Doubling 0 still gives 0.
I think Apple have simply added 1 onto their honesty count, this is the only time I can remember Apple being honest.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Admits 'New' Mac Pro Isn't All That New
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Doubling 0 still gives 0.
I think Apple have simply added 1 onto their honesty count, this is the only time I can remember Apple being honest.
really? when have they been dishonest? Because you can take them to court on that.
Okay so admittedly they made some decisions that were taken to court, but to characterize them as dishonest is a whole different matter.
I think they are as honest as any other company.
True but many pros do use iMacs for production, like myself.
Actually, now that I think about it, when Apple redesigned the iMac with the aluminum chassis, Apple did make mention that pros do make use of the iMac in everyday production. It may not have the "pro" moniker but it does have the capability.
Nevertheless, Apple really needs to update the Mac Pro now and not "next year".
I understand the frustration expressed that the Mac Pro wasn't really updated, but I am equally frustrated at those who think that Apple needed to update now. If you look at the market, even for "pro" workstations, it appears that everyone is working off the same dated system architecture that cannot make real use of the speed bump in processors, multiply cores, the throughput from Thunderbolt or USB 3.0, or the improved OS. It is not enough to stick a new processor in the box and add Thunderbolt or USB 3.0 and improved video cards, there needs to be a fundamental design change to make all of those work together and ensure that the changes also work with the software. Not being a computer engineer, I am willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt here and believe that getting it right is more important than pushing out a machine with great paper specs, but less than admirably real world performance. My Mac Pro 3,1 is working fine and while it may be a bit slow on some tasks, I know that for the most part it will continue working fine into next year when I expect Apple will finally update the Mac Pro with something great and totally redesigned to take advantage of the speed offered by the processors, the peripherals and the OS.
But why are HP, Dell and the other smaller companies keeping up with the hardware?
If your business is time conscious then Mac Pros are hopelessly outdone by updated PC workstations.
I don't see how it would take apple that long too come out with new design.May be the Fall of this year or March of next year at the most .All they need is a new case to have many parallel ivy bridge CPU 12 ,16,32 or 64 core CPU and hard-drive bays.
Has for video card that for games .
video editing ,graphic design and animation uses the CPU it does not use the video card .
Games use the video card but not the CPU.
No big deal that apple is using a 2 or 3 year old video card has video editing ,graphic design and animation are not coded to make use of the video card.
I absolutely agree that the development time does seem excessive. It's as if they weren't even THINKING about the Mac Pro till the Sandy Bridge E5 Xeon chips were released, or not even until the howling started over this crap update. But you'd think they were at least working on it. Mind you, Apple is obsessive about design and development, so THEY might not think another year and a half is a long time.
But we certainly think so, eh?
However, I think you do miss one of the critical points about server class Xeon processors and the Mac Pro system architecture, is that unlike desktop and mobile chips, the Xeon chips have no discrete onboard graphics processing, as it is not typically needed for servers at all. So the graphics card is a REQUIREMENT for the MP, even if a specific app doesn't take much advantages of it. So where ever the number crunching actually takes place, the CPU or the GPU, it still needs the graphics card to provide the to the display. I actually rather wish that Adobe would compose their apps to take more advantage of an additional GPU if there was one present, wouyld be nice to get a little actual BANG for the annual Creative Suite upgrade shakedown.
Thunderbolt, as configured in the iMac, Mac Mini and Macbooks, however is a motherboard level protocol, and merges data and display data through the TB port. Unless the Sandy Bridge Xeon chip have graphics processors, that represents a complex engineering problem, and would need a new motherboard design to solve it. And before you mention the ASUS TB board design, it's a KLUDGE, and would hardly meet Apple's elegance and design standards.
But I still thought it was a little insulting that Apple "updated" the Pro with a graphics card that's so outdated that AMD isn't even selling it any more. As a graphic designer with a one-man studio, I never know WHAT the hell my clients are going to ask me to work on.... Graphics, design, web, illustration, photo composition, 3D design and CAD, Video, e-books, gods know what else... I surely don't mind having a capable system with a lot of versatility AND muscle.
Now if only they'll fix the iPod touch and iPod nano ones (which can hardly be considered updates).
----------
Could be. In fact, they could just use that as an excuse to get rid of the Mac Pro (not enough people are buying them).
I look at this as phenomenological evidence that Mac Pro is not dead, and will get a decent upgrade, probably sooner than 2013. The fact that Apple felt at least some pain in the backlash is itself meaningful.
Additionally, Apple is rather at the mercy of Nvidia and AMD/ATI to make a video card with a Thunderbolt port. The industry is just settling in to Mini-Display-Port. Apple likes to lead, and in this case they may have dangled themselves a bit.
If nothing else, they could have the graphics card with just MDP and separate ThunderBolt ports That don't have graphics out.
----------
OpenCL would benefit a lot from a newer graphics card.
This is what scares me! The only thing preventing me from buying a 'new' Mac Pro is the graphics card.
Mac Pro
Exasperated with Apple.
We Bought a 3.33 Ghz 6 core Mac Pro via the refurb store for £2499 in December 2010.
They now offer the 'new' Mac Pro 3.33GHz 6 core for £50 less but include a mouthwatering 6Gb of Ram (as against 3) (that's a joke folks)
Even more humorously though is that on their refurb store today they have a 6 core Mac Pro with 3Gb of Ram for £2552.
That is £53 more than a brand new one with the new one having 3Gb of ram more.....
Come on Apple - do you think us Pro users are stupid....
Exasperated with Apple.
We Bought a 3.33 Ghz 6 core Mac Pro via the refurb store for £2499 in December 2010.
They now offer the 'new' Mac Pro 3.33GHz 6 core for £50 less but include a mouthwatering 6Gb of Ram (as against 3) (that's a joke folks)
Even more humorously though is that on their refurb store today they have a 6 core Mac Pro with 3Gb of Ram for £2552.
That is £53 more than a brand new one with the new one having 3Gb of ram more.....
Come on Apple - do you think us Pro users are stupid....
Would you rather live in Euro-zone countries, where the 'new' models are now 200 more expensive? Cheaper is good (though I'm completely with you on the RAM, 3GB on a £2,499 device was a farce! Mac "Pro"?)
The bottom half of the following article might offer up a decent explanation as to why we're not seeing a Sandy Bridge E(X/P) Mac Pro and why Apple has thusly decided to table the true update to the 2010 model until next year:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Ivy-Bridge-CPU-Range-Complete-by-Next-Year-263451.shtml
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Ivy-Bridge-CPU-Range-Complete-by-Next-Year-263451.shtml
The day we were able to put 16gb of ram in a laptop was the day the demise of workstations, in general, started.
Article is out of date and irrelevant as addressed in the other thread where this was posted.
What does that article have to do with anything? Cpus appropriate to workstations like the mac pro were released with Sandy Bridge E. Ivy isn't adding anything special, and you aren't likely to see it prior to mid next year.
Thank you forum control.
First off, Apple doesn't use the "E" chips, they use the "EP" "EN" and "EX" chips. Secondly, while there is a Sandy Bridge EN, there apparently isn't a Sandy Bridge EX or EP (though I think someone on the other thread identified an "EP" around). Point being, that Apple, having used EX chips from Westmere and Nehalem, might have wanted to wait until Ivy Bridge EX comes out. It's certainly stupid and certainly not a good enough reason to delay; Sandy Bridge EN would've certainly kicked the crap out of anything in a 2010 Mac Pro, but still. That was my devil's advocated theory. Though, it has been shot down in both threads now.
Just pointing it out for anyone who hasn't seen the other thread where it has been discussed.
And there is sandy bridge EP.
http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/33170/Sandy-Bridge-EP
Also, I don't believe Apple ever used the Westmere EX chips, looks like they're socket 1567 which would require a different motherboard. Probably didn't use any Nehalem EX either.
And there is sandy bridge EP.
http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/33170/Sandy-Bridge-EP
Also, I don't believe Apple ever used the Westmere EX chips, looks like they're socket 1567 which would require a different motherboard. Probably didn't use any Nehalem EX either.