And yet, many pros want more, or in some cases simply different, with the flexibility that comes from using standard PCI slots with the option of two CPUs, like the cMPs had.
There are workstations for sale by other companies with up to a TB of RAM. 128 is nice, more than I personally need, but there are pros who need more and Apple won't make that available. It's also DDR3, when DDR4 has been out for quite a while.
12 cores is actually kind of pathetic these days. HP makes a very popular workstation now with up to 44 cores. No amount of exclamation marks after the number twelve will make up for that huge gap in performance.
Thunderbolt adds significant additional cost compared to internal storage. Those chassis are not cheap, and lead to a rats nest of cables in what was once contained in a neat box for no extra cost.
The two GPUs were a year old when Apple decided to relabel them and pass them off as fancy and new. Also, they're underclocked. Why? Because Apple made a computer designed for form instead of function. They are certainly nothing to brag about four years later, and as I said, a 2010-2012 Mac Pro can run circles around them in terms of GPU compute.
eGPU? Don't make me laugh. Even if TB had the bandwidth PCI does, it still requires very expensive additional hardware, just to provide functionality that was included in the box in the previous Mac Pro.
Well, I agree that thunderbolt devices are cost prohibitive. But, that's only really where I agree with you. 44 cores? I'm an aspiring video editor, and 44 cores (88 threads) sounds like I would be able to edit anything I want at super fast speeds. But, it won't make me more efficient or better or make me more money. I don't think content creation in this level is in that micro level in terms of money, time and CPU core counts.
I like the form of the new Mac Pro. And doesn't it function what it is intended to do?
I mean, if you're buying a workstation level PC, you're not looking at cost of PCI devices vs. Thunderbolt devices. Are you?
[doublepost=1477605612][/doublepost]
10% annual increases over a year add up to 77% overall increase. Sounds like a worthwhile upgrade to me.
Well, Apple is probably releasing a new Mac Pro next year. They need time to be able to deliver them to their consumers, which is why Apple does not follow the time frame that PC's have when x99 products are released. I think they follow the Xeon time frame.... So, whenever that is. Probably next year.
Like I said, they can't just release new Mac Pro's with new Xeons like HP has because Apple makes more Mac Pro's I think and needs more of them than HP does. I'm guessing.
The availability is not there!
But, Apple will release a new Mac Pro. I think the hold up this time was not Xeons from Intel. But, probably viable GPU's from AMD. Polaris GPU's only became readily available this summer. And, the gpu's needed for a workstation like a Mac Pro is probably the Vega one which AMD is not releasing until next year.
I think people would be disappointed if Apple released a new Mac Pro this fall with like two RX 480 equivalent GPU's, which is the fastest GPU appropriate for Mac Pro enclosure available today. I think the Fury line, even though it's a generation old and will be fast in Open CL operations runs power hungry and hot!
