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.
I still don't get why people are getting so hung up on the PCIe expansion thing. Even before the nMP, most consumer-driven companies releasing any form of PCIe expansion cards have been ignoring Mac-compatibility for YEARS. It was a hack getting them to run and work properly. The professional level ones that had any amount of official support (for example, Pro Tools HDX/HD I/O cards, other audio interface cards, video interface cards, etc) started to follow external Thunderbolt connectivity instead, since those devices can be used with Macbooks and iMacs externally. Manufacturers were smart to jump on that since it made their products available to a much wider audience.

Had the nMP been released with internal PCIe expansion slots, it would have been a total waste, because the only use for them now is people who like to tinker and hack together solutions to get these cards to run. And when you're at that point, it makes no sense to keep investing thousands of dollars into upgrades for a cMP....just build a Hackintosh already. Same thing.
 
I still don't get why people are getting so hung up on the PCIe expansion thing. Even before the nMP, most consumer-driven companies releasing any form of PCIe expansion cards have been ignoring Mac-compatibility for YEARS. It was a hack getting them to run and work properly. The professional level ones that had any amount of official support (for example, Pro Tools HDX/HD I/O cards, other audio interface cards, video interface cards, etc) started to follow external Thunderbolt connectivity instead, since those devices can be used with Macbooks and iMacs externally. Manufacturers were smart to jump on that since it made their products available to a much wider audience.



Had the nMP been released with internal PCIe expansion slots, it would have been a total waste, because the only use for them now is people who like to tinker and hack together solutions to get these cards to run. And when you're at that point, it makes no sense to keep investing thousands of dollars into upgrades for a cMP....just build a Hackintosh already. Same thing.


Well said. PCIe support for the cMP was never great and will only deteriorate over time. In my experience it was never a "just works" experience and was always filled with compromises. As you say, a cMP with recent PCIe cards is arguably less effective and just as much work as building and maintaining a hackintosh.

There's not a lot of threads on this forum related to the nMP anymore, and while cMP advocates will say it's because there's nothing to upgrade, nMP owners know it's because we're spending more time getting **** done and less time posting inquiries on how to make our computer work properly.
 
Well the new Mac Pro can't compete with HP workstations scoring 50000+ points on Geekbench. Technologically its already kind of a dinosaur since you can't put 18 core chips in it. Etc. Apple just gave up on the raw power game. So they decided to make it into a status symbol, objet d art kind of thing, which I think they succeeded at, just as with the watch and iPhone. To be cutting edge in performance I guess would push prices to $20,000, etc and Apple doesn't seem interested in that. I'm not interested in that either.I'll stick with my cMP and have fun. The only good thing about the nMP to me is the silence and thermal design, which is surprisingly efficient. And its portability. My 2¢.
 
Last edited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a20s-blv3b4

I think its the best definition and explenation of Mac Pro made by Steve himself.

Apple always picks the technology that is in their "spring". And when they do it, people call Apple crazy. Also on that conference Steve said that he hated Pro Market because contrary to consumer market where people went "yes" or "no" for their products, on Pro market people seemed to be confused ;).

And I think that pretty much defines why they made this version of Mac Pro.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a20s-blv3b4

I think its the best definition and explenation of Mac Pro made by Steve himself.

Apple always picks the technology that is in their "spring". And when they do it, people call Apple crazy. Also on that conference Steve said that he hated Pro Market because contrary to consumer market where people went "yes" or "no" for their products, on Pro market people seemed to be confused ;).

And I think that pretty much defines why they made this version of Mac Pro.

It was said that Jobs had a genius for making products people didn't even know they needed. Products so innovative often they had no competition I'd say. Well maybe the "pros" can be faulted for having more of an idea of what they need than the general public, not less. They want a say in the design of the mac pro because the job depends on it. The new mac pro is a beautiful, transcendent sculpture, and air heater, but pros were not praying for a tube, they wanted rack mounted 24 core mind blowing power (make that 36 core now). And they needed OSX to continue to work reliably (ugh, Yosemite). So, in general pros are not confused, and are not amused by the current situation.
 
but pros were not praying for a tube, they wanted rack mounted 24 core mind blowing power (make that 36 core now). And they needed OSX to continue to work reliably (ugh, Yosemite). So, in general pros are not confused, and are not amused by the current situation.

what software do 'pros' use?
who are you talking about, exactly?
 
Usual suspects: ray tracing, 3D rendering, 4k video editing, RED video?, CAD, image manipulation, chemistry and scientific mathematical modeling, distributed computation, etc. Pro is someone who uses their computer intensively, for commercial, experimental, or scientific objectives.

I'm just with those who feel no need to upgrade to a new Mac Pro or Yosemite for that matter. That's about it.
 
Usual suspects: ray tracing, 3D rendering, 4k video editing, RED video?, CAD, image manipulation, chemistry and scientific mathematical modeling, distributed computation, etc. Pro is someone who uses their computer intensively, for commercial, experimental, or scientific objectives.

do you really think they want 36 core computers? what if they had a choice between a behemoth (relativiely) of a machine or something small and quiet and efficient that puts out vast amount more computational power than possible with 36 cpu cores.. or a hundred cpu cores even.
?

like- it's a real question.. if you're going to say it's a bs question then that's fine but just for funzies, answer as if it's a legit question prior to telling me how dumb i am.

(also, fwiw.. all of those applications listed above will not benefit from more cores.)

I'm just with those who feel no need to upgrade to a new Mac Pro or Yosemite for that matter. That's about it.

right.. i get that.. some people will be onboard with the nmp when it was first shown.. others will take years to come around.. but really, it's either buy another brand of computers and move on or don't.. if you don't move on and continue to buy flagship apple computers, you will own a new mac pro eventually.. and you'll probably like it.. and you'll use newer osx one day too.

so if you feel that way then big deal.. it's temporary.
 
Well the new Mac Pro can't compete with HP workstations scoring 50000+ points on Geekbench. Technologically its already kind of a dinosaur since you can't put 18 core chips in it. Etc. Apple just gave up on the raw power game. So they decided to make it into a status symbol, objet d art kind of thing, which I think they succeeded at, just as with the watch and iPhone. To be cutting edge in performance I guess would push prices to $20,000, etc and Apple doesn't seem interested in that. I'm not interested in that either.I'll stick with my cMP and have fun. The only good thing about the nMP to me is the silence and thermal design, which is surprisingly efficient. And its portability. My 2¢.

Not sure about you, but mine works fine for what I need it for. Compiles and renders why I need faster and quieter than my other computers.
 
@ Flat Five and alphaod, yes, the quietness and small size of the computer must be very ergonomic. I guess if its enough power to get the job done all is good. Not tempted to buy one until they put two processors in it though, i.e. performance cannot be matched by a tuned cMP. Cheers.
 
@ Flat Five and alphaod, yes, the quietness and small size of the computer must be very ergonomic. I guess if its enough power to get the job done all is good. Not tempted to buy one until they put two processors in it though, i.e. performance cannot be matched by a tuned cMP. Cheers.

A director of photography who purchased a 780 from me 18 months ago recently got a nMP 12 Core with Dual D700s.

And within 6 months he sold it.

He got himself a Dual CPU Workstation and a cMP, which he upgraded to 12 Core 5690s and I had occasion to talk to him when he came by to get his 980 flashed.

The nMP couldn't keep up with it's single CPU. Plain and simple. For the money he freed up selling it, he got 2 more powerful machines.

He quoted some impressive render figures for his new Workstation, I want to say it was a Dell but it may have been an HP.

The apologists can rant about shiny cases tail the cows come home, Apple no longer makes a top notch machine. They have retired to "semi-pro". Saying otherwise is ignoring reality.

I have a nMP, it's cute. But it is NOT a serious competitor to the big guns.
 
Can you taste the potatoes?

Well said. PCIe support for the cMP was never great and will only deteriorate over time. In my experience it was never a "just works" experience and was always filled with compromises. As you say, a cMP with recent PCIe cards is arguably less effective and just as much work as building and maintaining a hackintosh.

There's not a lot of threads on this forum related to the nMP anymore, and while cMP advocates will say it's because there's nothing to upgrade, nMP owners know it's because we're spending more time getting **** done and less time posting inquiries on how to make our computer work properly.

This reminded me of a story about my old roommate. He swore that the pricey Vodka made in East Europe was vastly superior to the US made stuff. Once while he was gone for a few months I drank his bottle of Extra Special Vodka, couldn't tell the difference.

He came back a week early, along with a couple friends. I knew they would be heading for the liquor cabinet, so I quickly poured the $6.99 CVS rotgut special vodka into the pricey bottle. He and his friends savored every sip, completely unaware that they were drinking vodka made from corn husks and sawdust. The crowning moment was when one of them held the glass up and declared that he could "taste the potatoes".

Hearing these gleeful declarations of the death of PCIE cards reminds me of that. Do you guys know what TB is and how it actually works? Do you know how to write a driver for TB? Basically, you take a PCIE driver, and have to add little notes that tell it that it can tunnel through the bridges. And you should also include some instructions about what to do for pauses and interrupts.

One of the biggest problems is that TB introduces some serious latency issues that need to be addressed. So, as I have pointed out before, this wonderful new age of TB expandability is going to be just as bug prone as before. TB uses PCIE. PCIE hasn't gone anywhere, you just have it metered out to you now in small parcels.

Why is that? Because all that has happened is that you are going to need the same exact sort of drivers, but now with more little fixes added so they can be hot-plugged, etc.

So, same bus as PCIE, more complicated drivers, more latency issues. Oh, I forgot to mention that there is less than 1/4 of the bandwidth on a TB2 port then what is available in either of the bottom 2 slots in a 2009 cMP .

And less than 1/8 of the bandwidth the 6,1 Mac Pro would have had in a 16 lane slot of PCIE 3.0 had the Prototypes made it into production.

This to run peripherals using the same drivers, with more complications.

So, TB and nMP are not some big new break from the PCIE past. They are a limited and constrained version with much less capability. On the other hand, to have that connection at less than 1/4 of the bandwidth there is another change. It will now cost you $200-1000 to plug that greatly constrained PCIE device in, since it needs to be in a housing.

So I just don't get the glee over PCIE dying out. It's like you are celebrating having fewer choices but completely unaware that you are behaving like this is some "new thing" when it is in fact the same thing you had before, in a shiny package.

TB is great for laptops, not so great for something that never needed to be smaller in the first place.

So, TB is PCIE, just less of it for a whole lot more money.

Yay.

(BTW, not making this up, I have a dozen TB enclosures here, working on drivers for GPUs. I have also plugged PCIE SSDs in with these, they lose the expected speed due to TB inefficiencies)
 
TB PCIe
 

Attachments

  • TB2 v PCIe.png
    TB2 v PCIe.png
    112.2 KB · Views: 163

Thanks for posting that.

In reality, TB2 isn't equal to a PCIE 2.0 x4 slot.

I have seen this myself with PCIE SSD drives.

Connect the same drive via TB2 and watch the speeds wilt. (10% or so slower, IIRC)

The overhead and latency eat into the theoritical.

But what my point was about was the fact the a couple people here are celebrating the end of PCIE and a move forward when in fact TB is the same thing, you just get less of it, for more money.

Yay.
 

Thanks for posting that.

In reality, TB2 isn't equal to a PCIE 2.0 x4 slot.

I have seen this myself with PCIE SSD drives.

Connect the same drive via TB2 and watch the speeds wilt. (10% or so slower, IIRC)

The overhead and latency eat into the theoritical.

But what my point was about was the fact the a couple people here are celebrating the end of PCIE and a move forward when in fact TB is the same thing, you just get less of it, for more money.

Yay.
 
Personally, I am doing music, and I need all the bandwidth I can get, all the CPU power I can get. Constantly trying to run less and less stuff off slaves and getting as much into one machine as possible, is what most composers doing demanding film/game music want. The fastest SSD's, as much RAM and as fast CPU's as possible.

And going from my current 2010 Mac Pro to the nMP won't give any advantage - rather it will force me to buy external cases to host SSD's (which will then run at a lower throughput than my current PCI-card hosted ones), also my UAD-2 card will have to go. I could buy an Apollo of course (Thunderbolt) and I might, eventually - but my current RME UFX PCIe-option is definitely more stable and less prone to crashes and other issues, and latency might go up a bit with the Thunderbolt solution.

And for ProTools users, going nMP isn't any good either, if you use the TDM version (as most people doing film post work do).

In other words, for a pro audio/music person, the nMP is going backwards at the moment. If they redesign it to include two CPU's and TB3 comes along atc. it might get more interesting.
 
Not tempted to buy one until they put two processors in it though
If they redesign it to include two CPU's
there's nowhere for a second cpu to fit.. they're not going to put a second cpu in there.. you see that, right?

further, where is the number 2 coming from? why 2 cpus? that's so last decade.. why not 4 cpus.. 4 is surely better than 2, correct? why not 6?
what's so special about 2 cpus? is that the optimized number of sockets? anyone got a source on this?
 
I know you're being facetious but 2 processors are about all you're going to get into a case that is still able to be used in a desktop type situation. People who need CPU power need and it's not replaceable yet.
 
Last edited:
Hearing these gleeful declarations of the death of PCIE cards reminds me of that. Do you guys know what TB is and how it actually works? Do you know how to write a driver for TB? Basically, you take a PCIE driver, and have to add little notes that tell it that it can tunnel through the bridges. And you should also include some instructions about what to do for pauses and interrupts.

One of the biggest problems is that TB introduces some serious latency issues that need to be addressed. So, as I have pointed out before, this wonderful new age of TB expandability is going to be just as bug prone as before. TB uses PCIE. PCIE hasn't gone anywhere, you just have it metered out to you now in small parcels.

Why is that? Because all that has happened is that you are going to need the same exact sort of drivers, but now with more little fixes added so they can be hot-plugged, etc.

So, same bus as PCIE, more complicated drivers, more latency issues. Oh, I forgot to mention that there is less than 1/4 of the bandwidth on a TB2 port then what is available in either of the bottom 2 slots in a 2009 cMP .

And less than 1/8 of the bandwidth the 6,1 Mac Pro would have had in a 16 lane slot of PCIE 3.0 had the Prototypes made it into production.

This to run peripherals using the same drivers, with more complications.

So, TB and nMP are not some big new break from the PCIE past. They are a limited and constrained version with much less capability. On the other hand, to have that connection at less than 1/4 of the bandwidth there is another change. It will now cost you $200-1000 to plug that greatly constrained PCIE device in, since it needs to be in a housing.

So I just don't get the glee over PCIE dying out. It's like you are celebrating having fewer choices but completely unaware that you are behaving like this is some "new thing" when it is in fact the same thing you had before, in a shiny package.

TB is great for laptops, not so great for something that never needed to be smaller in the first place.

So, TB is PCIE, just less of it for a whole lot more money.

Yay.

(BTW, not making this up, I have a dozen TB enclosures here, working on drivers for GPUs. I have also plugged PCIE SSDs in with these, they lose the expected speed due to TB inefficiencies)

Well put. Very well put indeed.
 
do you really think they want 36 core computers? what if they had a choice between a behemoth (relativiely) of a machine or something small and quiet and efficient that puts out vast amount more computational power than possible with 36 cpu cores.. or a hundred cpu cores even.
?

You say this as if a dual CPU machine couldn't also house multiple GPUs. And you also say it as if GPU computing is the be all end all answer. It's not and you know that.

And it appears there are people who want these massive machines or I wouldn't be getting promotional emails for these sent to me all of the time:

http://www.boxxtech.com/products/apexx-5

http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/workstations/z840.html

Not to mention the other brands as well.


there's nowhere for a second cpu to fit.. they're not going to put a second cpu in there.. you see that, right?

further, where is the number 2 coming from? why 2 cpus? that's so last decade.. why not 4 cpus.. 4 is surely better than 2, correct? why not 6?
what's so special about 2 cpus? is that the optimized number of sockets? anyone got a source on this?

You're right in that there's no room for a 2nd CPU. It's not happening and anyone waiting it out for Apple to go that route should abandon hope now. But you're still touting that "why not more" BS? As has been pointed out, 2 is kind of the magic number for a "desktop" solution and bang for your buck. But if we were to use your argument, why only 2 GPUs? 4 is surely better than 2, correct?
 
This reminded me of a story about my old roommate. He swore that the pricey Vodka made in East Europe was vastly superior to the US made stuff. Once while he was gone for a few months I drank his bottle of Extra Special Vodka, couldn't tell the difference.

He came back a week early, along with a couple friends. I knew they would be heading for the liquor cabinet, so I quickly poured the $6.99 CVS rotgut special vodka into the pricey bottle. He and his friends savored every sip, completely unaware that they were drinking vodka made from corn husks and sawdust. The crowning moment was when one of them held the glass up and declared that he could "taste the potatoes".

Hearing these gleeful declarations of the death of PCIE cards reminds me of that. Do you guys know what TB is and how it actually works? Do you know how to write a driver for TB? Basically, you take a PCIE driver, and have to add little notes that tell it that it can tunnel through the bridges. And you should also include some instructions about what to do for pauses and interrupts.

One of the biggest problems is that TB introduces some serious latency issues that need to be addressed. So, as I have pointed out before, this wonderful new age of TB expandability is going to be just as bug prone as before. TB uses PCIE. PCIE hasn't gone anywhere, you just have it metered out to you now in small parcels.

Why is that? Because all that has happened is that you are going to need the same exact sort of drivers, but now with more little fixes added so they can be hot-plugged, etc.

So, same bus as PCIE, more complicated drivers, more latency issues. Oh, I forgot to mention that there is less than 1/4 of the bandwidth on a TB2 port then what is available in either of the bottom 2 slots in a 2009 cMP .

And less than 1/8 of the bandwidth the 6,1 Mac Pro would have had in a 16 lane slot of PCIE 3.0 had the Prototypes made it into production.

This to run peripherals using the same drivers, with more complications.

So, TB and nMP are not some big new break from the PCIE past. They are a limited and constrained version with much less capability. On the other hand, to have that connection at less than 1/4 of the bandwidth there is another change. It will now cost you $200-1000 to plug that greatly constrained PCIE device in, since it needs to be in a housing.

So I just don't get the glee over PCIE dying out. It's like you are celebrating having fewer choices but completely unaware that you are behaving like this is some "new thing" when it is in fact the same thing you had before, in a shiny package.

TB is great for laptops, not so great for something that never needed to be smaller in the first place.

So, TB is PCIE, just less of it for a whole lot more money.

Yay.

(BTW, not making this up, I have a dozen TB enclosures here, working on drivers for GPUs. I have also plugged PCIE SSDs in with these, they lose the expected speed due to TB inefficiencies)


I think you missed my point (and a possible opportunity).

If I understand what you do and the value you bring, it's that you reduce or eliminate many of the compromises associated with using certain PCIe cards in the cMP. Thus your mere existence proves my point that one cannot just pickup any old PCIe card, plug it into their cMP and expect it to "just work". It is not all bliss, but thanks to guys like you it's acceptable for many.

But, some of us are glad to be rid of the headaches and uncertainty that comes with every OS update.

TB is certainly no savior. No disagreement there. It's not even clear what kind of long-term future it has. I hope it gets better and faster and truly lives up to the promise one day but Apple will not hesitate to abandon it if something different comes along that aligns better with its design goals.

Ps. If you can taste anything in your vodka, spit it out and find something better. ;)
 
So after 17 pages, is it safe to assume the answer is no?

Well, we are nearly at month 6, so 50/50 odds now, just by number of days left.

Maybe there will be an announcement at WWDC or maybe they will have a more important announcement like "Marvel comics signs deal to include characters on watch Bands". (Expect Front Page story here with 72 point font)
 
I now believe the nMP will come only next year with SkyLake, TB3 and Fiji.
And as much as I would want one now, I rather wait and have a better machine, since DMI3, PCIe 3 on the PCH will allow a much better use of the hardware that can even be further tweaked.
Think more available PCIe3 lanes on the PCH means no internal switches for TB3 (although DMI could be a bottleneck if connected to PCH instead of CPU available lanes), no compromises with internal drives (full speed NVMe drives, possibly even more than 1 internal drive - 2 for space constrains).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.