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

Apple Building 2TB Solid State Drives for Next Mac Pro Release?

So all they are going to do is slap in a Revo drive or something comparable? They aren't going to develop one themselves since they don't have the capability of doing so. They have no real experience in NaND let alone the production of the chips. Why wait, just grab what is made in bulk from OCZ(Bleh!), STEC, etc...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/storag...e_Drives_New_Version_of_Caching_Software.html

They are going to be available so don't waste time trying to do something weird.

Personally I think a Raid with an SSD for your main purpose OS/Applications would be a much better idea. Leave the massive amount of writes to the good ole reliable 3TB server drives you could slap in there.
 
wilhoitm said:
But even if you get a used one at a good price like $900 isn't the lack of PCI Express 3.0 a deal breaker? Will any of NVIDIA's new GPUs like the Geforce 680 or the new TITAN work in a PCI Express 2.0 Mac Pro?
Click to expand...

Well first of all, I'm never buying from NVIDIA again after what happened to my iMac. Some or all of the new ATI GPUs work with the 2008 Mac Pro, but I don't remember which ones. Anyway, it's not too likely that I'll need to upgrade the GPU. Maybe by the time I want a new one, new computers will cost $100 and have massive power XD
 
wilhoitm said:
But even if you get a used one at a good price like $900 isn't the lack of PCI Express 3.0 a deal breaker? Will any of NVIDIA's new GPUs like the Geforce 680 or the new TITAN work in a PCI Express 2.0 Mac Pro?
Click to expand...

Theoretically, yes. PCIe is backwards compatible. So, while any of the 6 series NVIDIA cards will work in a v2 slot, it will be at half speed.

Also, a lot of the nvidia cards already work in current MacPros, albeit at limited functionality.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1440150/
 
H2SO4 said:
He says 50GB daily load. It isn't necessarily one file.
Click to expand...

True, but not really the point. The question is if corporate interests to sell Cloud storage really is a viable alternative for certain use cases.

When it comes to content creation - particularly of the more data-intensive forms - the simple reality is that affordable high performance bandwidth is absent from the marketplace.

As such, there's still not substitute for local storage ... Especially high performance local storage, such as the bigma SSD being alluded to here.

What adds to this challenge in spades is bandwidth on the road... I had a 2012 trip in which the local monthly bandwidth capability (not to be confused with quota) was less than 50GB.

-hh
 
ellsworth said:
Last year, the Studio I use to work for ok'ed the IT department to go out and purchase 4 new 12-Core MACPROs in one sitting. That was pocket change compared to the budget the project we were working on was. A $5,000 fully loaded MacPro wouldn't be a hip-cup at all. Bring it on.
Click to expand...

You know what it's all about. More computers lead to better work because you can turn on/crank up more settings in 3D, have more layers/nodes in AE/Nuke, etc.

Do you do VFX? most motion graphics places to my experience are 10 people or less total, so there's no IT department to speak of.
 
12dylan34 said:
You know what it's all about. More computers lead to better work because you can turn on/crank up more settings in 3D, have more layers/nodes in AE/Nuke, etc.

Do you do VFX? most motion graphics places to my experience are 10 people or less total, so there's no IT department to speak of.
Click to expand...

Production, Post Production, Talent Management & Finishing.

The graphics department (where I was) use to consist of 25 designer. Last year, when the MacPros were purchased, there were 10 of us (you guessed it).

Once clients started asking for 3D Stereoscopic & 4K graphics, all of stations needed upgrading... And we're talking fully loaded with maxed out RAM, Black Magic Video Cards, HD monitors, RAID drives, etc.
 
gotluck said:
who said I wanted a pair of core-i7's?

I just want a real desktop :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, if that is the case, you can replace the Xeon in single-cpu Mac Pro with an i7. You'd be limited to 1st gen. i7's though - I know a guy with a Mac Pro 5,1 rocking i7-980X, for example... You can then sell the Xeon and get back some $$.
 
BRO said:
Jeez. If you apply the Law of Apple pricing, then that SSD alone will probably be about $2,500 - $3,000! :eek: :eek: :eek:
Click to expand...

Yeah, try tripling that number of the amount you stated and you might be on target to afford one. This is Tiffany's that we are talking about right...er...I mean APPLE.:D
 
deconstruct60 said:
A workstation with no built-in monitor is fully functional right?



I'm not comparing an iMac and mini to workstations. Folks with lack of I/O needs are going downmarket in Workstations. At some point down market those are really just gussied up regular PC boxes. Going down market is heading toward iMacs and minis.

They aren't perfect replacements but there is also not a relatively huge market gap here either.




It isn't the Xeon that is making the difference in price. So labeling is a Xeon problem is not clarifying the issue.






You have to get the performance correct before you can talk about performance/price ratios.

The chart you linked up showed at Xeon E5 2630 versus others (including at top end peformance numbers from a Core i7 3930K ). That is purely driving off into the swamp. Probably on purpose.


If actually trying to do a comparison it would be a chart with a i7 3930K and a Xeon E5 1650 on it.

3930K $583 per tray
http://ark.intel.com/products/series/63700

E5 1650 $583 per tray

http://ark.intel.com/products/series/63197

You also aren't going to find non overclocked performance numbers all that different. The price peformance is about the same.

If there is a difference in overall system price it is not the "Xeon". And frankly there would only be a relatively minor difference in RAM costs. The only drift there would be if went for higher double digit RAM sizes... which as I said increases need for ECC. There is a risk trade-off being added to the equation.
Click to expand...


You the are the owner of the truth!
 
Last edited:
gotluck said:
who said I wanted a pair of core-i7's?

I just want a real desktop :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't have one at this time. If you don't need GPU, you can try the Mac Mini. If you don't mind getting an "all in one" in which ultrathin is more important than cooling and performance, you can get the iMac. And if you want a Xeon, you can get the Mac Pro.

But there's no real desktop if by desktop you mean i7, 4GB GPU, SSD, and proper cooling without ultrathin-mania.
 
deconstruct60 said:
For expensive software packages a USB drive is a marginal increase in packaging costs.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about what they should be doing, I'm talking about what they are doing. I absolutely would prefer download and if not that, ship on USB. But if a company sells on DVD I can't stop them.


Colpeas said:
Except Core-i7 can't be installed in pairs.
Click to expand...

And not all MP have CPU in pairs. Of course they need to use xeon for the high end but i7 would be fine for the single cpu base model.
 
milo said:
I'm not talking about what they should be doing, I'm talking about what they are doing. I absolutely would prefer download and if not that, ship on USB. But if a company sells on DVD I can't stop them.
Click to expand...

Being unresponsive to changes in the market is typically why these boutique software vendors eventually fail.

Putting aside the Mac Pro. More than half of the whole Mac line up doesn't have DVDs at this point.

Mac Mini no
iMac no
Mac Pro yes ( but woefully out of date)
MBA no
MBP yes ( but shrinking. 17" model dropped )
rMBP no

Any OS X software vendor who has "no plan at all" for non DVD software distribution can't seriously be planning to be a OS X software vendor much longer.

Anyone in a relationship with a software vendor with no plan should seriously check to see if it just a facade of a real company there (company is slowly dying), so strapped for cash they are just in survival mode, milking the product as a cash cow , or just haven't gotten much feedback (waiting for customers to state the obvious).

A USB is going to be more expensive than pressing a DVD (or even cheaper to just 'burn' one ) but it is a trade off of being in the game or not.

....
Of course they need to use xeon for the high end but i7 would be fine for the single cpu base model.
Click to expand...

The upper end core i7 offerings without GPU incorporated effectively are these 'evil' Xeons. They just have certain features flipped off and others flipped on.

The i7 product label covers two very different implementations. The easiest distinction is by socket type and by precense of a GPU. However, that is why these threads typically devolve into disinformation. Differing blind folks grabbing different parts of the elephant declaring different things. "it is a snake" . "it is a tree trunk" blah blah blah.
 
Last edited:
deconstruct60 said:
Being unresponsive to changes in the market is typically why these boutique software vendors eventually fail.
Click to expand...

And yet in the case of these specific vendors, they're going as strong as ever. I suspect the MP still having optical is a major reason they still use it, if it gets dropped at some point that may be an incentive to switch to another delivery method.


"no plan at all"
Click to expand...

Who said "no plan at all"? The fact is that right now there's a fair amount of software (particularly stuff that includes a lot of content) that is still DVD only. Whether a vendor has a plan for the future doesn't change the fact that if you buy it today, you need optical.

The upper end core i7 offerings without GPU incorporated effectively are these 'evil' Xeons. They just have certain features flipped off and others flipped on.
Click to expand...

Yep. That doesn't change the fact that i7 could be used in a single CPU tower, which is what I was responding to.
 
milo said:
Yep. That doesn't change the fact that i7 could be used in a single CPU tower, which is what I was responding to.
Click to expand...

I Agree. Since they switched to Intel, an entry level tower built of high end desktop components, not low end server components has being lacking with a LOT of users crying out for one.

In the G3 days there were the lower end, equally expandable desktop systems filling the low end, G4s had single CPU systems with lower end graphics, G5s upped the price slightly but still offered those single CPU expandable systems at the low end but now it's either laptop, laptop for your desk with crippled GPU which suits certain people not others, laptop for your desk with pointlessly thin design and no optical drive and then the Mac Pro which is an over-priced behemouth based on 3 year old technology.

If they made an entry level tower system based on a high end i7 motherboard and CPU combination with Thunderbolt, USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s connections with plenty of expansion bays, it wouldn't matter if it was in the current Mac Pro case with a few modifications and the NEW Mac Pro, whatever and whenever that may be, will be the cutting edge XEON systems with £2000+ price tags.
 
DesterWallaboo said:
Why?.... you want to take the Mac Pro backwards? I'm looking for more horsepower over the current 12-core machines we are operating. Going to i7 processors isn't going to cut the mustard.
Click to expand...

it's moreso because I don't need multiple Xeon processors for my own personal use.

I refuse to buy an iMac that has all the disadvantages of a laptop.

I want apple to make a real desktop. Call it the macpro lite or whatever. I promise it would sell and probably cannibalize many iMac sales.

I value expand-ability, repair-ability, upgrade-ability, and a real non mobile GPU much much higher than the pretty form factor of the iMac.
 
DesterWallaboo said:
Why?.... you want to take the Mac Pro backwards? I'm looking for more horsepower over the current 12-core machines we are operating. Going to i7 processors isn't going to cut the mustard.
Click to expand...

Not a step backwards for the single core base model. Right now even some of the mac minis outperform it, taking that one to i7 would be a big improvement. And the pricing on that model right now is preposterous.
 
gotluck said:
it's moreso because I don't need multiple Xeon processors for my own personal use.

I refuse to buy an iMac that has all the disadvantages of a laptop.

I want apple to make a real desktop. Call it the macpro lite or whatever. I promise it would sell and probably cannibalize many iMac sales.

I value expand-ability, repair-ability, upgrade-ability, and a real non mobile GPU much much higher than the pretty form factor of the iMac.
Click to expand...

Build a Hackintosh.... they are simple to build and work great. We use them for our render farm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back