Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
All the usual whining....

The new MP is exactly what is was supposed to be and has always been. It uses Intel's flagship processors, ECC ram, workstation graphics. It has incredibly fast I/O.

Nearly all enhancements fro Intel the last few years have been about Power and thermals rather than speed. The days of every new generation of CPUs being dramatically faster than the previous have been over for several years now. As for CUDA, last I checked CUDA was an nVidia standard vs OpenCL which goes across platforms.

I ave been jonesing for one of the new MP's since they were announced. I might never own one as it's major overkill for my needs and my 3.4iMac just keeps plugging along. But it is an amazing piece of tech!
 
So, my 2009 4,1>5,1 Hex 3.33 slightly bests the nMP Quad in the Geekbench Multi-core Performance metric, which is the score relevant for audio work.

Cost to build, including a fast GPU: about 1/2 of the nMP Quad.
 
i think apple should have gone the approach of a more traditional workstation, and focused solely on performance and internal expandiblity. they already tried this novelty workstation nonsense with the G4 cube and failed miserably. This isn't disdain towards change. Every other change apple made to the workstation was amazing...just THIS change doesn't make any sense to me. Pro users don't care about a small box. If anything, a bigger box might make more sense if it means more power, and more expandability.
 
I have a 2010 MacPro 6-core with 24gb ram and four drives with a Geekbench score of 15713. I am more than a little concerned about how I should access my storage drives with a new MacPro. I think an 8-core MacPro would be more than sufficient for my tasks, with 512gb storage. Do I use a NAS server with raid, like Synology, or somehow try to access the four drives on the old MacPro, or get four USB3 cases, and go that route? 8TB would be sufficient. I can do TB with separate or combination cases as well. I could also buy all new SSD or PCI-E drives. Cost is not paramount, but it needs to be reliable and not slow. BTW, I am 74yo, retired math prof and just use the MacPro for ripping, editing home movies, making web pages, editing created artwork with Photoshop. Way too much computer for me, but I don't care.

Any ideas?
 
i think apple should have gone the approach of a more traditional workstation, and focused solely on performance and internal expandiblity. they already tried this novelty workstation nonsense with the G4 cube and failed miserably. This isn't disdain towards change. Every other change apple made to the workstation was amazing...just THIS change doesn't make any sense to me. Pro users don't care about a small box. If anything, a bigger box might make more sense if it means more power, and more expandability.

Didn't they already have that with the old Mac Pro? Granted, they let it get stale by not updating it over the past few years, but doesn't that prove they didn't really care about it? That is wasn't a big seller for them?

In order to instill new life into the product they went with a radical change. Who knows how it will pan out in the long run, but it seems pretty obvious that they didn't want to continue building big expensive boxes that no one was buying.
 
unless this open CL thing really takes off and applications run like wildfire on it (all applications, not just "gpu" ones like AE etc.) , i can't see a good reason to upgrade.
 
Oh, I thought the entry-level Mac Pro was faster than the fastest old Mac Pro... :(

Are you looking at the number of cores? They are all faster with the same number of cores. The new 8 core is as fast as the old 12 core. ;)
 
CPU choices

Apple's CPU choices:

$ 294 E5-1620v2: 4 cores 3.7GHz (3.9GHz turbo)
$ 583 E5-1650v2: 6 cores 3.5GHz (3.9GHz turbo)
$1723 E5-1680v2: 8 cores 3.0GHz (3.9GHz turbo)
$2614 E5-2697v2: 12 cores 2.7GHz (3.5GHz turbo)

Even if you're using heavily multi-threaded applications the following CPU might be a better choice, but Apple hasn't announced that they'll be offering it.

$2097 E5-2690v2: 10 cores 3.0GHz (3.6GHz turbo)
 
Great thing about the older Mac Pros is you can upgrade the video card and get an interface card for SSD.

I'm guessing that an older Mac Pro with a GTX Titan is much faster than the new Mac Pro in a large selection of CUDA-based apps - Cinema 4D, Maya, Davinci, Premiere Pro, After Effects...

Yes...You are guessing. ;)
 
That would cannibalize the top end 27" iMac sales.

I'm not so sure that it would. The iMac comes with a display, keyboard, mouse and reasonable priced storage options upto 3TBs. The Mac Pro is a very different beast now, with little internal storage without paying a lot of money for the 1TB SSD, no display and now no keyboard and mouse either. So, to get the new Mac Pro up to something like what you have in the iMac, you need to spend ~$100 on keyboard/mouse, another hundred (or so) on some external HDD(s), and buy a display (TB dispay, which is equivalent to the iMac is $1000). So, at even with a $2000 base Mac Pro price, the fully configured computer is actually going to be something like $3300, if trying to match certain aspects of the iMac.

Basically, if 4 cores is enough for you and you don't need a workstation GPU (much less 2 of them), the iMac is way better value with the new Mac Pro priced at $3000. So much more value, that the Mac Pro could drop at least $500, and probably close to $1000, before that gap closes.

Put this all together and I don't think the nMP sells well at $3000 and we probably see a price reduction (I'd guess $500) in 6 months to a year. I think this price is either a miscaluculation on Apple's part or it may just be there for the early adopter tax, and the price cut could be planned. Its not like Apple hasn't had some precident with these pricing "mistakes" lately, ie 13" rMBP.
 
Evidence?..

Of course, the other question is, will there be GPUs to upgrade to in 3 years? We got stuck with Radeon crap for many years with the current MacPros.

----------



and my cats won't have a warm spot on the shelf above the old MacPro either... :D

Your cats can still sit on top :p it's now just a fancy hair dryer!

but in al seriousness, I was going to ask the same question to the first point.

So far Apple has been extremely quiet on the upgradability front. They have only confirmed that the RAM and SSD will be user replacable. RAM will be at least standard RAM that can be purchased at your own shop (cause Apple's upgrade price for RAM is highway robbery). The SSD i'm still waiting to see more information. Is it Proprietary connections or will these be a standards based connections that will be available in stores or will we be required to shop from Apple?

We have seen absolutely nothing regarding user serviceability of GPU's or the CPU. The CPU might be soldered in for all we know like they do on their laptop range. This new pro is using custom, mini parts more similar to laptops than desktop computers, So it's not unreasaonable to believe that the CPU's are in fact soldered in. I've seen no evidence that they're using Intel's standard sockets.

Same goes for the GPU's. They're not standard PCI-E based sockets obviously. Which means that to upgrade the GPU, you need to buy a GPU that is designed around whatever socket they are using. again it comes down to standards, and whose are they using? If they went 100% proprietary socket for GPUs, its stands to reason that the only possible upgrades to the GPU is exclusively from Apple. Which means they directly can control what options and upgrade path's are available.

With Apples more recent move to Appliance computing and throw away devices, I'm more inclined to believe apple isn't going to make these replacement "daughter boards" with new GPU's readily available, nor cheaply available. They want users buying new Pros' every 2-3 years. not upgrading little bits and pieces.

Which again points that these machines for the most part are not going to be upgradable in any measureable performance without buying all new ones. For a lot of users, especially those running their own home setupsand offices, This is going to pose significant risk to purchasing the new Pro's. Not every one who's a "professional" pulls in 6+ figures and can drop 3+ grand on a new computer every 2-3 years.

Not everyone either has plethora of desktop space in order to keep this new design, plus whatever other docking stations and thunderbolt based expansion modules that will be required. we're talking about content creation machinery here. 512gb is obviously not sufficient. This means dropping hundreds, if not thousands more than the cost of the unit into drive stations for thunderbolt, Drives and related hardware. This means actually having area to have all this.

My ideal use of workstation hardware would be at home for other uses. My home office is tiny. I live in a small house where space is a serious premium. my desk has enough room for my 2 monitors, keyboard and mouse, and maybe my dinner plate. My Workstation as is goes on the floor behind the desk (and often used as a foot rest!). How does this new Pro workinto that? by it's design, you don't have much choice but to put it ontop of your desk. With all those other Thunderbolt based peripherals.
 
Just because many "pro" continue to use outdated workflows and methods doesn't make it wrong to release something new. Apple has already shown that they believe they are obliged to pull their customers forward with their release of FCPX. Why in the world would people continue to want to keep all their data confined to internal storage when there is not external arrays that are faster, safer and more portable.

All this crap about "upgradability" that we hear every time Apple releases a new product is just uninformed BS. First it was the non replaceable battery in devices. I know that before they started building in batteries I used to replace mine every couple years and a phone never lasted a year. The battery in my iPhone1 still works fine and I have not replaced a MBP battery since the unibodies came out. Yet I replace them on Dells and Lenovo's pretty regular. Just because your phone needs an accessible battery, don't assume that ours does. Same principle, who "upgrades" processors and video cards on a production PC? Yes the gamer geeks do so constantly and I used to be one, not because they need to but because they spend more time running the latest benchmarks than they do working. Funny that a lot of people complaining about the new MP are comparing it to their 2009 towers.
 
Same principle, who "upgrades" processors and video cards on a production PC? Yes the gamer geeks do so constantly and I used to be one, not because they need to but because they spend more time running the latest benchmarks than they do working. Funny that a lot of people complaining about the new MP are comparing it to their 2009 towers.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people upgrade GPUs on workstations.... Not so much the CPUs, but it does happen.

I should maybe also point out the 2009 towers could very easily be converted into what was still being sold in 2012. One could swap the Nehelem CPU for a Westmere and even easier change out the GPU to something new in 2012 of your choice. That's a pretty nice upgrade path. These MP won't have the Ivybridge to Haswell possibility due to the intel socket change, but one could upgrade inside Ivybridge if prices drop in a few years, should the CPUs be replacable. And people have pointed out the GPU issues...
 
Last edited:
The CPU might be soldered in for all we know like they do on their laptop range.

Look at the picture on Apple's website. It's a socket.

The GPU chips look like they are in similar sockets as well although since those aren't a standard form factor who knows if replacements would be available to buy.
 
So my 2008 2.8ghz Mac Pro (nearly 6 years old now) pulls a 12000 geekbench score.

That was 2499 nearly 6 years ago. I had no idea what a good value it was going to be over the long run. Added RAM a year later, added extra storage as well. New SSD 2 years ago made it sing. New GPU this year closed the last weakness.

The new Mac Pro seems cool, but I have zero interest in replacing my 08. I've gone through several laptops in that time. In fact, the 08 Mac Pro has been the only mac I've ever used that actual held up to the "but they last longer" sales pitch so often used to justify the extra cost vs. a PC.

I'm sure for 3-4K of today's money, I can have a slightly faster computer than the one I bought in early 2008. It should be 3-4x faster, though, not 50% faster.
 
And doesn't the same hold true for those who build PCs rather than buy pre-configured workstations from HP, Dell, etc.?

Workstations have always been expensive and the new Mac Pro doesn't change anything on that front. I just don't know why the outcry seems much more pronounced this time around. Were people really expecting a more affordable machine with desktop parts?

Well, current MacPro is very small case with almost zero upgradability (I'm not talking about expandability now). So it is practically an iPad without display :)
Of course people are disappointed that it cost more than iPad ;)
 
Last edited:
Is the math right? :confused:

W3530 vs. E5-1620: 13944/7490=1,86 1,86^(1/3)=1,23=23% year-over year performance increase?

Is it me or does it seem like the W3530 GB3 score in the article to be on the low side?

I think it was W3565 vs E5-1620... (13333 - 8417) / 13333 = 36.8%
But that's pre-coffee math, so it quite possibly could be wrong.
 
I'm pretty sure a lot of people upgrade GPUs on workstations.... Not so much the CPUs, but it does happen.

I should maybe also point out the 2009 towers could very easily be converted into what was still being sold in 2012. One could swap the Nehelem CPU for a Westmere and even easier change out the GPU to something new in 2012 of your choice. That's a pretty nice upgrade path. These MP won't have the Ivybridge to Haswell possibility due to the intel socket change, but one could upgrade inside Ivybridge if prices drop in a few years, should the CPUs be replacable. And people have pointed out the GPU issues...

Kinda my point, people can but very few do. And the days where Intel goes through several generations while keeping the same socket are pretty much over since most of their changed involve a smaller die. I think my old Woodcrest chip would upgrade through Nahelem, but as I sold the five year old 2006 for $900 what 's the point. In the PC world where there is no resale value maybe upgrades make more sense, but not so much on this side. The speed of the 2009 machines is also part of my point. The problem is not that the 2013 MP is not that much faster than the 2012, but that the 2012 is not that much faster than the 2009 (other than the megabuck 10 grand 12 core beasties) and that is the rub with the state of processor upgrades.
 
The new Mac Pro seems cool, but I have zero interest in replacing my 08. I've gone through several laptops in that time. In fact, the 08 Mac Pro has been the only mac I've ever used that actual held up to the "but they last longer" sales pitch so often used to justify the extra cost vs. a PC.

I'm sure for 3-4K of today's money, I can have a slightly faster computer than the one I bought in early 2008. It should be 3-4x faster, though, not 50% faster.

I get that, I'm still chugging along with an '08 eight-core Mac Pro. But this is not Apple's doing; it's the reality of the CPU market. I believe the old days are over for straight CPU boosts until they move to a revolutionary technology. That's why GPU programming has gained such interest. It's an easy performance win for some types of processing tasks. I think Apple will probably be seen a couple years from now as having done the right thing, at least as far as the GPUs are concerned.

To me, yeah, the 2008 Mac Pro is still a viable machine right now, but it's on the edge. It's at the cutoff for Mavericks. How long will it last before a major component fails? Better to sell it now and get what you can for it. I believe once these GPUs are standard components, app developers will feel confident in taking advantage of them. With the CPU+GPUs, plus the more modern CPU instruction sets, the new Pros blow away your and my 2008.
 
Here see the difference is it worth it to buy Windows based unstable WS

Smoking the crack pipe lately? Win7 is a solid OS. After dumping my 2008 mac pro and building my dual xeon 2.93 westmere system for a 2/3 of the price of a comparable mac pro, have never experienced an issue, not one. The problem folks having issues on purchased workstations is the crapware software they add on top of the OS. Buy the OEM version. No crapware. Rock solid.
 
Mac Mini Pro

They will introduce a Mac Pro with expansion built in capabilities next year, when they rename this the Mac Mini Pro.

You just read it on the interweb, therefore it is true.
 
It's only measuring processing speed. If it really bothers you to have something connected externally, you're probably worried too much about physical appearance. I know Apple is all about design, but it's still just a computer.

Stuff connected externally still needs its own separate cooling system, power supply, etc. etc.

White it's true most Mac Pro users probably have a bunch of stuff outside the box anyway (I certainly do), you need to consider the cost of all those external enclosures, Thunderbolt cables, and so on. That stuff gets added on to the top of whatever new Mac Pro somebody's getting. And while (one would hope) these are money-making machines for people, you still have to include the extra up front cost (and even actual availability, Thunderbolt isn't popular) when you're comparing this workstation with other workstations available. Or maybe somebody else will. But until that happens, Thunderbolt just isn't as nice an option has having a bunch of slots built-in.

Now, we'll see what happens when this finally comes out. Maybe Apple will release a nice set of affordable Thunderbolt 2.0 enclosures in different sizes people can buy with their new Mac Pro, with a single power supply and everything else they'd need in the box.
 
Last edited:
What I still don't understand is why they don't offer BTO dual-CPU with one GPU or vice versa? This became such a specific machine that is either mostly show off or for a highly specialized 'niche' market with programs already taking advantage of this config.

For the record, I agree with you 100%. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a dual-GPU option as well, but for many a dual-CPU option would be better.

That said, GPU performance has been increasing faster than CPU performance, for a while now. A lot of high-end computing is taking advantage of that, and so it makes sense for Apple to follow this trend. Still, there should be the option at least for a dual-CPU, single GPU model.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.