Resolved: PC Workstation vs. Mac Pro

[deconstruct60]

Originally Posted by Sophia.

Agreed a very relevant video indeed a setup such as this one is exactly what my colleagues and I need. We really need a large sever like the Apple Xserve or something similar. I wonder what the running costs for such a machine are...

Unless you have > 2-3 workstations and a relatively fast LAN ( >= 4Gbps ), you don't need a "larger server" like that. Perhaps that many storage drives, but the "head node" on those disks doesn't have to be large.

Your "old, too slow" Mac Pro could probably pull the weight if drop the proper networking card(s) in and attach a pool of disks. Running costs would be higher than something newer and sized appropriately.

That video dates from 2010. That XServe he is pointing to probably could be equaled by a quad mini with two small SSDs for mirror OS ( and if have to secure rack it: stuffed in http://www.sonnettech.com/product/xmacminiserver.html )

If capped by a 1GbE to the clients then just a raw Mini is capable. If using bonded/aggregated 1GbE for more speed an TB enclosure with a 2 or 4 port 1Gbe card would work open up the bandwidth but likely not going to get out in front of the standard configs for a quad Mini.

Or could use a mini as a XSan metadata controller and get another box that just puts raw blocks on a fast enough network to the clients.

If one was to make a thread asking questions about storage solutions where would be the best place for one to post?

If use a Mac Pro as the "head node" to the Storage solution this forum would work. ;-) If want dedicated hardware then if looking for a range of opinions versus SAN/NAS set-ups then that likely has better thread over in a place like creative cow's SAN/NAS threads or maybe http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/

[subwelt]

Some thoughts concerning the original question of this thread:

Even a new Mac Pro will not be able to work with 10-bit monitors, which are a great improvement for anybody in the video/photo field. Mac OS simply does not support 10-bit output.

What will boost your performance more than the cpu is RAM and SSD or HD-Raid or PCI SSD-Raid (like the OWC Accelsior). This has been emphasized in the HP Z820 video and I can agree from my own experience.

On a PC workstation you have a lot more choice of graphics cards and the PC models of the cards are also cheaper than the Mac versions.

I doubt that a future Mac Pro will be as uncompromisingly dedicated to raw power and performance as some of the high end PC workstations like the z820. I wouldn't hold my breath for it. Remember what happened to FCP. The new FCP X is definitely a professional program with a brave new approach but it targets users who need simplicity and intuitivety (is that a word in english?) more then flexibility and control.

[Sophia.]

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

Unless you have > 2-3 workstations and a relatively fast LAN ( >= 4Gbps ), you don't need a "larger server" like that. Perhaps that many storage drives, but the "head node" on those disks doesn't have to be large.

Your "old, too slow" Mac Pro could probably pull the weight if drop the proper networking card(s) in and attach a pool of disks. Running costs would be higher than something newer and sized appropriately.

That video dates from 2010. That XServe he is pointing to probably could be equaled by a quad mini with two small SSDs for mirror OS ( and if have to secure rack it: stuffed in http://www.sonnettech.com/product/xmacminiserver.html )

If capped by a 1GbE to the clients then just a raw Mini is capable. If using bonded/aggregated 1GbE for more speed an TB enclosure with a 2 or 4 port 1Gbe card would work open up the bandwidth but likely not going to get out in front of the standard configs for a quad Mini.

Or could use a mini as a XSan metadata controller and get another box that just puts raw blocks on a fast enough network to the clients.




If use a Mac Pro as the "head node" to the Storage solution this forum would work. ;-) If want dedicated hardware then if looking for a range of opinions versus SAN/NAS set-ups then that likely has better thread over in a place like creative cow's SAN/NAS threads or maybe http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/

Thank you for your post, I was given a new Mac Mini (server) for Christmas. I had it hooked up to an external Blu-ray drive and was using it as a HTPC but your idea is very appealing.

Originally Posted by subwelt

Some thoughts concerning the original question of this thread:

Even a new Mac Pro will not be able to work with 10-bit monitors, which are a great improvement for anybody in the video/photo field. Mac OS simply does not support 10-bit output.

What will boost your performance more than the cpu is RAM and SSD or HD-Raid or PCI SSD-Raid (like the OWC Accelsior). This has been emphasized in the HP Z820 video and I can agree from my own experience.

On a PC workstation you have a lot more choice of graphics cards and the PC models of the cards are also cheaper than the Mac versions.

I doubt that a future Mac Pro will be as uncompromisingly dedicated to raw power and performance as some of the high end PC workstations like the z820. I wouldn't hold my breath for it. Remember what happened to FCP. The new FCP X is definitely a professional program with a brave new approach but it targets users who need simplicity and intuitivety (is that a word in english?) more then flexibility and control.

Intuitively? Yes it's a word.

You make some very good points and some of these points have me considering crossing over to Windows as my main OS. I have no love nor loyalty to Apple or OS X, I will use whatever gives me the best results.

Having said that I've been using Macs since I was four years old and I've been designing with Mac since I was fifteen.

So perhaps there is a slight reluctance to move over to Windows 7/8 full time. I would without hesitation if the new Mac Pros disappoint, if they even come into existence. Either way I know more now than I did before starting this thread to help me make the right decision thanks to all of you.

It's not out of the question Apple adding 10 bit support in a future update or the new OS is it? It can't be that hard if Microsoft added it to Windows 7...

[deconstruct60]

Originally Posted by Sophia.

....
It's not out of the question Apple adding 10 bit support in a future update or the new OS is it? It can't be that hard if Microsoft added it to Windows 7...

It is a multiple cooks in the kitchen issue. There is work that needs to be done by Apple. Some work by the low level GPU driver vendor (not Apple) and some work at the monitor.

Then after all of that the software has to be aware.

If Apple actually had a desire to get a 10-bit monitor out the door there would probably be more urgency. They don't. The card vendor GPU market has dragged ( cottage industry tweaking market isn't likely to enable). It is far easier for the monitor makers to deal with Windows users in that context.

So it is a bit of chicken-and-egg thing. Until there are more monitors/GPU card combos that do then the apps won't. The pressure on the cards would be high if the apps would.

Apple's focus of late is "more pixels per inch" rather than expanding the color range. More bits per pixels will only put bigger strain on graphics pipeline if try to do both at the same time.

----------

Originally Posted by subwelt

....
I doubt that a future Mac Pro will be as uncompromisingly dedicated to raw power and performance as some of the high end PC workstations like the z820..

The Mac Pro never really was aimed that the less than 1% crowd. There is a good (or more) than enough for most aspect to the design constraints. OS X can handle more than 98GB of RAM so a machine that can pack in 500GB isn't of much practical use. If raises the bar to 128GB of RAM with 10.9 and a new Mac Pro I think they'll capture that vast majority of folks the Mac Pro is targeting.

If 99% of folks don't put more than 64 GB in then it isn't really a compromise.

Likewise with more than 4 slots. 840 has more of them but somewhat also needs them because of controller(s) not embedded on the motherboard will require more cards to bring into I/O connectivity of the Mac Pro has by default.

The Mac Pro sits between the 640 and 840. Apple's design constraints on power/noise , layout , and a few other things take them to a slightly different position.

[bearcatrp]

Originally Posted by Sophia.

It's not out of the question Apple adding 10 bit support in a future update or the new OS is it? It can't be that hard if Microsoft added it to Windows 7...

Wouldn't hold your breathe waiting for it. Allot of professional photo/video forums have been asking apple for it awhile back. When apple ditched xserve, think the writing was on the wall that apple was leaving the pro market. Mac pro being semi pro, apple can see whats left if its worth spending the resources to keep it going. My belief is apple may try one more mac pro, it will be dumbed down so bad that those who waited will finally realize they where screwed over. Hate to see it but apple is enjoying itoys money coming in. But even that is starting to look bleek.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by nigelbb

...I have some financial interest in recommending a particular product.

Thought so...

Originally Posted by thekev

What's wrong with tape? It's quite practical for companies that must archive dozens or hundreds of terabytes of data for years.

Usually not, no. It's typically used as a transitory archival medium. Moving large amounts of data between locations securely. And tapes when used, are checked are rechecked usually on a monthly scheduled basis (usually with mandatory replacement built-in annually) - because they tend to develop errors quite rapidly. You should see the incinerator bins from a datacenter that uses tape a lot.

But hey, let the buyer beware right?

[TheEasterBunny]

Originally Posted by Tesselator

Thought so...




Usually not, no. It's typically used as a transitory archival medium. Moving large amounts of data between locations securely. And tapes when used, are checked are rechecked usually on a monthly scheduled basis (usually with mandatory replacement built-in annually) - because they tend to develop errors quite rapidly. You should see the incinerator bins from a datacenter that uses tape a lot.

But hey, let the buyer beware right?

I do sub-contract work for a company whose owners is a big supporter of tape drives.
He calls me when his files are corrupt, or the decompression will take too long to deliver the files.
I compress on HDD.
In a few minutes (less than an hour) I can have them found, decompressed, and uploaded to a company FTP.
Tape drives have been around for decades true, and so have floppies, don't use those either.

[nigelbb]

Originally Posted by Tesselator

Thought so...

Why the snide comments? Why the obsession with how useless & unreliable tape is? I have no interest in tape other than the fact that I own an LTO-5 tape drive that I use for backup. I worked for 25 years in proper grown-up IT dealing with corporate customers using big iron computers. I haven't worked in IT for over five years now as I work in video production but keep abreast of developments. We have heard the "tape is dead" for 20 years or more & it's no more true today than it was 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by Tesselator

Usually not, no. It's typically used as a transitory archival medium. Moving large amounts of data between locations securely. And tapes when used, are checked are rechecked usually on a monthly scheduled basis (usually with mandatory replacement built-in annually) - because they tend to develop errors quite rapidly. You should see the incinerator bins from a datacenter that uses tape a lot.

Tape is commonly used as the final tier of archival storage precisely because it is so reliable & can be left on the shelf or (for big data organisations) in the storage library for years without attention. In the old days reel to reel tape needed to be re-spooled every year or two but this is not necessary with current tape cartridge design. Tape does not "develop errors quite rapidly" that is just utter nonsense. You claimed something similar over in another thread but never did back this up with any evidence.

[wallysb01]

Originally Posted by thekev

Intel shows the 2630s as having a base clock 2.3 and max turbo 2.8. They show 3.1 and 3.8 for the 2687w. Were you just figuring on average they run about those clock speeds? I just don't see why anyone would take such a jump in price points from something like a 1650 if they aren't going for 12-16 cores. Otherwise the increase in investment really outpaces the increase in performance.

I was using the "with all cores active" clock speeds for each processor. And yes, I agree, the 1650 is the way to go if you aren't going to use >/=12 cores very frequently.

[Sophia.]

Originally Posted by Tesselator

If you decide to go for external storage let me know here or in a different thread (hopefully a different thread) and I can show you how you can get speeds in excess of 2 gigabytes per second for only about $250 or $300 over the cost of the drives themselves.

Setup is pretty easy all-in-all. Place the drives, connect the cables, insert the card, install the driver, done.

Thank you for all the comments you made I found them a great help. I started a new thread in the buying advice section here. Please take a look if you like.

[maflynn]

[MOD NOTE]
Lets stop the bickering and stay on topic.

[Sophia.]

I've decided to wait for the new Mac Pro. Yes the future of the Mac Pro is uncertain but I would miss not having a Mac Workstation. Thanks to everyone for their input.