Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Completely agree but did they forget to drop the prices? Because it's been 2 years now since the last release...

It might be feasible for a person that's privately buying a single machine with a few additions, unless you need to upgrade 3 of them for your studio, including the imposed external storage.
They never forget about the prices... There are no mistakes there...
About nMP's second iteration probably they forgot.:)
 
You're comparing apples with oranges here: talking about a product that is used more frequently by the average person to a fashion item degree vs a professional customer base.

My point is that price should not be a deciding factor. You don't know what $5000 really means to a nMP purchaser. Apple has always been the expensive choice. So your argument is really more a reflection on your finances. Question, if the old MP are so upgradeable why did you buy a 2012? Why didn't you keep upgrading?

Completely disagree on the phone thing. It's a phone and it's primary functionality hasn't change. If a phone is your status symbol, then you definitely could not afford a $600 phone to begin with.
 
My point is that price should not be a deciding factor. You don't know what $5000 really means to a nMP purchaser. Apple has always been the expensive choice. So your argument is really more a reflection on your finances. Question, if the old MP are so upgradeable why did you buy a 2012? Why didn't you keep upgrading?

Completely disagree on the phone thing. It's a phone and it's primary functionality hasn't change. If a phone is your status symbol, then you definitely could not afford a $600 phone to begin with.

Fine, keep buying Mac Pros as a status symbol. If prices and performance are not a deciding factor for you, well then you are not buying these machines from a business stand point and more like a luxury item, like the iphone. I depend on the OS and its proprietary software.
 
Last edited:
He,he, you complain about cherry picking benchmarks then leave out the 5680 and 5690 12 core machines from multi core.

I just Geekbenched my 5,1 / 3.46GHz / 12-core / 64GB RAM - it registered 2795 single-core / 31,608 multi-core.

I paid under $3K for the system, which included the RAM and an Nvidia GTX 680.

Very pleased with the system AND the price. No need for an overpriced nMP here.
 
Sure hope the rumor that AMD will not be able to source HBM2 chips next year is just that, a rumor.
Otherwise they're doomed for sure.
A 4GB card with HBM1 will hardly qualify as mid range, maybe they can do a high end HBM2 card.
Just to think they gave NVidia HBM2 in a platter just not to be able to come through with their own cards and get beaten by the green team is just too bad.
 
Fine, keep buying Mac Pros as a status symbol. If prices and performance are not a deciding factor for you, well then you are not buying these machines from a business stand point and more like a luxury item, like the iphone. I depend on the OS and its proprietary software.

A real professional knows a computer is a computer. There's not a lot of difference between them when you get down to it. So what about form factor? Own a laptop? If so, you spent more money for less power just so you could take it with you. Sound familiar? Just look at the cost of computing power on the iPhone. Really expensive.

Now we have a portable workstation that you can take with you(without breaking your back). That alone will be worth something for a lot of professionals...just like it was in laptops. You maybe not. Me. Give me the same power as a really nice tower in the size of the nMP. Silent too boot. I'm in.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily. Metal in El Capitan brings 40-50% graphics performance increases. Something not supported in the 2009 Mac Pro, leaving it even further behind.

Well, I just upgraded my cMP 2009 to El Capitan, and the GTX 770 has Metal support :):
.
Metal support.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: scott.n
Swapped the late 2013 imac ( maxed out ) against the late 2013 mac pro base model.

There is a HUGE difference. iMac overheats easily and is extremely loud while rendering.

benchmarks definitely don't tell the whole story.

Exactly. Under sustained heavy load the iMac will throttle back and sounds like a hairdryer.

On single task CPU operations the iMac is faster than the 4-core nMP, but the moment you switch to 64bit multicore operations or the GPU kicks in it's game over for the iMac. Especially when it comes to GPU processing even the D300 nMP will smoke the iMac and won't fry itself in sustained operations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: linuxcooldude
By the way, is it actually possible to run an OS off the thunderbolt interface just like internal drive / boot Pro Tools / Final Cut sessions reliably?

I ran my OS off a raid0 2xSSD on thunderbolt for two years. I used Final Cut Pro x a lot. It's fine. The avg user wouldn't notice a difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: filmak
It's true. I've worked at 50+ companies in the last 10 years. Perhaps 2 actually had spec'd up machines and properly set up.

Companies with

12 core mac pros and 6 gb ram running after effects with no multiprocessing turned on. Unaware that they need 3+ GB per core anyway.

2008 Mac Pros with the stock ATI P.O.S card expecting them to run 3D stuff well ( I have 685gtx which I think the highest you can go on a 2008 and it works great )

5400rpm Drives as a main drive and they are shocked when I've drop an SSD in them.

Actually not understanding that they are probably better off with a High end iMac for a lot of reasons.

Giving artists who ONLY use photoshop or illustrator 12 core machines and 3D guys 4 cores because they are more senior.

Putting in brand new Mac Pros but not updating the monitors - I am talking nMPs running on 1280x720 monitors.

Oh my favourite, not actually really related but using a 2007 Mac mini as a server with a USB2 connection to a 6tb Mybook and making all 10 of their staff open and run 3d files / photoshop and others DIRECTLY from that machine/mybook. And not understanding why it's slower than hell and crashing all the time.

Point is.
Studio managers think they know what will work - but don't have a clue really.
I.T. guys don't understand macs, or if they do don't understand how multiprocessing works or if it's even used in a given bit of software.
Artists often have ZERO idea how an app might need to be set up to use this power anyway.
Editors are even worse as they often use turn key stuff and NEVER muck around with any settings.

This rings true with me. I have seen quite a bit of that in music and entertainment.
 
12 core mac pros and 6 gb ram running after effects with no multiprocessing turned on. Unaware that they need 3+ GB per core anyway.

Right, I think most professionals are aware that running a multi core workstation requires lots of ram (I'm using 24 gigs for my 8 cores), but it is then questionable why Apple offers them at such low stock quantities in the first place? ;)
 
Right, the new Mac Pro is probably perfect for first time adopters, whereas I'd think they'd be better off with an iMac instead considering the performance and what you pay for, especially with single core applications and OS efficiency.

But for steady customers who've stuck with the Mac Pro line up, there is no point in upgrading right now, given what Apple has to offer. I don't buy a Mac for its hardware but the software, though I don't want to flush my money down the toilet, and I can tell you that a lot of other professionals think the same way. If you don't care about these things, than you've never really run a business with their hardware for longer than a couple of months.

The point is I'd like to buy into their new Mac Pro and upgrade my studio Apple hardware but at the moment, they really have nothing to offer that I couldn't replace with the older 2012 and earlier models.

In addition, they ridded their new model of optical drives and upgradable internal storage, and yet don't offer any proprietary housings / cases along with a purchase, which is quite frankly unacceptable, since I really depend on burning blu rays to store away clients' data.

I've always been happy with Apple's Mac Pro model until they introduced the current model.


Its fine if you have other reasons why you don't like/want the new Mac Pro. But then you show benchmarks showing mismatched models, claiming pricing info, then squared by the speed of light for a tri-flux capacitor claim it out performs the base model nMP...lol well you get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ixxx69
Exactly. Under sustained heavy load the iMac will throttle back and sounds like a hairdryer.

On single task CPU operations the iMac is faster than the 4-core nMP, but the moment you switch to 64bit multicore operations or the GPU kicks in it's game over for the iMac. Especially when it comes to GPU processing even the D300 nMP will smoke the iMac and won't fry itself in sustained operations.

Yeah, I had a boss at work with a maxed out iMac always complain it took so long for renders. Short videos are ok, long videos...very slow.

Why would it not be supported ? Slap a supported GPU in and go. Or did you forget that most workstations allow the upgrade of GPUs?

Put 2 @ 970s in and leave nMP EVEN FURTHER BEHIND. (Fixed it for you)

I thought we already had that talk of unsupported PC cards in Mac Pros.
 
Its fine if you have other reasons why you don't like/want the new Mac Pro. But then you show benchmarks showing mismatched models, claiming pricing info, then squared by the speed of light for a tri-flux capacitor claim it out performs the base model nMP...lol well you get it.

Mismatched models? Because I compared 4 with 6 / 8 cores? My intention was to show that models from 2009 (and those were not the pricy ones) are at same level 64-bit multi core performence-wise, assessed by Geekbench, as the entry nMP model for 3.5 grand. What's wrong with that? Or is it forbidden to address that the current entry nMP from 2013 hits the same score as older models from 4 years ago, simply because I don't pick same core number?

So according to your logic, I can't compare the iPhone 6s' performance with the Samsung Galaxy S, because the latter has 8 cores?
 
Mismatched models? Because I compared 4 with 6 / 8 cores? My intention was to show that models from 2009 (and those were not the pricy ones) are at same level 64-bit multi core performence-wise, assessed by Geekbench, as the entry nMP model for 3.5 grand. What's wrong with that? Or is it forbidden to address that the current entry nMP from 2013 hits the same score as older models from 4 years ago, simply because I don't pick same core number?

So according to your logic, I can't compare the iPhone 6s' performance with the Samsung Galaxy S, because the latter has 8 cores?

Don't question his logic, obviously the only fair comparison is a 8 core @ 2.26 Ghz with a GT120.

doesn't seem to realize that Metal runs on the 7950, which IS a supported video card. And while some may not have the courage or technical skills to run a Maxwell card which slaughters anything in a nMP, several hundred have somehow found the strength. (Not anecdotal, unless I have been selling to Space Aliens)

Also forgot to include the 3.33 and 3.46 Ghz 12 Core cMP in his little graph, but complains that you cherry picked. Mr Pot, may I introduce you to Mr. Kettle.
 
Don't question his logic, obviously the only fair comparison is a 8 core @ 2.26 Ghz with a GT120.

doesn't seem to realize that Metal runs on the 7950, which IS a supported video card. And while some may not have the courage or technical skills to run a Maxwell card which slaughters anything in a nMP, several hundred have somehow found the strength. (Not anecdotal, unless I have been selling to Space Aliens)

Also forgot to include the 3.33 and 3.46 Ghz 12 Core cMP in his little graph, but complains that you cherry picked. Mr Pot, may I introduce you to Mr. Kettle.

Sounds like a conspiracy. Truthfully, a gigantic box should win all the time. But who really cares. From a sheer performance it may be slightly cool...but everything else about it is uncool and old. Isn't very practical like moving your computer around with ease.
 
I'm hoping for a mid 2016'ish release of a new Mac Pro. I may be talk the wife into it by then. It is definitely more on the side of want than need though it will definitely be put to use but it's not a must have.
 
Sounds like a conspiracy. Truthfully, a gigantic box should win all the time. But who really cares. From a sheer performance it may be slightly cool...but everything else about it is uncool and old. Isn't very practical like moving your computer around with ease.

It is a workstation, not a portable computer. If want something to move around with ease, that's what the Macbook (Pro) is for.

I'm hoping for a mid 2016'ish release of a new Mac Pro. I may be talk the wife into it by then. It is definitely more on the side of want than need though it will definitely be put to use but it's not a must have.

I really hope that Apple's current Mac product page is of no significance

macpromissing2.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm hoping for a mid 2016'ish release of a new Mac Pro. I may be talk the wife into it by then. It is definitely more on the side of want than need though it will definitely be put to use but it's not a must have.
I think they are just starting to get a little embarrassed by the lack of a newish Mac Pro.

I hope so cause this is an effin drag :D
 
Sure hope the rumor that AMD will not be able to source HBM2 chips next year is just that, a rumor.
Otherwise they're doomed for sure.
A 4GB card with HBM1 will hardly qualify as mid range, maybe they can do a high end HBM2 card.
Just to think they gave NVidia HBM2 in a platter just not to be able to come through with their own cards and get beaten by the green team is just too bad.

I think Zen's performance will decide AMD's future more than HBM..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.