2007 Harpertown Stoakley-Seaburg Motherboard With New Graphics Cards 8-Core Mac Pro

[darthraige]

Now that Santa Rosa is confirmed in the MacBooks, looks like we are one step closer to a new MacPro within a week or two.

 

[jasonvp]

The biggest problem on the high end is not the hardware but the software. Apple can update their hardware, but even now most apps, even first party ones, aren't optimized for 4-8 cores and more RAM. What's the point of spending $4000 on an 8 core machine if barely any software uses that power? At this point, software updates would spike MP sales way more than a hardware update.

I don't agree with you that software isn't optimized for 4-8 cores. I do agree that software needs to be overhauled to support 64-bit memory addressing.

It's the OS's job to manage threads, and their placement on the CPUs. Not the applications'. If an app is multi-threaded (and most pro apps are, these days) then they'll take advantage of more than one CPU. Photoshop is a perfect example. It'll spawn as many threads as it can to get work done. The more CPUs you have, the quicker the work gets done.

Also, you seem to forget that with multiple CPUs, you can run more than one application concurrently. That's yet another way to get a lot of stuff done at once.

jas

 

[milo]

I don't agree with you that software isn't optimized for 4-8 cores. I do agree that software needs to be overhauled to support 64-bit memory addressing.

It's the OS's job to manage threads, and their placement on the CPUs. Not the applications'. If an app is multi-threaded (and most pro apps are, these days) then they'll take advantage of more than one CPU. Photoshop is a perfect example. It'll spawn as many threads as it can to get work done. The more CPUs you have, the quicker the work gets done.

Also, you seem to forget that with multiple CPUs, you can run more than one application concurrently. That's yet another way to get a lot of stuff done at once.

jas

OK, if you disagree, then give me an example of an apple app that fully uses all 8 cores. I expect there are some, but definitely not all of them do. I know for a fact that Logic Pro doesn't, on an 8 core machine it will use all 8 cores, but will not use more than about half of each. Do the FCS apps use all 8? Aperture? Even things like quicktime? Does PS max out all cores? And I mean when you look in Activity Monitor, you see CPU numbers for the app upwards of 700%?

Maybe the OS is part of the limitation, but since apple makes that as well, that's not much of an excuse for their apps not to take full advantage of the hardware.

And running multiple apps is useful, but it's no substitute for being able to have all cores cranking together to make a render happen faster.

 

[darthraige]

I'm just noticing under all the computers EXCEPT the MacPro, they all state they are shipping with a pre-installed Leopard at the top of the screen in big bold letters lol. Looks like we will see the MacPro update soon.

http://www.apple.com/mac/

 

[fisha]

OK, if you disagree, then give me an example of an apple app that fully uses all 8 cores. I expect there are some, but definitely not all of them do. I know for a fact that Logic Pro doesn't, on an 8 core machine it will use all 8 cores, but will not use more than about half of each. Do the FCS apps use all 8? Aperture? Even things like quicktime? Does PS max out all cores? And I mean when you look in Activity Monitor, you see CPU numbers for the app upwards of 700%?

but again, is that not down to the app. Lets say an app created 16 threads, and the OS spread them across 4 cores ... and it only took each of the cores 50% of the their time .... thats not the OS's fault that all cores aren't being used to 100% is it ?

 

[milo]

but again, is that not down to the app. Lets say an app created 16 threads, and the OS spread them across 4 cores ... and it only took each of the cores 50% of the their time .... thats not the OS's fault that all cores aren't being used to 100% is it ?

Well, it's the fault of SOMETHING. In the case of an app from apple and an OS from apple, if the CPU isn't being used fully, it's apple's fault either way.

Whether it's an OS fix or an app fix, apple should fix it. First party apps should be able to take full advantage of all cores, if they don't, there's far less incentive to buy a high end machine.

 

[matt39932]

Have you actually used Logic 8? It took almost three years to come out since the last major update, and once you get past the graphical redesign, it hardly has any new features. Many old bugs are still there, performance is worse than the previous version (and even worse on leopard), it doesn't have 64 bit support (and it's rumored that they're not planning on adding it any time soon).

It's funny, on the Logic boards, many people complain that apple doesn't care about Logic users when Apple releases other stuff.

I expect that there will be a MP in the next few weeks. The current ones, even without an update in a while, are still pretty decent. I'm not sure how much better people think they should be right now, how much more could they be upgraded based on current chips? Isn't the next batch of xeons just starting to ship around now?

I think apple is still doing pretty well on the high end, if anything, the low end (embarrassing mini configurations) and middle (no expandable machine at all) are in far worse shape.

The biggest problem on the high end is not the hardware but the software. Apple can update their hardware, but even now most apps, even first party ones, aren't optimized for 4-8 cores and more RAM. What's the point of spending $4000 on an 8 core machine if barely any software uses that power? At this point, software updates would spike MP sales way more than a hardware update.

Hi sir,

My main workstation is a windows based computer, and I use Cubase, I prefer the layout of logic, thus, I was thinking of either buying an Imac with 4 Gig ram, or a Mac Pro...

Do you think a Mac Pro would be overkill taking into consideration what seems to be a software issue with logic pro 8?

I have no idea about technical specs, all I know my Intel Extreme Quad HP with 8 Gig ram handles things fairly nicely... Would you recommend logic at all?

 

[milo]

Hi sir,

My main workstation is a windows based computer, and I use Cubase, I prefer the layout of logic, thus, I was thinking of either buying an Imac with 4 Gig ram, or a Mac Pro...

Do you think a Mac Pro would be overkill taking into consideration what seems to be a software issue with logic pro 8?

I have no idea about technical specs, all I know my Intel Extreme Quad HP with 8 Gig ram handles things fairly nicely... Would you recommend logic at all?

I'd go to an apple store that has it installed or find someone running it and take it for a spin.

It's a really good app with some problems of varying size, which may or may not be fixed sooner, later, or ever. It should run well on a mac pro, the current versions just won't take full advantage of all the cores. If you're doing modest sessions, an iMac would probably be fine. If you're doing fairly big sessions (like orchestral mockups), it may not be enough, especially if you are doing things that are using most of your CPU on your current quad machine.

Honestly, I'd wait a bit and see what apple releases. Supposedly a Mac Pro hardware update on the way, and I'd probably wait for 10.5.1 and logic 8.0.1 at least to see if they improve the CPU use that seems to have dropped in the latest upgrades.

Sorry I don't have a more specific answer, but the best option could be totally different things depending on whether apple makes significant updates soon or just leaves things to wither for months or years.

 

[ocbo41]

This is probably a stupid question, but is there 2 processors running at 3ghz each or are they combined to 3ghz?

 

[Eidorian]

This is probably a stupid question, but is there 2 processors running at 3ghz each or are they combined to 3ghz?

3 GHz each core.

 

[Macinposh]

My main workstation is a windows based computer, and I use Cubase, I prefer the layout of logic, thus, I was thinking of either buying an Imac with 4 Gig ram, or a Mac Pro...

Do you think a Mac Pro would be overkill taking into consideration what seems to be a software issue with logic pro 8?

Let´s put it this way.

By your wording I take that you are not Timbaland or Phil Spector?
I mean that you propably arent making Rolling Stones new album at present.

So,if your track count is less than,say 80, or you dont saturate all the tracks with numerous plugins, I would bet that you would get by with a iMac.

Cosider this, you could get a 20" 2.4 iMac, Logic Studio,3Gb extra memory from owc/kingston AND a external hard drive for the same price as the MP 2.66...And you would have to add the programs,displays,expensive memory and hdds on top of that...
Hmm?

So,go the iMac route.


Sorry,dont mean to sound patronising with that producer comment. Hell,you could be Mr.Bowie for what I know..

 

[netdog]

An iMac? I can top that!

I have been waiting forever for this Mac Pro, and I decided today to try out a 2.0 Mini for two weeks. If I don't like it, I can return it without charge.

I do a lot of Aperture, some FCE and CS3, but just figured what the heck, if this thing will get me through until Nehalem gets sorted out, I'll have a nice, silent, compact machine bolted out of sight under my table and save a bunch of dough.

With Intel about to roll out a major architecture shift next year, I figure if this thing works okay, I'll put up with the reduced resolution on my 30" for awhile and just get on with it. It seems as if, along with Nehalem, the number of cores is going to mushroom as well, and I don't want to be jonezing for a new Mac Pro in 12 months if I buy one now.

We'll see how me and the Mini get on. It should at least be quite a bit faster than the 2.0 iMac CD I bought right when Apple shifted to Intel. I am kind of stoked actually.

 

[0zric]

Well, it's the fault of SOMETHING. In the case of an app from apple and an OS from apple, if the CPU isn't being used fully, it's apple's fault either way.

Whether it's an OS fix or an app fix, apple should fix it. First party apps should be able to take full advantage of all cores, if they don't, there's far less incentive to buy a high end machine.

Thanks for your input here milo.
I strongly agree to that applications such as Logic Pro should take full advantage of the hardware that Apple themselves provide. The one and only reason I have to buy a Mac Pro is for this above mentioned application.
If it doesn't utilize the full abilities of the hardware, I see no reason to rush into a purchase. Especially if there are no upcoming (major) upgrades to LP in the near future.

Once again, thanks. Been waiting for this app to be discussed along these lines.

 

[sblasl]

Speculation being injected here

Speculation being injected here:

Is the Mac Pro line selling well enough that Apple does not feel compelled to upgrade the line as fast or as often as we feel they should?

Release of Adobe CS3 drove and is continuing to drive sales
Leopard is most likely driving sales
Sales by default because there is no other options...

 

[Umbongo]

Speculation being injected here:

Is the Mac Pro line selling well enough that Apple does not feel compelled to upgrade the line as fast or as often as we feel they should?

Release of Adobe CS3 drove and is continuing to drive sales
Leopard is most likely driving sales
Sales by default because there is no other options...

Simply put I'd say yes. Or rather sales aren't bad enough that Apple have been forced to change their marketing and business model and system design ethics.

I think there would have to have been multiple terrible sales periods for them to have added an eight core 2.66GHz option or four or eight core 2.33GHz options before or after the price cuts, or have offered new GPUs when they would have to write new drivers in 3-6 months. Those are the only things they could have really done that would warrant being called an upgrade in my opinion.

 

[netdog]

I suspect that well-funded production houses simply buy Mac Pros as needed, and not according to speed bumps and changes in architecture. The exception to that, at least to some degree, would probably be the time between when Apple switched to Intel until they rolled out the Mac Pro.

 

[matt39932]

Let´s put it this way.

By your wording I take that you are not Timbaland or Phil Spector?
I mean that you propably arent making Rolling Stones new album at present.

So,if your track count is less than,say 80, or you dont saturate all the tracks with numerous plugins, I would bet that you would get by with a iMac.

Cosider this, you could get a 20" 2.4 iMac, Logic Studio,3Gb extra memory from owc/kingston AND a external hard drive for the same price as the MP 2.66...And you would have to add the programs,displays,expensive memory and hdds on top of that...
Hmm?

So,go the iMac route.


Sorry,dont mean to sound patronising with that producer comment. Hell,you could be Mr.Bowie for what I know..

Mastering engineer, using Cubase and Protools, but interested in maybe doing some work at home on the side (that the boss doesn't know about)

Thought it would be good to run windows and osx you see, Cubase, PT, and Logic all in one system! Great!

That said, I have never really possessed indepth knowledge relative to computing in general. I follow the bigger-the-number-the-better trend.

Our studio is kitted out with a couple of Carillon PC's, that handle Cubase/Protools rather well.

Think i'm going to wait for the Pro, I wouldn't mind gaming a bit, providing they have decent GPU's, I heard gaming is quite painful on the Imac

 

[fernmeister]

Have you actually used Logic 8? It took almost three years to come out since the last major update, and once you get past the graphical redesign, it hardly has any new features. Many old bugs are still there, performance is worse than the previous version (and even worse on leopard), it doesn't have 64 bit support (and it's rumored that they're not planning on adding it any time soon).

It's funny, on the Logic boards, many people complain that apple doesn't care about Logic users when Apple releases other stuff.

I expect that there will be a MP in the next few weeks. The current ones, even without an update in a while, are still pretty decent. I'm not sure how much better people think they should be right now, how much more could they be upgraded based on current chips? Isn't the next batch of xeons just starting to ship around now?

I think apple is still doing pretty well on the high end, if anything, the low end (embarrassing mini configurations) and middle (no expandable machine at all) are in far worse shape.

The biggest problem on the high end is not the hardware but the software. Apple can update their hardware, but even now most apps, even first party ones, aren't optimized for 4-8 cores and more RAM. What's the point of spending $4000 on an 8 core machine if barely any software uses that power? At this point, software updates would spike MP sales way more than a hardware update.

I've used Logic Pro 8 everyday since I upgraded - that's what I do. It is not just Logic 7 with a pretty face, the changes are significant and I find working with 8 is faster and easier. It does tax the system a little more, but I find just as stable as the last version of 7.

I take all the music boards with a big grain of salt. That said, it was frustrating waiting for Apple to improve Logic (especially in terms of rewire!). They lost users by not releasing a 7.5 along the way.

But Audio is a famously hard market to please in. I have no issues with the software I run, but others seem to. Then I read about people who do great work with software and equipment that I can't vibe with.

 

[darthraige]

Speculation being injected here:

Is the Mac Pro line selling well enough that Apple does not feel compelled to upgrade the line as fast or as often as we feel they should?

If Apple only knew that one or all of their graphic card options were 2-3 years old. I hope they aren't selling as much. The update is clearly needed. Everything has been updated except the MacPros. A computer is a computer. If Apple is smart (and I'm sure they are) they will release these new machines 11/13. The problem could simply be that they don't have the graphic card options they want for the new machine, maybe they are just waiting on that or something. Guess we will see in the coming week(s).

 

[ocbo41]

What are your thoughts on apple just updating a few things? I would have bought the 2.66 already if it had a decent video card, 500GB drive, and 2GB ram...would have purchased in a heartbeat, but there isn't enough value there for $2500

I was wondering what all apple could really have done to update their current mac pro's? I would assume that they could do subtle things to keep them at a good value, such as offer current prices for hardware upgrades or offer better hardware....I mean $500 for a 750gb drive, $2009 for 8GB ram, and $150 for a 7300GT....come on don't S*** on us like that.

Heres a quick rundown I made, had to use x1950pro 512mb card, can't even find a x1900XT anymore, also subtracted from 3rd party figures- $150-video card, $150-2x512mb ram, $80-250GB hardrive, otherwise we would have these as spare parts.

Apple configured 2.66ghz= $6,643.00, 3rd party cost total=$3485...thats $3158 extra...

Configuration
_____________________________
Quad 2.66 - $2500- Apple
HD-4x750GB $800 - WD
4x2gb = $388 - Omni Tech
x1950xt= $175 - HIS

 

[AidenShaw]

Not a monumental increase, but the 30 incher's current resolution is not the maximum.

"Right at the design limit" doesn't necessarily mean "add one more pixel and it croaks". It means that a significant increase in size isn't practical.

In a paragraph above it, it states that the maximum resolution for single link is 2098x1311 (in a 16:10 ratio).

If you'd quote the fourth sentence in that paragraph instead of the second, you'd see that "When more bandwidth is required than is possible with a single link, the second link is enabled, and alternate pixels may be transmitted on each, allowing resolutions up to 4 megapixels at 60 Hz."

Well, my calculator says that 2560x1600 pixels is 4,096,000 pixels. That's "pretty close to the design limit" as far as I can tell.... (4 MPixel would be 4,000,000 - 4 MiPixel would be 4,194,304)

By the way, high resolution displays like the 3840x2400 IBM/Lenovo use dual dual-link DVI per monitor....

 

[krunk]

OK, if you disagree, then give me an example of an apple app that fully uses all 8 cores.

If by "app" you mean a native osx cocoa application, not sure I don't deal with many of those. If by "app" you are using the general term for "application" or simply "a program", I'd be happy to offer some examples of such that will completely max out all 8 cores:

• FMRIB Software Library (FSL)
• The GNU Compiler Collection
• Matlab
• Any threaded program written in house
• Any SGE capable program
• SPM

To name a few. Also at the time that the Mac Pro was released, its pricing was highly competitive in its class. I have no doubt the updated Mac Pro will be as well.

 

[bigbossbmb]

"Right at the design limit" doesn't necessarily mean "add one more pixel and it croaks". It means that a significant increase in size isn't practical.

I never said anything about the added resolution being a practical increase. However, if they went to HDMI 1.3, they could get a very practical increase (this is what I was getting at with my previous post). This would also keep the potential to run two very high res (more than the 30") monitors off of one card by not requiring dual dual-link connection.

That seems practical.

 

[AidenShaw]

I never said anything about the added resolution being a practical increase. However, if they went to HDMI 1.3, they could get a very practical increase (this is what I was getting at with my previous post). This would also keep the potential to run two very high res (more than the 30") monitors off of one card by not requiring dual dual-link connection.

That seems practical.

OK - sounds like we're really on the same page, then.

You are assuming that you can find a card capable of driving "quad link DVI" though. It's not just the cable ("dual dual-link DVI" vs "HDMI 1.3"), it's also what the DACs on the card can push over the cable(s).

It's a rather academic discussion, however, until 4K displays are priced less than a European sports sedan.

 

[AidenShaw]

if they went to HDMI 1.3, they could get a very practical increase (this is what I was getting at with my previous post). This would also keep the potential to run two very high res...

To me, the more exciting thing would be to use the 30-bit or 36-bit color capabilities of HDMI 1.3.

"Millions" of colors is too restricting, give me the "Billions of colors" setting !