MP 7,1 What do you plan to do with the imminent release of the 2019 Mac Pro

[arch1t3cton]

The "low-end" Threadripper 3960X specifications are pretty clear:

24 cores @ 3.8Ghz base clock (before OC) vs 28 cores @ 3.0Ghz base clock (4 more cores, but running at around 20% slower - not to mention a lower IPC)

88 PCIe 4.0 lanes vs 48 PCIe 3.0 lanes (WX Navi workstation cards are now available for TR. Apple? - still on Vega - in addition, TR has the ability to use Nvidia cards, if your workflow requires it.)

142.25Mb cache vs 24.75Mb cache

3200Mhz ram vs 2933Mhz ram

The ability to move to a 32 core/64 thread TR running @3.7Ghz base is yet another advantage. As is the ability to move to Zen 3 based TRs at the end of 2020 (SMT-4, hmmmm.....)

Of course, if your workflow is Ride or die with AVX-512 then Intel is still (and should be) the preferred choice.

This

 

[thisisnotmyname]

This

https://medium.com/performance-at-i...t-matters-real-world-performance-b16c47b11a01

This

 

[bob_stan]

Everytime I read the title of this thread with "Imminent Release" I am reminded of the line from the Princess Bride - " I do not think that word means what you think it means......."

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Mac Pro 2019 is about to be released so I thought I'd start a totally unbiased poll asking what you plan to do with the announcement. Pick your favorite completely neutral option from this defined list while it lasts! :-D

First of all, the poll options rock. I am a filthy bare metal virtualizer.

Mojave should still work just fine in VirtualBox…

Without dedicated GPU acceleration is increasingly a problem.

You will probably have a lot of company. The Dune Pro case would make an excellent enclosure to hide other peripherals inside too. In fact I thought about doing that.

Definitely. Throw a Cyclone or OSS backplane in there and stack multiple GPUs.

 

[arch1t3cton]

https://medium.com/performance-at-i...t-matters-real-world-performance-b16c47b11a01

This

https://www.servethehome.com/intel-...blishing-intentionally-misleading-benchmarks/


This

 

[edgerider]

you forgot a very likely possibility:
wait 1-2 year to find a used one in it’s minimal configuration that will be slower that a imac, buy it for 4000€ and upgrade it with a 18core xeon from ebay and two rx5700pro and call it a day!

 

[thisisnotmyname]

https://www.servethehome.com/intel-...blishing-intentionally-misleading-benchmarks/


This

If you read the first linked article you would see that it had already been updated based upon that feedback and found "no material difference" in the results.

 

[arch1t3cton]

If you read the first linked article you would see that it had already been updated based upon that feedback and found "no material difference" in the results.

They say no such thing. Read it more carefully.

Or, instead of trying to guesstimate performance results, wait a couple of days for the actual reviews.

Most reviewers are already talking about a landslide victory for AMD.

Hard to fathom, I know, but it’s best to know the facts before you make any purchase decisions.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

They say no such thing. Read it more carefully.

Or, instead of trying to guesstimate performance results, wait a couple of days for the actual reviews.

Most reviewers are already talking about a landslide victory for AMD.

Hard to fathom, I know, but it’s best to know the facts before you make any purchase decisions.

[Update on November 6] We received feedback on our original blog and appreciate the community’s passion about performance and the accuracy of benchmarks. Intel is committed to always provide fair, transparent, and accurate performance results. Taking the community’s feedback, we have updated this blog with data for the most recent GROMACS 2019.4 version and found no material difference to earlier data posted on 2019.3 version.

Well you'd have to read all the way to the first paragraph but they do indeed "say such thing." Feel free to provide the counter-data you have, pretty telling that even the article you cited didn't do so, they just complained about using a 30 day old version of one piece of software and speculated that the results would change without actually performing the test themselves.

the more you know...

edit to add: still waiting for you to cite data in support of your position rather than just speculation from "reviews to be released in the next couple days."

 

[arch1t3cton]

Well you'd have to read all the way to the first paragraph but they do indeed "say such thing." Feel free to provide the counter-data you have, pretty telling that even the article you cited didn't do so, they just complained about using a 30 day old version of one piece of software and speculated that the results would change without actually performing the test themselves.



the more you know...



edit to add: still waiting for you to cite data in support of your position rather than just speculation from "reviews to be released in the next couple days."

You really should have read the article more carefully.

Publishing incorrect information is misleading, but Intel maintains that given its test setup above, it still was directionally correct on its numbers. We do not have a Platinum 9282 system in the lab for our team to run comparisons on, so at some point, we look to Intel for those numbers and it is up to us and our readers to decide whether the optimizations Intel presented are acceptable.



The best comparison for the AMD EPYC 7742 to Intel’s lineup is the Platinum 8280. Comparing the EPYC 7742 to the Platinum 9282 is probably not the comparison that is the most useful, however, it is a story that Intel is pushing. Intel is being very aggressive in providing support for the Xeon Platinum 9282 and there are going to be cases where it is able to beat a lower power chip. That is Intel’s story to tell whether many would agree with that comparison or not.

At the end of the day, to increase accuracy, Intel needs to implement a better publishing process to bridge the gap between the work that their benchmarking teams do, and what they show publicly.

Also the information you provided are about a yet unreleased, server class platform, not relevant to the upcoming Mac Pro 7.1.

AMD EPYC is also not suitable for workstations like the Mac Pro line.

Please stop trying to steer the conversation off topic.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

You really should have read the article more carefully.






Also the information you provided are about a yet unreleased, server class platform, not relevant to the upcoming Mac Pro 7.1.

AMD EPYC is also not suitable for workstations like the Mac Pro line.

Please stop trying to steer the conversation off topic.

The article you linked wasn't maintaining that Intel's numbers were bad but that they painted AMD in an unfair light and the person who posted it stated they had AMD's hardware so why didn't they reproduce the AMD side of things and show numbers that blow Intel out of the water? (answer: Intel redid those aspects of the tests and showed no material difference, makes it tough to cry about injustice if the results still show AMD losing)

All their issues were addressed which then seems to come down to just the same issue all AMD fanboys seem to have and we see echo'ed here over and over by the vocal minority that dislike the 2019 Mac Pro, "Intel is more expensive and I can't afford it." OK, fine, Intel processors are significantly more money, you are free to buy a cheap AMD based system and run Windows/*nix all day long. Raw numbers will look great even if it loses in actual workflows to Intel. It will fit your budget though and get the job done so no harm no foul, enjoy.

 

[arch1t3cton]

The article you linked wasn't maintaining that Intel's numbers were bad but that they painted AMD in an unfair light and the person who posted it stated they had AMD's hardware so why didn't they reproduce the AMD side of things and show numbers that blow Intel out of the water? (answer: Intel redid those aspects of the tests and showed no material difference, makes it tough to cry about injustice if the results still show AMD losing)

All their issues were addressed which then seems to come down to just the same issue all AMD fanboys seem to have and we see echo'ed here over and over by the vocal minority that dislike the 2019 Mac Pro, "Intel is more expensive and I can't afford it." OK, fine, Intel processors are significantly more money, you are free to buy a cheap AMD based system and run Windows/*nix all day long. Raw numbers will look great even if it loses in actual workflows to Intel. It will fit your budget though and get the job done so no harm no foul, enjoy.

This is not what the article says though. You’re pulling sentences out of context to justify your narrative.

Bottom line. The top of the line Mac Pro will be slower than low end Threadripper.

If brand loyalty is more important to you than workstation performance then that’s your problem. I hope you’re happy with your choices.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

This is not what the article says though. You’re pulling sentences out of context to justify your narrative.

Bottom line. The top of the line Mac Pro will be slower than low end Threadripper.

If brand loyalty is more important to you than workstation performance then that’s your problem. I hope you’re happy with your choices.

Show me where I'm wrong.

You still haven't cited anything to show that "the top of the line Mac Pro will be slower than low end Threadripper." Citation needed.

 

[arch1t3cton]

Show me where I'm wrong.

You still haven't cited anything to show that "the top of the line Mac Pro will be slower than low end Threadripper." Citation needed.

I think TR reviews are coming out on Monday. I’m not sure about XEON W reviews. Maybe the 27th?

Do you have any reviews you’d like to share with us?

and I mean reviews not leaks or marketing bs.

 

[StuAff]

Everytime I read the title of this thread with "Imminent Release" I am reminded of the line from the Princess Bride - " I do not think that word means what you think it means......."

Inconceivable.

Had to be done

 

[ssgbryan]

TR reviews are out.

Stick a fork in 'em - Intel is done. (At least until they get their 10nm process straightened out.)

 

[retta283]

There does not seem to be a poll option that says I will buy a few months after release. I am considering purchasing one for work to replace my current MP which needs a new HDD and is generally out of date. I will not be spending a full $6,000 of my own money on it luckily. But I am also concerned, as I am not a big fan of the direction macOS has been on for a while. I may end up building a Windows alternative for work and continuing with my iMac on Sierra at home for a while longer.

 

[iGobbleoff]

There does not seem to be a poll option that says I will buy a few months after release. I am considering purchasing one for work to replace my current MP which needs a new HDD and is generally out of date. I will not be spending a full $6,000 of my own money on it luckily. But I am also concerned, as I am not a big fan of the direction macOS has been on for a while. I may end up building a Windows alternative for work and continuing with my iMac on Sierra at home for a while longer.

I think I'm in this boat. I'm about to move from working at home to an office with a Rack, so I'm even thinking the rack mount also to serve my needs. I'm in no mega rush, a lot of the work I do is Windows based (CAD) and have a Z800 serving my needs at the moment, but it'll be nice to get a new Mac or two also. If anything, I might bite the bullet around mid-year, being just before tax time here.

 

[Marshall73]

I will be installing at least 4 of these for a client so that’s as close as I will likely ever get. They have a £250k budget which should just cover their build requirements.

 

[Average Pro]

Go to B&H, select one MacPro and one Pro Display XDR, add to cart, proceed to checkout, make the payment and wait for the items to arrive.

 

[DoofenshmirtzEI]

Would like to watch. Link, please?

Any talk given by Eric Brandwine is well worth the watch (I also like his 0x32 Shades of #070707 talk).
[automerge]1575338936[/automerge]

I think you're being sarcastic but I wouldn't put it past someone to do this. Apple users are often put up as the poster children for superficial focus on looks yet the fact that Dune exists if proof that there's at least one audience even more shallow still.

I suspect anybody who would buy a Dune case would qualify as what my cousin's girlfriend calls "Premium Cheapskate".

 

[ct2k7]

@thisisnotmyname 'imminent'

 

[Macintosh IIcx]

Yeah, imminent release my ass...

 

[rpmurray]

https://medium.com/performance-at-i...t-matters-real-world-performance-b16c47b11a01

This

https://www.semiaccurate.com/2019/11/05/intel-messaging-hits-a-new-low/
https://www.servethehome.com/intel-...blishing-intentionally-misleading-benchmarks/


These

 

[Korican100]

1. the MacPro 2013 was announced at WWDC June 2013, released december 19,2013 (announced 1 day prior to release on the 18th)
2. the iMacPro 2017 was announced at WWDC June 2017, released december 14th 2017 (announced two days prior to release on the 12th)
3. the MacPro 2019 was announced at WWDC June 2019, released ??