pros than a single 8-core BTO SKU, just because I can have two editors working on machines that are faster than what they replace.* A monster workstation isn't as helpful as more, cheaper, and plentiful workstations for me.
Sadly seems like the MacRumors forums don't have many of the people who could provide varied answers to my questions
*The same can be said for buying iMacs as well; on a recent deadline for a big conference we were producing the multimedia for, a 2012 iMac was far more useful than an '08 and '09 Mac Pro at renders and playback of multiple 1080p video tiles. While you lose some flexibility due to PCIe slots, etc., I think Thunderbolt has removed most of the reasons for PCI cards in our environment. So depending on how you break it down it's probably far more economical to just buy a new iMac every X years than upgrade an old or new Mac Pro and try and keep it for longer.
There is a point of diminishing returns with higher and higher core counts. Few workstation applications can fully utilize 12 cores let alone more. So Apple's decision to remain single socket is reasonable.
As for iMac versus older pro systems what's top of the line today is middle of the road tomorrow and bottom end next week. That's the nature of technology. However there are other factors to consider...heat being a primary one...at least when it comes to the iMac, Mini, and laptops. I have a top of the line 2012 rMBP which Geekbenchs considerably faster than my 2010 Quad Core Mac Pro. While these systems are very close in processor core counts (each having four cores and two threads per core) and clock speed (rMBP @ 2.7GHz with the Mac Pro @ 2.8GHz) the Mac Pro walks over the rMBP when it comes to Handbrake. Most likely due to thermal throttling. Perhaps a Core i7 4770 would outperform the Mac Pro if it were in a system where thermal throttling wouldn't be an issue.
That's a fair point. At least in my experience, the performance gap is such between the Mac Pros we have and the newer iMacs that it easily swallows whatever's being lost by throttling
Sometime soon I'll have to run some A to A tests with my home 5,1 to see how close the times are.That's a fair point. At least in my experience, the performance gap is such between the Mac Pros we have and the newer iMacs that it easily swallows whatever's being lost by throttling
I'd be very much interested in those results (along with the configs). My testing was limited to one 30 minute video transcode so take it with a grain of salt.