Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > New Mac Pro?

New Mac Pro? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2013, 01:31 AM
 
Why would the Bluray drive have impressed you when an external Bluray drive is so cheap?
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2013, 01:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why would the Bluray drive have impressed you when an external Bluray drive is so cheap?
Because, we as creative professionals should not have to buy a separate device that many PC computers have as standards. That's embarrassing. Of all the things that should be included for creative people, that should have been one that was included.

Let's face it- the new "Mac Pro" is going to be very expensive. Instead of offering more, Apple is offering less for most likely more money. And does Apple even offer Bluray software support? IMO, a "Pro" computer should offer every option available.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2013, 02:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by leekohler2 View Post
Because, we as creative professionals should not have to buy a separate device that many PC computers have as standards. That's embarrassing. Of all the things that should be included for creative people, that should have been one that was included.

Let's face it- the new "Mac Pro" is going to be very expensive. Instead of offering more, Apple is offering less for most likely more money. And does Apple even offer Bluray software support? IMO, a "Pro" computer should offer every option available.

The very likely probability that it will be expensive is exactly what makes this point a little incoherent to me. If you are going to spring, say, $3000+ for a computer, a Bluray device worth less than $100 doesn't make the machine "impressive". Practical, desirable, good to have, sure, depending on your opinion, I just wasn't sure why you used the word "impressive".
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2013, 06:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by leekohler2 View Post
I waited for a while to see what would happen with it and the reviews stayed positive. I went to the store to try one out vs a quad core MP with the same amount of RAM. I tried them out using the same video file. The rMBP beat the pants off the MP. The decision was easy- no more Mac desktops for me. Plus, the rMBP had a great screen too and now with it, I have dual monitors. I hook it up to my 24" monitor and use the rMBP's screen as my secondary. Now, since the trash can has come out, I'm glad I did what I did. The rMBP has been a dream to work on. Plus, if I want to, I can take the rMBP anywhere and get my work done, no matter how intense it might be. I now use the G5 as a server, and it is great in that capacity.

Trust me, I am a longtime Apple user since the days of the Apple IIe. The machines have always been top-notch, until they started ignoring the tower. This is one creative professional that Apple has lost as a desktop customer forever. I am sure I'm not alone. One thing they could have done that would have impressed me is put a Bluray drive in the new MP, as I see that tech sticking around for quite a while. Then again, this is my opinion- you have yours.
Your past experiences and decisions are perfectly valid, of course. If you simply didn't require the extra horsepower afforded by the top-end Mac Pro at the time, a MacBook Pro was certainly the better purchase.

However, if you're seriously into video, it should be impossible not to go apeshit over the new Mac Pro, because it is so obviously and specifically built explicitly for that particular market!

The audio world will jump on this thing, too, especially once OpenCL-accelerated tools become available (Logic Pro being the obvious one).

Blu-Ray may be sticking around for a while, but it is of zero interest to anybody but a tiny fraction of the already small market for this machine. I would never use it, and none of the audio professionals I've ever worked with have the slightest interest in an extremely slow optical medium. Heck, we're not even using CDs anymore (anything that fits on a CD might as well go through DropBox, or on a USB stick for transfer). Some of them actually have Blu-Ray players, of course — in the living room.
If you need it, YOU buy the drive, but leave the rest of the world alone with it.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2013, 07:59 PM
 
Does iDVD burn to blu-ray? or do you have to use a 3rd party software?
I eat turtle soup for breakfast
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2013, 03:09 AM
 
Both, Toast 10 and Compressor (part of the Final Cut Studio suite) will do it.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2013, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Your past experiences and decisions are perfectly valid, of course. If you simply didn't require the extra horsepower afforded by the top-end Mac Pro at the time, a MacBook Pro was certainly the better purchase.

However, if you're seriously into video, it should be impossible not to go apeshit over the new Mac Pro, because it is so obviously and specifically built explicitly for that particular market!

The audio world will jump on this thing, too, especially once OpenCL-accelerated tools become available (Logic Pro being the obvious one).

Blu-Ray may be sticking around for a while, but it is of zero interest to anybody but a tiny fraction of the already small market for this machine. I would never use it, and none of the audio professionals I've ever worked with have the slightest interest in an extremely slow optical medium. Heck, we're not even using CDs anymore (anything that fits on a CD might as well go through DropBox, or on a USB stick for transfer). Some of them actually have Blu-Ray players, of course — in the living room.
If you need it, YOU buy the drive, but leave the rest of the world alone with it.
We'll see what happens. I predict this thing goes down in flames. Time will tell.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Palo Alto, CA USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 06:53 PM
 
What this new Mac Pro has done is open the door to the side of the market that says "I only do emails, web and word processing, but I want the best, fastest Mac you have" and they will end up with this model, not to mention the TB Display, and accept whatever the costs will be. Of course, they could have done that with the current Mac Pro, but this new model is so much friendlier than the behemoth that the metal tower.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2013, 07:25 AM
 
Prices of the relevant processors have leaked. Shouldn't be long now.

Note that the only 12 core models are insanely overpriced, so count on 8 and 10 core models in any reasonably priced model.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2013, 02:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Note that the only 12 core models are insanely overpriced, so count on 8 and 10 core models in any reasonably priced model.
The only cheap 10 cores are slowwwwwww.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 07:31 AM
 
Yes, I wonder about that. Does Intel have two masks for Ivy Bridge-EP, one with 8 and one with 12 cores, the way they have 2 and 4 core versions of the regular desktop chips? Generally they just disable cores (functional or not), but the price differential after 8 cores is massive.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 12:05 PM
 
I suspect the 4-6 core parts are the same mask as IVB-E, then there's a 12 core IVB-EP mask for 8-12 cores. Even with the large die they can get a lot of 8 working core parts when they get to disable 33% of the cores.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 12:42 AM
 
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 12:53 AM
 
If the 12-core mask is only for 12-core, yields won't be so good. Those are going to be wicked expensive chips.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 04:02 AM
 
They ARE wicked expensive chips, although Intel has something like 95% top bin after a few months' startup these days. Also, given the design of the 10 core model, doesn't it seem like they could have made that rumored 15 core model?

Thanks for the update mduell, that explains a lot about the pricing.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 08:26 AM
 
Rumors say that the 12-core Ivy Bridge-EP is actually the Ivy Bridge-EX die with one QPI link and 3 cores disabled. Sounds strange, but I don't see that it is impossible.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 10:21 AM
 
That makes sense...Celerons were just Pentiums that didn't cut the mustard and had features disabled; AMD's tri-core CPUs were quad-cores with a core disabled. I'm betting it's a lot cheaper to make one physical CPU with different features enabled or disabled.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 11:54 AM
 
It's a balance - on the one hand, you don't have to validate multiple masks - on the other, you can fit fewer chips on each sheet. Intel uses this extensively to do die harvesting, but they also disable perfectly good chips to save on the number of masks they have to make. From Sandy Bridge on, the mask is made so it can be cut to reduce the amount of L3 (and, I think, GPU power) and fit more chips onto the sheet.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: West Michigan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Internal expandability is growing increasingly irrelevant. Thunderbolt 2 makes it all but obsolete.
It's interesting that so many people around the net just spout an opinion as if it is fact. This is a great example. Unfortunately I do think that Apple may have built themselves a real dud here. In the interest of openness, I have to admit that my sample size is only around 200 Mac users, so it may not be big enough to extrapolate it to the "world as a whole", but many of them are Graphics Designers, SysAdmins, TV Station managers (university level), Advertising Firms etc, plus the Education environment (where I've seen several schools scramble to buy the current Mac Pro to replace their older servers). So far the reaction to the new Mac Pro design hasn't just been "meh", it's been downright dreadful. None of them seem to want it at all, and this Internal Expandability issue is one I've heard brought up a lot, because it keeps costs down. People want to slam a bunch of big cheap drives in there and raid them. Dirt cheap, fast, clean storage. Time will tell I suppose, but I don't have high-hopes for it and suspect it will become seen as one of Apple's blunders. Asserting that "internal expansion is growing increasingly irrelevant" isn't a fact, it's an opinion, and not a very-well informed one (as far as I can tell).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 05:07 PM
 
So your point, based upon anecdotal evidence, is "internal storage"?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 05:21 PM
 
Here's something I don't understand about the internal storage in the new Mac Pro: the sole Flash drive in the machine is on the back of one of the graphics cards. Why not have an empty slot on the back of the other graphics card also?
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 06:13 PM
 
It's PCIe SSD storage. If there were two slots, you could use just one, and have a working internal expansion slot. For custom 3rd party cards yes, but still a working free slot.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 07:13 PM
 
So can you imagine that someone will try to boot off an external TB2 drive and plug something else in that internal slot?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2013, 08:44 AM
 
Why? It's going to be slower than just putting it on TB2.

To panjandrum: The saving in using internal drives is mostly that you don't have to include yet another PSU for each drive. If you have one external chassie for all the drives - as you'd want if you want to RAID them anyway - that's only one big PSU, and you save in not having to put a kW PSU in the MP itself.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2013, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
To panjandrum: The saving in using internal drives is mostly that you don't have to include yet another PSU for each drive. If you have one external chassie for all the drives - as you'd want if you want to RAID them anyway - that's only one big PSU, and you save in not having to put a kW PSU in the MP itself.
So we found a way to solve the problem we just invented. For an additional cost. But that is immaterial and should be factored into the total cost of ownership because it just makes sense. The problem isn't the approach, it's that some potential users don't get it and/or the purported benefits. Got it.

Forgive my snarky attitude. This is just reminiscent of the post-clone expansion debates. "IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH APPLE, THERE ARE SOLUTIONS."

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2013, 02:29 PM
 
No. Either you pay for the PSU capacity when buying the Mac, or you pay for it if you need it. If the cost to have one big PSU is significantly lower and most users would make use of it, it makes sense. If not, it makes more sense to do it this way. This way also has the added benefit of making the MP easier to transport. Whether since we haven't even seen the new MP price tag yet, arguing about price is a bit premature.

And again: If the old model had been selling well, they would just have iterated on it.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2013, 02:40 PM
 
I wish they'd upgraded the old model, along with the new. Then let the market decide. What would have happened to the PowerMac if when the Cube was introduced, the other models were discontinued? At the time, Apple continued both paths. The market chose expansion and lower prices over compact a majority of the time.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2013, 03:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I wish they'd upgraded the old model, along with the new. Then let the market decide. What would have happened to the PowerMac if when the Cube was introduced, the other models were discontinued? At the time, Apple continued both paths. The market chose expansion and lower prices over compact a majority of the time.
THIS. Exactly this. It's akin to their decision to show us the light with the rethinking of Final Cut Pro. Ok, great. It's.. not what I was expecting and actually somewhat hinders my workflow a bit, but I can see the potential and maybe in a few years 3rd parties will step up to the plate and it'll mature into a great product.

Apple: "Oh, btw, we're canceling FCP 7 and you can't even buy licenses anymore even if your business relies on them. No, seriously, don't use it."

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2013, 03:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I wish they'd upgraded the old model, along with the new. Then let the market decide. What would have happened to the PowerMac if when the Cube was introduced, the other models were discontinued? At the time, Apple continued both paths. The market chose expansion and lower prices over compact a majority of the time.
That is NOT the dichotomy here.

The Cube died because it offered less at a higher price than existing lines.

The new TubeMac has more flexible expansion possibilities than the previous case did, with the exception of graphics cards (16x PCIe slots).

So if they continue with S-ATA drives internally for the twenty-five folks who need a cheap RAID, while the rest of the industry needs FAST RAIDs and can swallow the cost of getting a Thunderbolt 2 box which is potentially faster than an internal S-ATA RAID, what's the point?

Costs are higher due to maintaining more product lines, Thunderbolt prices stay higher than they might otherwise due to slower adoption, all for a box that offers one single advantage over the new series: PCI slots faster than Thunderbolt 2.

Notice that all panjandram had to offer up as an advantage was internal storage, so slots probably aren't even the issue (how could they be, with Apple's notoriously poor graphics card support? Everybody who needs cutting edge is probably on Linux or Windows already anyway. Platform loyalty is thus not a valid reason for Apple to consider).
If that's the only argument you can think of, then by all means, go ahead and kill that and go Thunderbolt. Right?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2013, 05:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Rumors say that the 12-core Ivy Bridge-EP is actually the Ivy Bridge-EX die with one QPI link and 3 cores disabled. Sounds strange, but I don't see that it is impossible.
This is basically confirmed now - it's the same die, but with a whole chunk of stuff disabled. The 12 core EP is the harvested version of a very big and very expensive 15 core EX chip. I guess that explains the price tag.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bristol, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2013, 04:33 PM
 
I note with interest the Mac Pro (old style) has disappeared from the Apple UK store. It seems to be available in the US still...?
2012 Macbook Pro 13"
     
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2013, 04:39 PM
 
I think the old Mac Pro is gone in the UK because of the RF leakage story from last year. Not worth it to re-engineer a departing product.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2013, 06:26 PM
 
It disappeared in March due to new EU regulations.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2013, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by panjandrum View Post
It's interesting that so many people around the net just spout an opinion as if it is fact.
Nah, it's just SH. He's the only one around here who can't comprehend anyone's opinion other than his own.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2013, 09:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Nah, it's just SH. He's the only one around here who can't comprehend anyone's opinion other than his own.
Good evening, pot. I may be the kettle you're looking for.

Note that my assertion was that internal storage is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

And his was that 200 people like it because they can RAID cheap drives.

My assertion is not necessarily "opinion". You can counter it by real-world examples of where it's multiple internal storage is indispensable or better-suited to the job than what the new machine offers (which hasn't happened), but bringing up anecdotal evidence of people who "like" it is really just opinion. After all, it's just as simple to stick cheap drives into an external RAID (which is going to be faster than current solutions, to boot). It just shifts the upfront cost from one big box onto two smaller boxes.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2013, 06:23 AM
 
The problem with arguing about the Mac Pro is that we don't have the data on how well it sells, to who, and what those users want. This leaves us grasping at straws around the problem. We can infer that it sells badly, but not who it has lost.

What Spheric has been doing, and what I have done at times, is to point out old assumptions that no longer hold true - such as the fact that while internal storage used to be notably faster than external, that is no longer true. Those points are factually true, but don't necessarily mean that the new MP design is a good idea - only that it is not a terrible one. What it can also do is explain Apple's reasoning, because Apple loves to do such things.

The other thing that happens is posters that extrapolate from themselves: I use a Mac Pro, or maybe I always wanted one, and I don't want the new one, therefore it is crap and noone will buy it ever. That only works as an argument if you can somehow show that you the poster represent a significant part of MP buyers. This particular argument was very common from Classic Mac OS users back at the OS X transition, and we know how that turned out. It's only relevant if the web is burning with the flames of everyone hating the new MP design, and that's just not happening. Opinion is divided, and the new design has as many fans as it has detractors.

At the end of the day, it comes down to price. If Apple has managed to keep the price of the bottom model down to something reasonable, they will be forgiven a lot.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2013, 02:14 PM
 
I'll also add that I spent eight years selling the damn things.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:55 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2