12 Cores?

[iDisk]

As August 9th Approaches, the new mac pros will be set to launch.

My question is who is going to buy the 12 Core behemoth?

What will you be using it for?

How much Ram will be installed?

Are you going to add a better graphics card? If so what?


We hear so many people commenting on these threads about XENONS and how they're overpriced. These same people are comparing XENONS to non XENONS, so there advice isn't needed in this thread unless they have a very good reason based by facts in their argument.

So agin who's planning on purchasing a 12 Core Mac Pro??

[iRobertM]

I am planning on buying it if the price is reasonable. Will be used mostly for running many Windows server VM's within OSx and other CAD work.

[Umbongo]

*xeons

[johnnymg]

I am planning on buying it if the price is reasonable. Will be used mostly for running many Windows server VM's within OSx and other CAD work.

Define "reasonable"? :)

cheers
JohnG

[CaptainChunk]

One who thinks that 12-core Xeon systems are unreasonably priced probably doesn't need that kind of power to begin with. The target customers for these machines are scientific, industrial and creative pros that can actually harness that kind of power with their software. And when they're making money with them, the initial cost becomes less of an issue.

[strausd]

I plan on getting a 12-core MP for 3D animation and some video work. The prices aren't bad, I don't know why people keep complaining about it. Compare a 2009 2.66 GHz 8-core to a 2010 12-core at 2.66 GHz and there is only a $200 difference if you add a 1TB HD to the 2009. And the 5770 is better than the 4870, which is a $200 upgrade, 2010 comes with wifi, and a magic mouse. Also, it supports faster RAM. If you were to add all the stuff in on a 2009 8-core at 2.66 GHz, it would be more than $5000, the price of a standard 2010 12-core at 2.66 GHz.

So if you ask me, they did lower the prices, and you get 8 more virtual cores for less than the 8-core! What's the problem here?

Not only that, but if you make a dell workstation with 12 cores at 2.66 GHz, it will be $400 more! And it will come with slower RAM, worse GPU, smaller HD, and an awful case.

[Octobot]

*raises hand*

Cinema 4D, Realflow, After Effects... among other things.

[mism]

Seriously considering it. Mainly for rendering in Cinema 4D and Maxwell.
With enough work it could pay for itself very quickly. Its a case of getting the work.

As for RAM, I'm rendering right now and only using 1GB of my 8 so may well stick to that for now, knowing its easy to upgrade in the future.

[RatVega]

I'm planning on getting a 12X in the fourth quarter, the exact configuration will be dictated by the cost of options. I suspect that the fast processor option will command a serious premium (it's $2600 for the Nehalem 8X) but beyond that I anticipate that the system will include the 5870 graphics card and perhaps an SSD system drive.
I've been playing with Macs for a while now (since '88) so most of the build-out will be aftermarket: Total RAM in the 24-32GB range, Hardware RAID card (probably Areca), and hopefully 8TB net storage. Dual 1080p monitors of course, plus color grading monitor.

The system will be used for HD post-production (video editing, color correction, compositing and effects, titling, authoring).

[iDisk]

I plan on getting a 12-core MP for 3D animation and some video work. The prices aren't bad, I don't know why people keep complaining about it. Compare a 2009 2.66 GHz 8-core to a 2010 12-core at 2.66 GHz and there is only a $200 difference if you add a 1TB HD to the 2009. And the 5770 is better than the 4870, which is a $200 upgrade, 2010 comes with wifi, and a magic mouse. Also, it supports faster RAM. If you were to add all the stuff in on a 2009 8-core at 2.66 GHz, it would be more than $5000, the price of a standard 2010 12-core at 2.66 GHz.

So if you ask me, they did lower the prices, and you get 8 more virtual cores for less than the 8-core! What's the problem here?

Not only that, but if you make a dell workstation with 12 cores at 2.66 GHz, it will be $400 more! And it will come with slower RAM, worse GPU, smaller HD, and an awful case.

HP's 12 Core offering is priced $600 more then Apples. Again only people who understand there needs for a 12 Core would see that. So yes your right the 12-Core isn't badly priced at all.

The people who complain about price don't need the machine anyways ya know. I'm excited:) about the many options will will have to configure this machine with, and can you imagine a 1TB SSD Offering as an option, WHOA!:eek:

[strausd]

HP's 12 Core offering is priced $600 more then Apples. Again only people who understand there needs for a 12 Core would see that. So yes your right the 12-Core isn't badly priced at all.

The people who complain about price don't need the machine anyways ya know. I'm excited:) about the many options will will have to configure this machine with, and can you imagine a 1TB SSD Offering as an option, WHOA!:eek:

I saw a 1TB SSD on Amazon not too long ago, only $4,000, not too bad :D

And I will start with 16GB of RAM and hopefully not long after that get to 24GB with 6 X 4GB, tri channel for each CPU :)

[iDisk]

I'm planning on getting a 12X in the fourth quarter, the exact configuration will be dictated by the cost of options. I suspect that the fast processor option will command a serious premium (it's $2600 for the Nehalem 8X) but beyond that I anticipate that the system will include the 5870 graphics card and perhaps an SSD system drive.
I've been playing with Macs for a while now (since '88) so most of the build-out will be aftermarket: Total RAM in the 24-32GB range, Hardware RAID card (probably Areca), and hopefully 8TB net storage. Dual 1080p monitors of course, plus color grading monitor.

The system will be used for HD post-production (video editing, color correction, compositing and effects, titling, authoring).

Are you an independent video artist? I have a few professional amateur friends in video and Im thinking about incorporating that in my digital publications. Or doing some short films.

How big is your team?

These 12 Core machines will seriously speed up workflows if you have apps that can take advantage of such. I don't think FCP7 can take advantage of these cores or any core yet.

[strausd]

After Effects CS5 can finally use all cores! Definitely happy about that.

[Octobot]

12core + Quadro 4000 :eek:

[iDisk]

I saw a 1TB SSD on Amazon not too long ago, only $4,000, not too bad :D

And I will start with 16GB of RAM and hopefully not long after that get to 24GB with 6 X 4GB, tri channel for each CPU :)

WOW!! 4k :eek: Lol yeah not to bad.....

My ram upgrade will be like yours for the most part, I'm starting with 16... I was in the Apple Store early today and was in front of the 27" iMacs and I can just imagine how beautiful the 27" ACD will be once it ships in Sept. Since I don't do very much print work for clients, I'm seriously considering 2 of them

[strausd]

WOW!! 4k :eek: Lol yeah not to bad.....

My ram upgrade will be like yours for the most part, I'm starting with 16... I was in the Apple Store early today and was in front of the 27" iMacs and I can just imagine how beautiful the 27" ACD will be once it ships in Sept. Since I don't do very much print work for clients, I'm seriously considering 2 of them

They are nice, but I am a little concerned considering they use the same panel from the iMac which still has the yellow tint issue. Since I also do a lot of Photoshop, Illustrator, and a few other things where color is extremely important, I personally wouldn't take the chance on one of those.

[RubbishBBspeed]

I'll be using mine (ahum, assuming my boss decides to stop walking with a squeak)

For a bit of computational fluid dynamics, google earth, a bit of final cut. a lot of watching movies and listening to music and running all the usual blurp web, e-mail, ichat, pages, numbers, keynote, ical and twitter. probably all at the same time (although on twitter I haven't actually tweeted yet)? And a few other things which I can't think of at the moment.

[malch]

I'm planning on getting a 12X in the fourth quarter, the exact configuration will be dictated by the cost of options. I suspect that the fast processor option will command a serious premium (it's $2600 for the Nehalem 8X) but beyond that I anticipate that the system will include the 5870 graphics card and perhaps an SSD system drive.
I've been playing with Macs for a while now (since '88) so most of the build-out will be aftermarket: Total RAM in the 24-32GB range, Hardware RAID card (probably Areca), and hopefully 8TB net storage. Dual 1080p monitors of course, plus color grading monitor.
The system will be used for HD post-production (video editing, color correction, compositing and effects, titling, authoring).

RatVega - Like you I'm an editor (I'm also a shooter), so I'd value your input, particularly because I'm easily confused by the comparisons between cores vs. speed, etc.
I've been using a MacBook Pro (with 4GB RAM) for my editing for a few years now (I use Avid Media Composer, by the way) and perhaps because I'm not doing 1:1 uncompressed and the like, it seems to work well. But my second camera is an AVCHD-based Canon, and rewrapping and importing the AVCHD files into Avid is a NIGHTMARE in terms of the time it takes. (my main camera is a Sony EX-1, and these files get converted to mxf and are imported into Avid very quickly).
I think a bigger, faster Mac Pro would help out with regards to this AVCHD nonsense, and for rendering etc. I just think it would be a better machine for editing, all round. But which one?

I tend to think that 12 cores would be best, but some of the posts that I read say fewer cores might be better, if the processor speed is faster. I guess I understand this, especially if a person's apps can't benefit from more cores (and I don't think Avid supports multi-threading, YET anyway; I hear they're working on a 64-bit version), but maybe in my case importing AVCHD would go faster with more cores?

To further complicate things (for me), some of you say that adding RAM is more important than anything else — but a recent poster on a Mac/Avid forum said that Avid can only use a maximum of 4GB RAM; again, this may change in the near future, and — this is a key point — whatever Mac Pro I get I'll need to keep for four or five years.

From what I gather on some other threads, I should definitely put the soon-to-be-released Quatro video card on my wish list.
But which Mac Pro should I be saving my money for?

thanks for any advice, malch

[skyline r34]

I'm waiting for Sandy Bridge to upgrade to a new Mac Pro but $4999 is not bad at all for a 12-Core Mac Pro and if you order it stock with 5870 it probably come out to $6186.41 with AppleCare, I paid $6,464 for my 2008 Mac Pro 3.2GHz 8-Core two years ago and ever sense then i've been putting away $600 a month and it's going towards my next Mac Pro setup but i'm skipping this update and waiting for next update in 2011

[galstaph]

pshaw... 12 cores is nothing... if I had the money, and could stomach pure windows and/or linux I'd get 4 boxx renderbox systems (each are dual-dual sixes, meaning 24 cores) networked to have 96 cores working together all run by a 12 core boxx workstation... or get a cray xe6 supercomputer (96 cores per blade 2304 per cabinet)... or an ibm bladeserver (power 7 of course) or....:D

[jjahshik32]

$4000!?!?

You know how many tacos I can buy with that much!!!

[The Rominator]

And when James Cameron looks you in the eye and asks why you can't show him a render of a scene from his next $300 Million movie in the next 20 minutes....how are you going to look when you tell him you needed to save a couple thousand bucks on the rendering system?

You guys whining about prices need to realize that not everybody buys a new Mac just so they can post their Geekbench scores.

Some people actually use them in places where time costs more money than you can count on your fingers. It is time that can be bought in no other way.

[rajbonham]

You guys whining about prices need to realize that not everybody buys a new Mac just so they can post their Geekbench scores.

Some people actually use them in places where time costs more money than you can count on your fingers. It is time that can be bought in no other way.

I totally agree. Unfortunately, those guys are busy and don't spend any time on these boards, so we never get to hear their side of the story, which is a bummer.

Instead we get, "Hey guys, I want to play Starcraft 2 at high FPS. do you think a 12 core Mac Pro is good enough for this?". :rolleyes:

[PeterQVenkman]

HP's 12 Core offering is priced $600 more then Apples. Again only people who understand there needs for a 12 Core would see that. So yes your right the 12-Core isn't badly priced at all.

The people who complain about price don't need the machine anyways ya know.

The 8 and 12 cores are very competitive on a price front. The 4 core is a rip off for the performance you get.

[CaoCao]

I saw a 1TB SSD on Amazon not too long ago, only $4,000, not too bad :D

And I will start with 16GB of RAM and hopefully not long after that get to 24GB with 6 X 4GB, tri channel for each CPU :)

honestly, that's nuts, better to go with 4x480GB OWC in RAID 0

OWC sells 8GB sticks...

[strausd]

OWC sells 8GB sticks...

Ya I know, but I don't see myself needing more than 24GB of RAM. And with 3 X 4GB modules for each processor which support tri channel, it will be really fast. Not to mention 1333 MHz and an on board memory die :)

[tekboi]

Oh yea, it's reasonably priced... FIVE-****IN-THOUSAND GOTDAMN DOLLARS REASONABLE!



lol, seriously though. They MP's are priced pretty well. I was looking for a WorkStation (PC) w/ octo-core i7's and they wanted $3,800 for it. I was like WOW. Apple didn't seem so ridiculous after that. Here are the specs for the "PC Workstation"

Rain Recording Element

Windows 7
Two 2.26 Intel "Nehalem" Xeon Quad Core
4GB 1333MHz DDR3 Ram
500GB
ATI Radeon HD 4650
Dual Layer CD/DVD writer
No Wireless or Bluetooth
Power Supply 750 Watts

Price: 3799.00

The only category it falls short in is Graphics Cards. But, that is about to change come August 9th.

[wisty]

OK, so Apple and Dell both have strengths and weaknesses.

Both have comparable prices. That's not bad, given that Dell really competes on price.

Overall, Windows computers have more graphics options, and Dell has really good business support.

On the other hand, Apple runs OSX, and it's quite solidly built.

All we've learned today - the high-end MacPro isn't overpriced.

[10THzMac]

12 cores will run GridMathematica nicely, and I will add fermi Quadro or gtx 4xx when I can for CUDA work.

[Kallel00]

These same people are comparing XENONS to non XENONS, so there advice isn't needed in this thread unless they have a very good reason based by facts in their argument.



I dunno about what you're gonna do with XENONS, other than try to build yourself a custom Xbox360



Me, I'm gonna stick with a Xeon cpu ;)

[mism]

Would people agree that we can expect to pay £3999.00 in the UK for the 2.66GHz 12 core?

[Gloor]

Would people agree that we can expect to pay £3999.00 in the UK for the 2.66GHz 12 core?
I would say so. It would fit with Apple's insane currency exchange rate but I would rather see £3499 as at that point there is a chance I may be able to afford it with a student's discount. Otherwise I'll pass and wait for 2012 update as I guess there will be nothing in 2011

[Shademaster]

This machine is way better value for money than the previous nehalems.

However, if I look at speed/$ ratio it is still quite expensive. Consider that GPU power is going to be more important in the future for 3D rendering since the likes of Vray RT are going to be production ready within 2 years from now, putting all your money on 1 raw processing machine isn't a smart move if you want a professional machine for the coming 5 years.

Also due to the amazing amount of cores the power is too spread out. If I benchmark my 8 core 08 macpro on 1 core it only scores 0.9 Cinebench points. If I bench a Core i7 with Hyperthreading off I get 1.5 cinebench points on 1 core. Considering that MOST normal application use single threads to get their things done, even Cinema4D's preparing phase is mostly single threaded. A i7 with HT off is going to 'feel' a lot quicker than an 8 core macpro. In multicore rendering there is ofcourse no noticable effect.

No question about it that the new 12 cores are amazing machines, however if I had the budget to buy 1 really fast machine I would spread it out over 5 cheaper i7 930's. That would buy me more power, better scalability, also better warranty because every part has it's own free 3/7 year warranty policy instead of the 1 year you get for your macpro *unless you buy protection plan. And if GPU rendering is going to be awesome I can outfit those five i7's with 5, or 10 in SLI/corssfire GPU's! Better yet, if I think the processors are too slow I can upgrade them with 970 6 cores instead of 930 4 cores.

Now that my friend, is ULTIMATE 3D render power.

I am still very very happy with my 08 macpro though :) (yes slightly fanboy)

[apolloa]

All we've learned today - the high-end MacPro isn't overpriced.

Or you could say: All we've learned today is that Apple have very agressively priced the new high end Mac Pro thus going after more market share of this class of machine giving good value for money and will tempt more professionals to adopt the Mac working structure over it's Windows counterpart.

Now imagine if they do this same aggressive pricing with Sandy Bridge machines with USB3, Lightpeak, faster Firewire. Egg on face per chance? Humble pie eaten? Would you still choose a Dell over a Mac pro that costs less with those features?

- That's not to you specifically but to all the trolls on here.

[Topper]

pshaw... 12 cores is nothing

That's true for a friend of mine.
He needs at least 36 cores for DNA polymerase sequence and mapping analysis.

[xBerserker]

My uncle is getting a 12 core monster. I'm so jealous

[strausd]

I remember hearing not too long ago that Intel is supposed to have an 80-core CPU by 2016 :)



too bad we will all be dead in december 2012 :p

[rajbonham]

too bad we will all be dead in december 2012 :p

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kuhybytsm81qaxxfho4_500.jpg

Haha. :)

[nanofrog]

I remember hearing not too long ago that Intel is supposed to have an 80-core CPU by 2016 :)
I presume you mean what's to be based off of the Tera Scale Project. At the time (2006), it was supposed to be out in 2010 (article (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/60535,intel-pushes-for-80-core-cpu-by-2010.aspx)). :eek: Obviously that hasn't happened... :p