Will there be a new Mac Pro in 2015?

[linuxcooldude]

The Fire Pro D700s are garbage. Just run Cinebech and test it for yourself. I ran it on an 8 core nmp and it scored 84 fps. Even the new 5k iMac with its laptop GPU scored 101. I bought a Windows 10 workstation running dual Nvidia 980 Ti cards and now I'm routinely scoring around 150 fps on the Cinebench Open GL test. And with 20 cores I can render at a usable speed. These kinds of specs exist and don't cost more than the Mac Pro to get. Switching was hard for me emotionally because I always staunchly believed Windows was crap. But in reality Windows works just fine. Some things are better, other things are not as good. But overall I much happier not having to depend on Apple for my hardware needs anymore.

D700 garbage (Snicker) Well, anyway...Cinebench is probably one of the worst benchmarks for testing GPU's. The GPU tests are more bound to the CPU. When you put multiple different video cards in the same machine and get roughly the same GPU score tells all.

Thats why we should not rely 100% on benchmarks. They don't tell the whole story.

 

[Melodist]

i'm not really sure what your graph is supposed to be indicative of.

the 2013 quad isn't $3,700.. it's $3k.. and it's outperforming the more expensive 8core from 2009..

to me, that's showing an improvement but i think you're meaning to say otherwise.
?

Right, i was comparing european prices, got you.

No I mean for someone who bought a Mac Pro in 2009, there is really no point in upgrading unless you like their new design and entirety of its external integration.

And why didn't they bring an update in 2014 or 2015? If I had to take a wild guess, it'd be because they didn't sell enough...

D700 garbage (Snicker) Well, anyway...Cinebench is probably one of the worst benchmarks for testing GPU's. The GPU tests are more bound to the CPU. When you put multiple different video cards in the same machine and get roughly the same GPU score tells all.

Thats why we should not rely 100% on benchmarks. They don't tell the whole story.

so what should we rely on then, your feeling when you are using it? If you buy it more for the feel, design and subtle improvements, then it is a private thing but some people around here have a business to run.

 

[flat five]

Right, i was comparing european prices, got you.

No I mean for someone who bought a Mac Pro in 2009, there is really no point in upgrading unless you like their new design and entirety of its external integration.

i'm not getting the connection you're tying to make regarding 'upgrading' to a 4-core from an 8-core.. (although if you did that between a 2009 mp and a 2013 mp, it would in fact still be a performance upgrade.. albeit slight in certain areas)

but why aren't you comparing a 2009 8-core to a 2013 8-core.. the performance enhancement between the newer and older becomes much more apparent.. it could definitely be considered an upgrade then.

And why didn't they bring an update in 2014 or 2015? If I had to take a wild guess, it'd be because they didn't sell enough...

at least you realize that's nothing but a wild guess

 

[Melodist]

i'm not getting the connection you're tying to make regarding 'upgrading' to a 4-core from an 8-core.. (although if you did that between a 2009 mp and a 2013 mp, it would in fact still be a performance upgrade.. albeit slight in certain areas)

but why aren't you comparing a 2009 8-core to a 2013 8-core.. the performance enhancement between the newer and older becomes much more apparent.. it could definitely be considered an upgrade then.



at least you realize that's nothing but a wild guess

right but that's 3.2 grand in 2009 vs 5 grand in 2013, to get an 8 core machine, and I think it is mostly due to the amd fire pro they force upon everybody.

But why do you have to specifically compare the cores? It is always price vs performance or is it not? Or do we live in an entropy where everybody can buy Apple's 12 core Mac?

I'm saying, this is what you had to pay in 2009 to get this kind of performance, and this is what you pay now and get this.

And if the Mac Pro is only for your private consumption and nothing you depend on, then I understand why we can't convert conversation fractions to a common denominator, because I'm looking at it from a business perspective and not leisure like the iPhone.

And to me funnily, the only machine right now of the new Mac Pro line up that's worth every penny, is the 12 core, the one for 9 grand.

 

[ixxx69]

YYou see, ixxx69 and linuxcooldude are special, their mindset is quite particular and selective, always trying to prove the opposite unless you are happy with what Apple is doing with their Mac Pro line up. I'm guessing they both have bought into the latest model and try to defend it as hard as they can. But everybody is free and entitled to voice their opinion, and I'm glad they've done that, but at some point, when you're trying to convey that this is not the point you're making and they still insist on their previous claim, well then I don't know how to have a desultory conversation anymore.

Another great example of hypocrisy... you're accusing us of having some "particular and selective" mindset when we're two of the most open-minded commenters here. Over and over again I've praised the cMP, have indicated I understand the frustration, have myself struggled with the value proposition of the nMP for my needs, etc., etc.

Yet it is the people here like you who selectively take things out of context, make disingenuous product comparisons, dismiss the idea that anyone could like the nMP, and relentless bash it over and over again in nearly every post... as you'e clearly demonstrated over the last few pages of this thread.

Then you spout completely garbage about what I and others have said. It would be kind of funny what a huge hypocrite you are if you weren't wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. It's become a chore to post here because no matter how reasonable we try to be, you're just going to make up more mindless b.s. for us to respond to.

(and to the other folks, i do apologize for the commentaries, but this sub-forum is just overrun with trolls and bullies who eventually shout everyone down with there relentless negativity unless people stand up to them and call them out for it)

 

[MacVidCards]

Another great example of hypocrisy... you're accusing us of having some "particular and selective" mindset when we're two of the most open-minded commenters here. Over and over again I've praised the cMP, have indicated I understand the frustration, have myself struggled with the value proposition of the nMP for my needs, etc., etc.

Yet it is the people here like you who selectively take things out of context, make disingenuous product comparisons, dismiss the idea that anyone could like the nMP, and relentless bash it over and over again in nearly every post... as you'e clearly demonstrated over the last few pages of this thread.

Then you spout completely garbage about what I and others have said. It would be kind of funny what a huge hypocrite you are if you weren't wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. It's become a chore to post here because no matter how reasonable we try to be, you're just going to make up more mindless b.s. for us to respond to.

(and to the other folks, i do apologize for the commentaries, but this sub-forum is just overrun with trolls and bullies who eventually shout everyone down with there relentless negativity unless people stand up to them and call them out for it)

Melodist, thank you for being a voice of reason.

Don't mind the "reasonable" types who will defend the nMP as if their very lives depend upon it.

Just ask Flat Five where the GPU upgrades he predicted years back are for a good laugh. He'll tell you they aren't here yet because nobody wants or needs them. (It's the screws, that's how I know)

Apple PR folks have to keep the tone in "praise" category, no matter how silly the logic.

What amazes me is that other parts of the line got a 50% speed upgrade on the PCIE SSDs, never heard boo about the "Pro" getting the faster drives.

Guess the folks using laptops needed them more?

 

[Hank Carter]

I suspect either a spec bump in late 2015, or a real update in early-to-mid 2016, depending on Intel CPUs and AMD making new nMP GPUs.

I think the latter is more likely (2016). But on the other hand, Apple has done spec bumps in the past when it's been too long between real updates. And if Apple waits till 2016, that will be the longest delay between MP updates ever.

I have a gut feeling that the release is tied to Thunderbolt 3. Until TB3 ships there will be no new Mac Pro.
The new Cinema Display will almost certainly be TB3 and I would not be surprised if they ship hand in hand.

So, when is TB3 due? From what I know it's now or Q1 2016.

My main workstation died just two weeks ago and I refuse to buy one of the current nMP since it is essentially EOL. So, all I can do is wait and tinker around on my laptop in the meanwhile. It's been over 650 days since the release of the nMP. The longest wait ever as around 685 days.

This is frustrating to the point that after over 20 years with Apple I am looking at a Windoze 10 machine. I'm getting pretty fed up with how they have been handling the entire Mac lineup in recent years. For starters someone needs to explain to Jony Ive that functionality trumps pretty design. He may want to reread the principles of design by his hero Dieter Rams. With Jobso gone there is no one left to keep him on target.

 

[flat five]

right but that's 3.2 grand in 2009 vs 5 grand in 2013, to get an 8 core machine, and I think it is mostly due to the amd fire pro they force upon everybody.

But why do you have to specifically compare the cores? It is always price vs performance or is it not? Or do we live in an entropy where everybody can buy Apple's 12 core Mac?

I'm saying, this is what you had to pay in 2009 to get this kind of performance, and this is what you pay now and get this.

i still don't understand your point.

a 2009 8@2.26 cost $3299
https://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/03/apple-introduces-new-mac-pro-with-nehalem-xeon-processors/
a 2013 quad cost $2999

the 2013 outperforms the 2009 at a lesser cost.. isn't that what you're arguing for? you feel you should be able to spend the same money for a higher performing computer than you could 5 years ago? do you see that you can spend less now for higher performance?

---
and that's ignoring the fact that these are two completely different computers.. they share the name 'mac pro' but that's about it.. new ones are more expensive.. at a base level, they're 20% more expensive than their predecessors.

also- everything just gets more expensive as time goes by.. at some level, your argument falls away because i could use the same logic to compare a 67 camaro ($3600) to a 2016 model ($26,000 entry).. it's just not a very strong type of comparison imo.

And if the Mac Pro is only for your private consumption and nothing you depend on, then I understand why we can't convert conversation fractions to a common denominator, because I'm looking at it from a business perspective and not leisure like the iPhone.

well, don't go making the mistake using the condescending attitudes towards other members.. especially when you don't know how/what/why they use their computers.

 

[flat five]

This is frustrating to the point that after over 20 years with Apple I am looking at a Windoze 10 machine. I'm getting pretty fed up with how they have been handling the entire Mac lineup in recent years. For starters someone needs to explain to Jony Ive that functionality trumps pretty design. He may want to reread the principles of design by his hero Dieter Rams. With Jobso gone there is no one left to keep him on target.

singling you out but there are many others who use the form over function thing against these designers.
the funny thing is, it's all the past desktops which were designed form over function.. the mac pro is the only workstation i can think of which was designed the right way of form follows function.

what the heck is so functional about a box full of electronics? the purpose of the box was simply a way for the early geeks to keep all their crap from falling off the kitchen table.. that's its sole purpose and shoeboxes were readily available.. all computer design up til nmp has been done based on the precedence set before it.. there was never any thought put into the box.. people cut holes in the box and placed various fans throughout the box etc but nobody ever said 'hey, is this box that some nerd grabbed out of his closest back in 1962 really what's best for this application?'.. the form, the box- was put first and foremost above any thought of function.. people have been fighting the function part for years by adding more fans.

so when someone (smart) actually decides 'hey, let's redesign the desktop computer.. start with a clean slate'.. the first thing they do is throw out the box knowing for certain the new computer will not be a box unless their subsequent research/logic/analyzing/defining of function proves the box to be of optimal shape.

the nmp is shaped the way it is due to the function it's trying to accommodate.. and i think you'll have an incredibly hard time showing a better example of a computer which was designed function first.

 

[ActionableMango]

I have a gut feeling that the release is tied to Thunderbolt 3. Until TB3 ships there will be no new Mac Pro.
The new Cinema Display will almost certainly be TB3 and I would not be surprised if they ship hand in hand.

Good point. Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[zephonic]

First of all: One CPU only is a major limitation. Working with taxing samplers and VI's requires as much CPU as possible. Dual CPU would be a big thing on the Mac Pro. The current 12-core is ridiculously expensive. A dual core solution would be cheaper and most likely perform better.

Expansion...well the forest of cables you will now need dangling from your DAW is also a bit ridiculous. You need a lot of storage - which means, you need external storage. You need external soundcard + possibly DSP (UAD). You need two-three monitors connected. You need a couple of USB dongles for product registrations etc. Not a pretty sight on the new Mac Pro.

And Thunderbolt is way slower than PCI anyway. Would definitely prefer the old tower version of the Mac Pro, but I realize that isn't coming back. But at least provide us with plenty of TB3 and a dual CPU solution.

Most music and audio software is not optimized for multi-CPU and you'll see very little (if any) improvement from more than one processor. That is one of the reasons why DAW-specialist always recommend a single 6-core (or 8-core these days), clock speed still trumps cores/threads for most DAW software. VEP may be the exception here, I don't know about that.

I have the drive bays in my MP4,1 maxed out (+ a PCIe SSD), so I know first-hand about the advantage of internal expansion. I wouldn't like to have that externally, but I believe the nMP was designed with SAN in mind, and as such it makes a ton of sense.

As for a forest of cables, I currently have 4 USB cables, 1 FW800 cable, 1 DVI cable, and 1 power cable connected to my cMP. Not that big of a difference, I think.

ThB slower than PCIe? Thunderbolt IS PCIe over a wire. AFAIK, only PCIe 3.0 (or higher) is faster, and only the latest GPU's utilize that bandwidth. PCIe audio or DSP cards were all designed for PCIe 2 (or older) and ThB should be capable of handling that with bandwidth to spare.


I understand your reluctance towards the nMP, in fact I share it to a degree. I'm just a guy with a computer, and a SAN makes absolutely no sense for me. But for larger, multi-seat production houses or post facilities (or indeed, TV stations) that already have all their storage on the network, the nMP is a very sensible design.

 

[Hank Carter]

singling you out but there are many others who use the form over function thing against these designers.

I'm obviously not in the same league as Ive, but I did start out studying ID, so I'm not making that comment without some insight.


Here are the 10 Commandments as per Dieter Rams whom Ive is obviously very enamored of

Good design:

1. Is innovative - The possibilities for progression are not, by any means, exhausted. Technological development is always offering new opportunities for original designs. But imaginative design always develops in tandem with improving technology, and can never be an end in itself.
2. Makes a product useful - A product is bought to be used. It has to satisfy not only functional, but also psychological and aesthetic criteria. Good design emphasizes the usefulness of a product whilst disregarding anything that could detract from it.
3. Is aesthetic - The aesthetic quality of a product is integral to its usefulness because products are used every day and have an effect on people and their well-being. Only well-executed objects can be beautiful.
4. Makes a product understandable - It clarifies the product’s structure. Better still, it can make the product clearly express its function by making use of the user's intuition. At best, it is self-explanatory.
5. Is unobtrusive - Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user's self-expression.
6. Is honest - It does not make a product appear more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept.
7. Is long-lasting - It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today's throwaway society.
8. Is thorough down to the last detail - Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the consumer.
9. Is environmentally friendly - Design makes an important contribution to the preservation of the environment. It conserves resources and minimizes physical and visual pollution throughout the lifecycle of the product.
10. Is as little design as possible - Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials. Back to purity, back to simplicity.

Take a look at some of the recent trends.

iPhone 6: Thinness over battery life and structural strength.

Cinema Display: Glass covering that acts as a mirror. Even in a dark room it will pick up your reflection, unless you are wearing a black shirt.

iPad: Highly reflective screen that is unreadable in bright sunlight and picks up reflections.

iMac: Heat problems. No more vents on top, so the CPU/GPU will throttle back under heavy load. SD card slot moved to the back making it difficult to reach. It needs an easy to access USB port in the bottom of the case for quick access. Glass cover on screen is highly susceptible to glare and reflections. Difficult to service or upgrade, because it now uses double sided tape to glue it together and make it as thin as possible

Mac Book: In the interest of thinness, one nonstandard port for everything including power.

Mac Pro: No expansion slots, small power supply, limited heat dissipation sacrificed in the interest of aesthetics.

the funny thing is, it's all the past desktops which were designed form over function.. the mac pro is the only workstation i can think of which was designed the right way of form follows function.

what the heck is so functional about a box full of electronics? the purpose of the box was simply a way for the early geeks to keep all their crap from falling off the kitchen table.. that's its sole purpose and shoeboxes were readily available.. all computer design up til nmp has been done based on the precedence set before it.. there was never any thought put into the box.. people cut holes in the box and placed various fans throughout the box etc but nobody ever said 'hey, is this box that some nerd grabbed out of his closest back in 1962 really what's best for this application?'.. the form, the box- was put first and foremost above any thought of function.. people have been fighting the function part for years by adding more fans.

so when someone (smart) actually decides 'hey, let's redesign the desktop computer.. start with a clean slate'.. the first thing they do is throw out the box knowing for certain the new computer will not be a box unless their subsequent research/logic/analyzing/defining of function proves the box to be of optimal shape.

the nmp is shaped the way it is due to the function it's trying to accommodate.. and i think you'll have an incredibly hard time showing a better example of a computer which was designed function first.

First and foremost it's a tool. Not a fashion accessory or piece of office sculpture. Smart designers know that before they make their first doodle on a napkin.

It wouldn't be so much of an issue if the nMP wasn't the only pro machine that Apple makes. If there was a another model with slots and a few bays, no one would be complaining.

The old 5,1 was a jack of all trades. You could use it stock or pack it with cards and drives. The nMP is a one trick pony. If you need to add cards or more internal drives you are SOL, especially since it's the only pro model they sell. So you add external PCI cages and drives, defeating the whole purpose that Ive probably had in mind with designing such a neat little package. Suddenly the only place the nMP looks 'pretty' is on the drawing board, because on my desk at work it's buried in a pile of ugly boxes and cables.

If Ive wants to make art and Apple only wants to sell only one pro machine he should have a look at the old NeXT Cube and Slab. I still have my Cube and it's a masterpiece of form and functionality.

 

[flat five]

Good design:

1. Is innovative - The possibilities for progression are not, by any means, exhausted. Technological development is always offering new opportunities for original designs. But imaginative design always develops in tandem with improving technology, and can never be an end in itself.
2. Makes a product useful - A product is bought to be used. It has to satisfy not only functional, but also psychological and aesthetic criteria. Good design emphasizes the usefulness of a product whilst disregarding anything that could detract from it.
3. Is aesthetic - The aesthetic quality of a product is integral to its usefulness because products are used every day and have an effect on people and their well-being. Only well-executed objects can be beautiful.
4. Makes a product understandable - It clarifies the product’s structure. Better still, it can make the product clearly express its function by making use of the user's intuition. At best, it is self-explanatory.
5. Is unobtrusive - Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user's self-expression.
6. Is honest - It does not make a product appear more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept.
7. Is long-lasting - It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today's throwaway society.
8. Is thorough down to the last detail - Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the consumer.
9. Is environmentally friendly - Design makes an important contribution to the preservation of the environment. It conserves resources and minimizes physical and visual pollution throughout the lifecycle of the product.
10. Is as little design as possible - Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials. Back to purity, back to simplicity.

tbh, i don't think the nmp fails at any of those.. and actually has a very strong standing in every one of those points (with #7 needing more time to judge)

you'll have to be more specific i suppose because the list you're showing for (i think) nmp failures, i'm seeing as a list that could certainly be used, in part, to justify the design.

Take a look at some of the recent trends.

iPhone 6: Thinness over battery life and structural strength.

i don't know. i'm on an S schedule.. battery is great compared to 5s and from what i've seen, it's incredibly durable (in context)

Cinema Display: Glass covering that acts as a mirror. Even in a dark room it will pick up your reflection, unless you are wearing a black shirt.

not sure about those either.. i've been on an iMac the past months and the screen is sweet.. if a new cinema display had a new iMac display, it'd be sweet too.. that said, i imagine a new cinema display would one up the iMac.

fwiw, i used anti-glare screens up until my latest mbp and iMac.. from what i can gather, there's no need for anti-glare screens anymore. or- i'm not experiencing any glare problems on my current computers so i don't think an anti-glare screen would help anything.

iMac: Heat problems. No more vents on top, so the CPU/GPU will throttle back under heavy load.

heh.. pretty sure a couple of vents on top of an iMac wouldn't prevent throttling.. if you're constantly/daily putting an iMac under heavy load, you should probably consider mac pro.. the other 95% of heavy/constant uses will be a-ok on an iMac though.

SD card slot moved to the back making it difficult to reach.

really? there's an sd slot back there? neat.

First and foremost it's a tool. Not a fashion accessory or piece of office sculpture. Smart designers know that before they make their first doodle on a napkin.

the thing is a relatively small cylinder.. nothing crazy.. a basic piece of geometry.. maybe you want to call it sculpture but if so, it's certainly minimalism.. the old mac pro was more stylized/flashy/designed than the new one.

It wouldn't be so much of an issue if the nMP wasn't the only pro machine that Apple makes. If there was a another model with slots and a few bays, no one would be complaining.

personally, i think you dislike the nmp for reasons that aren't so apparent to yourself.. more of a gut instinct feeling of 'i don't like it' or 'it looks funny' or 'it looks different'.. then upon that feeling, you find reasons to not like it.. because you're making it sound as if you went through rams' checklist prior to passing judgement but i think you're doing it the other way.. passing judgement then going through the list -- but using that list as the reason why you don't like it.

because on my desk at work it's buried in a pile of ugly boxes and cables.

i don't believe that.
but assuming you do have a one at work, what's it like to work on? better or worse than 5.1? has the computer lost any usability functionality? is there something you used to be able to do on cmp that you no longer can on nmp? did nmp break autocad or smthng?

 

[MacVidCards]

First and foremost it's a tool. Not a fashion accessory or piece of office sculpture. Smart designers know that before they make their first doodle on a napkin.

It wouldn't be so much of an issue if the nMP wasn't the only pro machine that Apple makes. If there was a another model with slots and a few bays, no one would be complaining.

The old 5,1 was a jack of all trades. You could use it stock or pack it with cards and drives. The nMP is a one trick pony. If you need to add cards or more internal drives you are SOL, especially since it's the only pro model they sell. So you add external PCI cages and drives, defeating the whole purpose that Ive probably had in mind with designing such a neat little package. Suddenly the only place the nMP looks 'pretty' is on the drawing board, because on my desk at work it's buried in a pile of ugly boxes and cables.

If Ive wants to make art and Apple only wants to sell only one pro machine he should have a look at the old NeXT Cube and Slab. I still have my Cube and it's a masterpiece of form and functionality.

I agree with you 100% and I will give you a piece of advice as a bonus.

You will never, EVER, win an argument with this guy. He will lose flat out, but never admit it. You have better odds of getting a meaningful response from a parrot. He used to swear that the presence of screws proved that Apple was entering a golden age of offering all sorts of upgrades, most notably new GPUs. He turned out to be 100% wrong, but won't admit it.

Here is a good explanation by another nMP fan.

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...mac-pro-in-2015.1840458/page-63#post-21709834

 

[flat five]

@MacVidCards
shhhh.

(or at the very least say something unpredictable.. you've said all 3 things you know how to say about a thousand times each.. it's not even funny to watch anymore.. just boring)

---
edit- actually.. it is kind of funny seeing you in 100% agreement about the cube being a masterpiece of form and functionality..
carry on.

 

[Hank Carter]

tbh, i don't think the nmp fails at any of those.. and actually has a very strong standing in every one of those points (with #7 needing more time to judge)

you'll have to be more specific i suppose because the list you're showing for (i think) nmp failures, i'm seeing as a list that could certainly be used, in part, to justify the design.

The nMP or other Apple products don't fail on all points of Ram's principals. But Ive seems to be prone to compromising function for the sake of design and that's an issue. Jobs seemed to have kept Ive in check on that one, but with him gone and no one to counterbalance him things go amiss.

not sure about those either.. i've been on an iMac the past months and the screen is sweet.. if a new cinema display had a new iMac display, it'd be sweet too.. that said, i imagine a new cinema display would one up the iMac.

The screen is very sharp. That's not the problem, although the color gamut is less than sRGB and it's close to impossible to calibrate for color critical work. The problem is the glass cover that picks up reflections too easily. This is an issue if you are sitting in in an office with overheads etc. It's less of a problem in a darken room, but even then you will show up as a reflection if you are wearing anything but dark clothing.

fwiw, i used anti-glare screens up until my latest mbp and iMac.. from what i can gather, there's no need for anti-glare screens anymore. or- i'm not experiencing any glare problems on my current computers so i don't think an anti-glare screen would help anything.

Well, physics haven't changed in the past few years, so glare didn't suddenly become obsolete or vanish as a phenomenon. Even with multi-coating a flat sheet of glass that is sitting perpendicular to your eye-line is asking for trouble.

heh.. pretty sure a couple of vents on top of an iMac wouldn't prevent throttling.. if you're constantly/daily putting an iMac under heavy load, you should probably consider mac pro.. the other 95% of heavy/constant uses will be a-ok on an iMac though.

So, your logic is that people should not use the i7 in the iMac to it's full potential, because the cooling on the machine is poorly designed for aesthetic reasons? What if I told you not to drive your car over 55, because it will become unstable do to an aesthetic design choice? How would you feel about that?

the thing is a relatively small cylinder.. nothing crazy.. a basic piece of geometry.. maybe you want to call it sculpture but if so, it's certainly minimalism.. the old mac pro was more stylized/flashy/designed than the new one.

That's not the point. It can be any shape it wants to be.

personally, i think you dislike the nmp for reasons that aren't so apparent to yourself.. more of a gut instinct feeling of 'i don't like it' or 'it looks funny' or 'it looks different'.. then upon that feeling, you find reasons to not like it.. because you're making it sound as if you went through rams' checklist prior to passing judgement but i think you're doing it the other way.. passing judgement then going through the list -- but using that list as the reason why you don't like it.

Nope. I am actually buying a nMP as soon as Apple ships the update.

I don't completely dislike the nMP, I just feel it is a somewhat flawed design. The flaws would be less glaring if it wasn't the only pro model Apple sold. Like I said, it didn't matter with the 5,1 because it was a jack of all trades. Stock out of the box or filled with expansion cards it worked either way. The 6,1 is not a Swiss Army knife like the old machine was. So anyone who has specialized needs beyond the stock configuration is compromised, since it's the only model they sell.

Right now we are starting to use the OCTANE GPU renderer at work. For that purpose we are building workstations with up to 4 x Titan (12GB) cards. They go right inside the case with dual Xeons, a small RAID, network card etc. in a nice clean package. You can't do that with a nMP.

i don't believe that.

I really don't care if you believe that I have one at work or not.

but assuming you do have a one at work, what's it like to work on? better or worse than 5.1? has the computer lost any usability functionality? is there something you used to be able to do on cmp that you no longer can on nmp? did nmp break autocad or smthng?

I work in post production. So I have dual monitors, a PCI chassis with network card, multiple external drives / RAID, a tablet, mouse, keyboard, SD car reader and docks for magazines from digital cinema cameras. Add to that thumb drives, DSLRs that are sometimes run tethered or unloaded via USB and a steady stream of portable hard drives bringing footage in and out. So, yes. My desk is littered with gear. The ports on the nMP are constantly being accessed and it's a cable jungle back there. In short it's a mess.

Taking the nMP on set or on the road is a PIA, because everything is in pieces and the machine itself can't be racked or fitted into a road case without the additional expense of a specialized mounting chassis. The old 5,1 was a beast, but everything fit in a single clean box that you just picked it up or installed in a road case.

We constantly reconfigure workstations and move people around in teams as jobs come in. It was easy with the old 5,1 case, since it held almost everything inside. Now you are moving the nMP and multiple external drives, the PCI chassis and all the cables. It's no fun.

In terms of performance my current 12 core / D700 nMP is faster than the old 12 core 5,1 boxes I have used in the past. For the most part it's not a day and night difference, but the nMP is faster. System throughput is better, it will play 4k without problems. There have been problems with the D700 not working properly with programs like DaVinci Resolve etc. but updates should fix that. In terms of software support the switch from CUDA to AMD was less painful than expected. Some things don't seem to run as smooth as they used to, but again that will improve with time and updates. Thunderbolt and USB3 have been by far the biggest improvements that came with the nMP. It would be difficult to go back to working without TB.

Some people have reported GPU cards or the entire nMP failing under weeks of heavy pounding and I suspect it may be a thermal issue. Granted we probably use these machines harder than any other business, but this never was a problem with the 5,1. So, far neither of the 12core/D700 systems I have used have had a problem and I regularly leave them to crunch overnight with a full load.

 

[ixxx69]

tbh, i don't think the nmp fails at any of those.. and actually has a very strong standing in every one of those points (with #7 needing more time to judge)

you'll have to be more specific i suppose because the list you're showing for (i think) nmp failures, i'm seeing as a list that could certainly be used, in part, to justify the design.


i don't know. i'm on an S schedule.. battery is great compared to 5s and from what i've seen, it's incredibly durable (in context)



not sure about those either.. i've been on an iMac the past months and the screen is sweet.. if a new cinema display had a new iMac display, it'd be sweet too.. that said, i imagine a new cinema display would one up the iMac.

fwiw, i used anti-glare screens up until my latest mbp and iMac.. from what i can gather, there's no need for anti-glare screens anymore. or- i'm not experiencing any glare problems on my current computers so i don't think an anti-glare screen would help anything.


heh.. pretty sure a couple of vents on top of an iMac wouldn't prevent throttling.. if you're constantly/daily putting an iMac under heavy load, you should probably consider mac pro.. the other 95% of heavy/constant uses will be a-ok on an iMac though.



really? there's an sd slot back there? neat.




the thing is a relatively small cylinder.. nothing crazy.. a basic piece of geometry.. maybe you want to call it sculpture but if so, it's certainly minimalism.. the old mac pro was more stylized/flashy/designed than the new one.




personally, i think you dislike the nmp for reasons that aren't so apparent to yourself.. more of a gut instinct feeling of 'i don't like it' or 'it looks funny' or 'it looks different'.. then upon that feeling, you find reasons to not like it.. because you're making it sound as if you went through rams' checklist prior to passing judgement but i think you're doing it the other way.. passing judgement then going through the list -- but using that list as the reason why you don't like it.



i don't believe that.
but assuming you do have a one at work, what's it like to work on? better or worse than 5.1? has the computer lost any usability functionality? is there something you used to be able to do on cmp that you no longer can on nmp? did nmp break autocad or smthng?

Well stated (as many of your recent posts). While I don't entirely agree with everything you've suggested, I think you're spot on about Rams "commandments" describe the nMP pretty well. Even #7 - while the nMP probably won't have a super long life as a top end "pro" level machine, there's no reason they won't still be in use 10 years from now serving all sorts of purposes.

The nMP or other Apple products don't fail on all points of Ram's principals. But Ive seems to be prone to compromising function for the sake of design and that's an issue. Jobs seemed to have kept Ive in check on that one, but with him gone and no one to counterbalance him things go amiss.



The screen is very sharp. That's not the problem, although the color gamut is less than sRGB and it's close to impossible to calibrate for color critical work. The problem is the glass cover that picks up reflections too easily. This is an issue if you are sitting in in an office with overheads etc. It's less of a problem in a darken room, but even then you will show up as a reflection if you are wearing anything but dark clothing.



Well, physics haven't changed in the past few years, so glare didn't suddenly become obsolete or vanish as a phenomenon. Even with multi-coating a flat sheet of glass that is sitting perpendicular to your eye-line is asking for trouble.



So, your logic is that people should not use the i7 in the iMac to it's full potential, because the cooling on the machine is poorly designed for aesthetic reasons? What if I told you not to drive your car over 55, because it will become unstable do to an aesthetic design choice? How would you feel about that?




That's not the point. It can be any shape it wants to be.




Nope. I am actually buying a nMP as soon as Apple ships the update.

I don't completely dislike the nMP, I just feel it is a somewhat flawed design. The flaws would be less glaring if it wasn't the only pro model Apple sold. Like I said, it didn't matter with the 5,1 because it was a jack of all trades. Stock out of the box or filled with expansion cards it worked either way. The 6,1 is not a Swiss Army knife like the old machine was. So anyone who has specialized needs beyond the stock configuration is compromised, since it's the only model they sell.

Right now we are starting to use the OCTANE GPU renderer at work. For that purpose we are building workstations with up to 4 x Titan (12G) cards. They go right inside the case with dual Xeons, a small RAID, network card etc. in a nice clean package. You can't do that with a nMP.




I really don't care if you believe that I have one at work or not.



I work in post production. So I have dual monitors, a PCI chassis with network card, multiple external drives / RAID, a tablet, mouse, keyboard, SD car reader and docks for magazines from digital cinema cameras. Add to that thumb drives, DSLRs that are sometimes run tethered or unloaded via USB and a steady stream of portable hard drives bringing footage in and out. So, yes. My desk is littered with gear. The ports on the nMP are constantly being accessed and it's a cable jungle back there. In short it's a mess.

Taking the nMP on set or on the road is a PIA, because everything is in pieces and the machine itself can't be racked or fitted into a road case without the additional expense of a specialized mounting chassis. The old 5,1 was a beast, but everything fit in a single clean box that you just picked it up or installed in a road case.

We constantly reconfigure workstations and move people around in teams as jobs come in. It was easy with the old 5,1 case, since it held almost everything inside. Now you are moving the nMP and multiple external drives, the PCI chassis and all the cables. It's no fun.

In terms of performance my current 12 core / D700 nMP is faster than the old 12 core 5,1 boxes I have used in the past. For the most part it's not a day and night difference, but the nMP is faster. System throughput is better, it will play 4k without problems. There have been problems with the D700 not working properly with programs like DaVinci Resolve etc. but updates should fix that. In terms of software support the switch from CUDA to AMD was less painful than expected. Some things don't seem to run as smooth as they used to, but again that will improve with time and updates. Thunderbolt and USB3 have been by far the biggest improvements that came with the nMP. It would be difficult to go back to working without TB.

Some people have reported GPU cards or the entire nMP failing under weeks of heavy pounding and I suspect it may be a thermal issue. Granted we probably use these machines harder than any other business, but this never was a problem with the 5,1. So, far neither of the 12core/D700 systems I have used have had a problem and I regularly leave them to crunch overnight with a full load.

I wouldn't argue against much of what you've said here either. Apple has a tendency to go a little overboard in pushing the limits. The same could be said with the Apple III, Lisa, original Mac, most of the iMac line, the Cube, a couple of the Mac towers (liquid cooling), various Mac laptop models with reliability issues, etc. Jobs was actually one of the worst offenders.

I still can't stand glossy screens, which aside from throttling issues, was the main factor ruling out the iMac for me. I'm typing this on a rMB which has one of the best non-reflective glass screens out there, and if there's intense light behind me, it's still super blatant. It's pretty easy to tweak the positioning of a laptop screen so that isn't as much of an issue, but not as easy with an iMac or large external screens.

The thing with the iMac "throttling" is that it's simply not designed for extended full-throttle sessions. There aren't "perfect" products out there... while some products might feel "perfect" to an individual, there's no such thing as universally perfect. The Apple designers determine the design goals and set out to meet them. They have to make compromises. We as users aren't happy when those compromises go against what we want out of a product. We just have to keep in mind that there are many more people out there who are happy with the compromises Apple chose to make. What we might think is a useless feature like "thinness", there are probably many more people who appreciate that over being able to run an i7 full throttle for hours on end. As I said before, Apple is interested in selling lots of product. They don't make these "compromises" in a vacuum. They've gotten pretty good at knowing what their target market wants.

 

[Simon R.]

Most music and audio software is not optimized for multi-CPU and you'll see very little (if any) improvement from more than one processor. That is one of the reasons why DAW-specialist always recommend a single 6-core (or 8-core these days), clock speed still trumps cores/threads for most DAW software. VEP may be the exception here, I don't know about that.

ThB slower than PCIe? Thunderbolt IS PCIe over a wire. AFAIK, only PCIe 3.0 (or higher) is faster, and only the latest GPU's utilize that bandwidth. PCIe audio or DSP cards were all designed for PCIe 2 (or older) and ThB should be capable of handling that with bandwidth to spare.

There are advantages of more CPU's.... You realize that both Kontakt, VEP, Logic and other DAW software can utilize more cores, right? Especially Logic works best with as many as possible. There is no sense in saying that multiple CPUs won't be a benefit. Obviously having 12 cores instead of 6 will be better - especially if the clock speed is in the same range on both.

And regarding TB - don't get stuck in semantics. Yes TB is "PCI over a wire" but the bandwidth of TB1 and 2 (and the upcoming 3) is still way below the ... what do you want me to call it, so you don't get confused? "logic board card based" PCIe? Everybody knows this. TB is still not up to the task of replacing "old fashioned" PCI.

EDIT: And regarding CPU's - the problem with nMP not being dual CPU is that it really will lack performance. The nMP I could buy (6-core - for premium price btw - I dont need those stupid dual GPU's - money down the drain) would hardly be faster than the current 2009 6-core I have. SIX YEARS later, Apple don't offer a Mac Pro that is remarkably faster than the 2009 models.

 

[MacVidCards]

Well stated (as many of your recent posts). there's no reason they won't still be in use 10 years from now serving all sorts of purposes.

Door stop, book end, 4 under a sheet of glass as a coffee table, etc. Is that what you meant?

Have you spent any time in the "OS X" section of this forum? I've been working with folks trying to keep older Macs running newer OSs. Do you know which of the 2006 and 2007 Macs can run anything past 10.7.5 with full functionality? There is only one, the Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1. And that is 100% the direct result of it being able to use a newer GPU. It was the sole limiting factor for 10.8, 10.9, and 10.10. All of the other EFI32 Macs could run those OS's, but lost GPU acceleration. With 10.11 they have now lost USB and BT function. The 1,1 soldiers on, running things a 12 core nMP still can't touch.

There are advantages of more CPU's.... You realize that both Kontakt, VEP, Logic and other DAW software can utilize more cores, right? Especially Logic works best with as many as possible. There is no sense in saying that multiple CPUs won't be a benefit. Obviously having 12 cores instead of 6 will be better - especially if the clock speed is in the same range on both.

And regarding TB - don't get stuck in semantics. Yes TB is "PCI over a wire" but the bandwidth of TB1 and 2 (and the upcoming 3) is still way below the ... what do you want me to call it, so you don't get confused? "logic board card based" PCIe? Everybody knows this. TB is still not up to the task of replacing "old fashioned" PCI.

EDIT: And regarding CPU's - the problem with nMP not being dual CPU is that it really will lack performance. The nMP I could buy (6-core - for premium price btw - I dont need those stupid dual GPU's - money down the drain) would hardly be faster than the current 2009 6-core I have. SIX YEARS later, Apple don't offer a Mac Pro that is remarkably faster than the 2009 models.

Reason and logic don't work in this thread, they are attempting to maintain the "reality distortion field" that SJ was so famous for.

 

[flat five]

The nMP or other Apple products don't fail on all points of Ram's principals. But Ive seems to be prone to compromising function for the sake of design and that's an issue. Jobs seemed to have kept Ive in check on that one, but with him gone and no one to counterbalance him things go amiss.

i'd wouldn't be surprised if jony ive had much more pull over jobs than you're making out.. i don't doubt jobs had ultimate say if it ever came down to it but what i do doubt is that he ever exercised that power over j.ive..
for one, Ive would more-likely-than-not, have terminated his position upon such a disagreement.. and two, jobs didn't leave Ive with top apple power for no reason.

The screen is very sharp. That's not the problem, although the color gamut is less than sRGB and it's close to impossible to calibrate for color critical work. The problem is the glass cover that picks up reflections too easily. This is an issue if you are sitting in in an office with overheads etc. It's less of a problem in a darken room, but even then you will show up as a reflection if you are wearing anything but dark clothing.

yeah, i don't know.. like i said, these newer displays are sweet and i don't have a problem with glare in a multitude of environments.. i mean, i do use computers daily.. for hours.. i'm not just talking out the arse. the displays certainly don't prevent me from doing what i gotta do.

So, your logic is that people should not use the i7 in the iMac to it's full potential,

no.. use the iMac as hard as you like.. but just realize it will slow down after a certain point.. gauging off the first 5 minutes of a render, you'll see it will finish in 45 minutes.. but in reality, it will finish in 1 hour..

if you push an imac to the point of it being throttled, you're waiting on the machine.. if you do the same operation on a mac pro, you'll be waiting on the machine.. when people's cores are maxed out and all systems are firing, you're not sitting there working.. you go get coffee..or you open the laptop to continue working.. etc..

if it's important to your work or a deadline that those 15 minutes be recouped then you should probably look into getting a mac pro..
but don't be mistaken.. both machines will produce the exact same results.. the mac pro isn't going to give you a better render.. but it will power through large loads under less stress than an imac. in fact, it's designed to do just that.

because the cooling on the machine is poorly designed for aesthetic reasons?

how are you arriving at this? if i read you correctly, you're saying some designer looked at an older imac, saw some unsightly vents, and said "fill those holes in.. i don't like how they look so get rid of them.. it matters not that the computer will overheat"..
?

What if I told you not to drive your car over 55, because it will become unstable do to an aesthetic design choice? How would you feel about that?

this is a non sequitur.. you've likened a car governed at 55 due to aesthetic reasons ..to an imac which throttles under heavy loads..

there's no connection between ptA and ptB and the comparison is entirely different.

That's not the point. It can be any shape it wants to be.

i don't know.. you're the one calling it sculpture or fashion statement.. why?

I really don't care if you believe that I have one at work or not.

what i said i don't believe is "because on my desk at work it's buried in a pile of ugly boxes and cables."
do you see the difference?

I work in post production. So I have dual monitors, a PCI chassis with network card, multiple external drives / RAID, a tablet, mouse, keyboard, SD car reader and docks for magazines from digital cinema cameras. Add to that thumb drives, DSLRs that are sometimes run tethered or unloaded via USB and a steady stream of portable hard drives bringing footage in and out. So, yes. My desk is littered with gear. The ports on the nMP are constantly being accessed and it's a cable jungle back there. In short it's a mess.

and somehow a 5.1 is going to deal with that better? how will the 5.1 help you in that situation? seems worse since you're crawling under or going behind the desk in order to plug/unplug all that crap.

Taking the nMP on set or on the road is a PIA, because everything is in pieces and the machine itself can't be racked or fitted into a road case without the additional expense of a specialized mounting chassis. The old 5,1 was a beast, but everything fit in a single clean box that you just picked it up or installed in a road case.

huh? i took an old mac pro on the road a few times. it sucks. you might as well tote a bag of quikrete around with you.
the nmp, and your components, could fit in a backpack.

We constantly reconfigure workstations and move people around in teams as jobs come in. It was easy with the old 5,1 case, since it held almost everything inside. Now you are moving the nMP and multiple external drives, the PCI chassis and all the cables. It's no fun.

why multiple external drives? there are neater solutions, no?
also, if you're constantly reconfiguring workstation and moving people around etc.. your argument sounds more for dedicated storage as opposed to internal.. as in- say you have 5 drives in that mac pro.. you're doing some reconfiguring... and you want two of those drives at sally's desk for the next couple of days.. not sure how a 5.1 is helping here.

 

[MacVidCards]

this is a non sequitur.. you've likened a car governed at 55 due to aesthetic reasons ..to an imac which throttles under heavy loads..

there's no connection between ptA and ptB and the comparison is entirely different.

So funny when you play thick, as you occasionally make it obvious that you aren't.

He didn't completely connect the dots so you went after semantics.

Here is a better example. When I was a kid there was an old guy in my neighborhood with an Avanti. He was always trying to improve it, making ducts to run to the radiator, etc. Gorgeous old car, but to make it look cool, the designer made one big "form over function" sacrifice. He plastered over the grill and made the poor thing suck cooling air from underneath. Big old V-8 running power accessories and AC, guess what happens in stop & go traffic? It overheats.

Had he put a big ugly open grill like all of the other Detroit iron it would have run fine, but then it wouldn't look all cool and different ..and thin... see where this is going?

The second they said "let's make the iMac run an awesome 5K display but only be 2cm deep" they picked FORM over FUNCTION. See how that works? There is a lovely thread on this very forum about 5K iMacs running at 105C, guess how that is working out? Yep, replacing logic boards already.

Let's follow this a little further.

You take a 7970 or two and want to run them inside a 40 Oz Malt Liquor can? Somethin's gotta give. "Oh, I know, let's lower clocks and voltages." See, once again, that is "FORM" coming before "FUNCTION".

That 1963 Studebaker Avanti looked great, it just had sacrificed the ability to drive in high temps in the city in order to look unique. Apple's current iMacs and Mac Pros have done the same thing. Telling little white lies and pretending that you can't see obvious facts (see ixxx69s advice again) doesn't mean nobody else see's them. Because everyone else does. It is a compromised machine that gave up (now watch this) "FUNCTION" to improve it's "FORM". See how they switched places? A "workstation" shouldn't be a Dolce & Gabbana fashion statement. First and foremost, it should be ready to "WORK", not trade clock speeds to keep a cool "FORM".

Have another look at that Avanti. Nice silver color, huh?

 

[filmak]

View attachment 589489


So funny when you play thick, as you occasionally make it obvious that you aren't.

He didn't completely connect the dots so you went after semantics.

Here is a better example. When I was a kid there was an old guy in my neighborhood with an Avanti. He was always trying to improve it, making ducts to run to the radiator, etc. Gorgeous old car, but to make it look cool, the designer made one big "form over function" sacrifice. He plastered over the grill and made the poor thing suck cooling air from underneath. Big old V-8 running power accessories and AC, guess what happens in stop & go traffic? It overheats.

Had he put a big ugly open grill like all of the other Detroit iron it would have run fine, but then it wouldn't look all cool and different ..and thin... see where this is going?

The second they said "let's make the iMac run an awesome 5K display but only be 2cm deep" they picked FORM over FUNCTION. See how that works? There is a lovely thread on this very forum about 5K iMacs running at 105C, guess how that is working out? Yep, replacing logic boards already.

Let's follow this a little further.

You take a 7970 or two and want to run them inside a 40 Oz Malt Liquor can? Somethin's gotta give. "Oh, I know, let's lower clocks and voltages." See, once again, that is "FORM" coming before "FUNCTION".

That 1963 Studebaker Avanti looked great, it just had sacrificed the ability to drive in high temps in the city in order to look unique. Apple's current iMacs and Mac Pros have done the same thing. Telling little white lies and pretending that you can't see obvious facts (see ixxx69s advice again) doesn't mean nobody else see's them. Because everyone else does. It is a compromised machine that gave up (now watch this) "FUNCTION" to improve it's "FORM". See how they switched places? A "workstation" shouldn't be a Dolce & Gabbana fashion statement. First and foremost, it should be ready to "WORK", not trade clock speeds to keep a cool "FORM".

Have another look at that Avanti. Nice silver color, huh?

Nice photo about the iMac ... eh sorry ... iCar

 

[fastlanephil]

You're aware that electronic sounds do require a lot of horse power and are indeed mostly samplers? Not to mention that most session are rarely below 200+ tracks with a bulkload of plugins. So artists, producers, studio owners et cetera were really left behind with the new nMP.

I knew there was a reason I have A Windows 7 DAW boot Drive in my cMac Pro that I've been using as a tutorial.

 

[Redneck1089]

Melodist, thank you for being a voice of reason.

Don't mind the "reasonable" types who will defend the nMP as if their very lives depend upon it.

Just ask Flat Five where the GPU upgrades he predicted years back are for a good laugh. He'll tell you they aren't here yet because nobody wants or needs them. (It's the screws, that's how I know)

Apple PR folks have to keep the tone in "praise" category, no matter how silly the logic.

What amazes me is that other parts of the line got a 50% speed upgrade on the PCIE SSDs, never heard boo about the "Pro" getting the faster drives.

Guess the folks using laptops needed them more?

In all fairness, I do remember mentioning to you awhile back in another thread that my nMP ordered in August with a 1 TB SSD did in fact come with the faster SSD. So, Apple has silently updated some parts of the machine. It's not much, but just for accuracy...

 

[flat five]

they picked FORM over FUNCTION. See how that works?

the problem here is that function has a variety of meanings and that a computer has a multitude of functions.

i believe apple does the right thing and singles out a main function of a machine or device and rolls with that..
.the difference with your interpretation of main function is where the disagreement happens.

to you, it seems the most important function of a machine is to survive some sort of stress test / benchmark that has little to no relevance in what apple deems the main function of the machine.. the usability

likewise, just because you can't put two 7970s in a mac pro and have it run at full power for an hour without throttling does not indicate some sort of form over function conflict.. you're the one saying the function of the computer should be hardware that doesn't throttle under high heat but that doesn't make it so (and totally ignoring the fact that these pieces of hardware are designed to throttle.. the machines aren't overheating because of this inherent design).. if someone asks "what is the function of a computer", it's almost embarrassing to think there are people out there that would respond "to post a high furmark score".

there are manufacturers out there that actually do design around that type of stuff as the main function.. the computers which relate more your design principles are in fact being produced.

luckily for both of us, we're offered a choice to buy designs which are more closely suited to accomplish our tasks/functions.. to me, i feel i choose the machines/software which are suited towards the functionality i'm after.. to you, i still can't figure out why, instead of using the computers capable of posting the highest benchmarks, you're continuing to stay within the mac environment..

there was never a time when a mac couldn't be 'beat' by another type of computer.. never.
but you just sit around and complain about that being the case.. "oh.. oh.. dell has a higher benchmark.. it's better"
meh.