Yeah, their site sucks. I wouldn't believe anything that comes from them. It's just pure speculation.
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 'Questioning' the Future of its Mac Pro Line?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, their site sucks. I wouldn't believe anything that comes from them. It's just pure speculation.
Since time is money, those same professionals should be replacing their hardware every 36 months. MacBooks are probably faster than Mac Pros at that time. I stand by my asinine comment.
The Mac Pro is nowhere near 25% of their PC sales. Not even close. It's not even close to 25% of their desktop PC sales.
And Avid just announced a brand new line of PCI cards, that's at least one company that is going to be sticking with PCI for years to come (whether that's a smart move or they'd be better off going to a TB option is a whole other discussion). If Apple stops selling machines with PCI cards they're pretty much forcing anyone using PT with cards to PC. Which is the kind of thing that would probably make Avid reconsider supporting Mac at all if it won't handle the product that makes them the most money.
That would make sense if the newer machines were much faster. But generally they haven't been. The 2009 mac pro models were generally as fast as the ones available now. And while they have been held back by intel's progress, apple has also failed to make other available improvements - lack of SATA III is particularly shameful.
I am afraid that it's still you that is missing the point.
With a Mac Pro I get internal PCI slots and internal storage
1 large, beautiful box with a cable to the screen and to the mains
1 screen (of my own choosing, not glossy and if I need colour accuracy, then I am able to choose multiple professional monitors from the likes of HP, Eizo, Lacie and others) with a cable to the beautiful box and to the mains
Now I can put in internal storage for my needs and necessary PCI devices, for example for Sound Production
Now since this is a simple setup let me add a box such as the Promise Thunderbolt enclosure for backups so it's a thunderbolt cable from the enclosure to the beautiful box and another to the mains.
Now let me try to replicate this using an iMac
1 large monitor and I am stuck with glossy with a cable to the mains. Let's even forget the iMac screen issues all over the iMac subforum and the internet
Now I am stuck with paying ridiculous prices for Apple supplied storage, or I can risk prying the bastard open and messing around with trying to install my own.
I can have a maximum of two internal drives (without further incredible surgery where I could possibly replace the DVD drive for another HDD/SSD)
So I have one drive for the OS and another as the scratch disk? Not good enough I am afraid.
So I have to purchase something an external enclosure for the scratch disk. But how do I back everything up? Well I should really get another external scratch disk. So I have two thunderbolt cables and two cables to the mains
Now I need my PCI device connected. So I buy a Sonnet TB enclosure. Yet another TB cable and (probably) one to the cable to the mains.
How many cables do I need then? Do I need to draw a picture for you?
By the way, you clearly have no idea how slow a NAS is compared to internal storage. The only way to get the same throughput is use the Promise TB enclosure.
No, it's usually not. That's why people run internal RAID solutions for the scratch disks. Hence why a Mac Pro is needed. Thanks for proving the point.And a 1TB internal is definitely not enough for a scratch disk
Hopefully these rumors turn out to be false and Apple is just planning a redesign.
I have owned a variety of Apple products and was looking forward to buying a Mac Pro upon the release of the update to finally untangle myself from PCs. Now, I'm waiting with fingers crossed just like many others here and hoping Apple keeps the Mac Pro around.
As for their current desktop offerings, I own a Mac Mini, which is connected to my home theater and great for movies and iTunes. However, I would really hate to have that as my only option for a desktop Mac. iMacs are great machines if they suit your needs, but I'd rather get something that can be upgraded over time.
I have owned a variety of Apple products and was looking forward to buying a Mac Pro upon the release of the update to finally untangle myself from PCs. Now, I'm waiting with fingers crossed just like many others here and hoping Apple keeps the Mac Pro around.
As for their current desktop offerings, I own a Mac Mini, which is connected to my home theater and great for movies and iTunes. However, I would really hate to have that as my only option for a desktop Mac. iMacs are great machines if they suit your needs, but I'd rather get something that can be upgraded over time.
I doubt we'll ever see that. With the advent of Thunderbolt, a modular setup is looking to be the wave of the future for the Apple high end market.
When you think about it, even the guts of the current Mac Pros are sorta offering a hint towards that.
Like the XServe ? And likely yes, the Mac Pro market is shrinking already. Years ago, what required a PowerMac/Mac Pro to do in some segments can now be done on MBPs/iMacs/Mac Minis (think mid-range/low-end graphics/audio work, Prosumer stuff like photography touch-ups and editing).
Notice also the trend the Mac Pro has gone in, the PowerMac used to be the "upgradable tower for the computer enthousiast", a base system with a cheap 1200$ price point (back in the days before the sub-500$ desktops) that was a good tinker toy for the people with card inserting fetishes, but now it's moved on to the realm of "Pro Workstation".
Like the XServe before it, Apple will eventually exit this market. They've made that plainly clear. Of course, they will never tell you when and they will leave people "hanging" have no doubt about it (they did with the XServe and almost did with FCP).
Actually, doesn't the current iMac line-up have better GPUs than Mac Pros ?
If anything, Apple should have done a refresh of the Mac Pro 6 months ago to bump up the Radeon HD GPU to the 6xxx series. Maybe add a bit to base RAM/storage while keeping the same CPUs and call it the 2011 spec bump.
No it doesn't. The Radeon in the current Mac Pro is faster than the mobile GPU in the iMac.
Ethernet is not as fast, but when working in fcp and pro tools, it works just as fast, meaning that it will not slow your work process. although mostly Ethernet are used by controllers.
The guy that mentioned that you wouldn't need external scratch disk because of the four trays for hdd in the MP. That is true, but my point is that it is not flexible. It's not great to be confined to one computer or one studio to do your work. Often you need to swap projects between workgroups, companies and different employers. I want to take my entire projects with me home over the weekends, and it's not easily done with internal harddisks. Is there really any of you pro video/audio editors who don't store projects on external hard disks?
Ok, how about "I just don't want multiple boxes doing what one box did just fine before"?
Not to mention that the current iMacs i5 can't hold a candle to the Xeons in the current MP line. Actually, I'm willing to bet my 1,1 MP with the upgraded CPUs still trounces them.
On top of that, I don't think you could get a CPU with the kind of power the MP offers into an AIO case without some serious heat issues. Serious heat = serious cooling. Loud fans are not going to make guys doing audio, or anyone working for extended periods of time for that matter, very happy. What are you going to do? Water cool the iMac? lol
Now what about price? $2k for a top end iMac what an i5. So what would it cost with some real power? Now add another $500+ for a TB chassis for the loss of PCIe slots. Sounds like it costs as much as a Mac Pro, to me.
eSata is not as fast as SATA. You can get eSATA in an iMac if you ship your computer to OWC and let them cut into it.
Last edited:
Mac Pro ain't a iMac
I've been reading MacRumors for over a year, but registered on the forum just now, only to post on this topic ((=
Mac Pro isn't just an iMac without monitor but with more cores, everything works differently on these machines:
- CPU's are faster, even at the same clock speed when compared to desktop counterparts
- RAM has ECC which prevents crashing
- Sandy Bridge E will bring 4-channel RAM (desktop/notebook have 2-channel RAM) which means RAM will work twice as fast on the same clock speed
- 4 drive bays offer RAID5 configuration, which is crucial for workstations with critical data
- multi-CPU/GPU setups make rendering and computation as fast, as tweeting about it ((=
- professional artists and studios(sound/design) don't need slim enclosure, they want to fit MORE into the old one 8P
- Thunderbolt isn't powerful enough to take full advantage of a discrete GPU, especially if it is shared with storage solution and other stuff
Apple always pushed towards aesthetic optimization ... wireless keyboards, mice, trackpads ... but! a schitload of HDD boxes, external GPU's, racked Mac Mini's etc. instead of one supercharged powerful solid workstation
I've been reading MacRumors for over a year, but registered on the forum just now, only to post on this topic ((=
Mac Pro isn't just an iMac without monitor but with more cores, everything works differently on these machines:
- CPU's are faster, even at the same clock speed when compared to desktop counterparts
- RAM has ECC which prevents crashing
- Sandy Bridge E will bring 4-channel RAM (desktop/notebook have 2-channel RAM) which means RAM will work twice as fast on the same clock speed
- 4 drive bays offer RAID5 configuration, which is crucial for workstations with critical data
- multi-CPU/GPU setups make rendering and computation as fast, as tweeting about it ((=
- professional artists and studios(sound/design) don't need slim enclosure, they want to fit MORE into the old one 8P
- Thunderbolt isn't powerful enough to take full advantage of a discrete GPU, especially if it is shared with storage solution and other stuff
Apple always pushed towards aesthetic optimization ... wireless keyboards, mice, trackpads ... but! a schitload of HDD boxes, external GPU's, racked Mac Mini's etc. instead of one supercharged powerful solid workstation
Actually, my wife and i play WoW and my 3870 in my 1,1 MP lets me play at higher settings and frame rates than her year old iMac.
Yeah, that's the way it is ... if my MP goes, then so too might my 2 iPads, 2 iPhones, 2 mac minis and 1 mac book pro (not to mention my GF's apple stuff that i made her buy!)
Personally, i don't think they're going to scrap it - just like Ferrari won't leave Formula 1, but it p***es me off that they don't come out and say it.
It's the people who use the MP (the professionals) that think differently - and it's the fasted bicycle for the mind that apple produces ... the MP is where the good stuff is made - the iMac is where the good stuff is copied.
(I'm going to get flack for that!)
I am not suggesting that projects are not stored on external drives/ network drives, but when you're actually working on it and modifying things most people are using the internal storage of the computer. That was the whole point about internal scratch disks.
E
erijkgabriel
Guest
time for a new pro-OS
I'm not that fond of going too much after rumors, but what about a new pro-OS. We, still work with aging OS's after all. It would be nice to see a new company rethinking the OS in the first place.
I'm not that fond of going too much after rumors, but what about a new pro-OS. We, still work with aging OS's after all. It would be nice to see a new company rethinking the OS in the first place.
Oh baby, stick your hard and large expenditure into my special slot... D:<
and
That last click... so satisfying.
(I think working with computers is starting to get to me)
If you want the latest and greatest OS technology, Microsoft and Apple are most definitely the wrong place to look. I doubt your productivity though on FreeBSD 9 or Ubuntu.
I thought the iMac switched away from Mobile GPUs 2 refreshes ago. The current base Mac Pro uses the 5770, the 6770 is used in the iMac.
EDTI : checking, it seems they are still using mobile versions. However, the top of the line iMac GPU beats the lower-end Mac Pro offering :
Last edited:
Yeah, but Apple has never been a strong contender in the Server market. I don't know much about that particular segment, but what I do know, it seemed that Xserv was a product Apple put out because, hey, OSX can do alright as a server.
Editing various media, on the other hand, has more or less been the bread and butter of the Mac line since the first Mac came out back in nineteen eighty whatnot. It's what Apple initially built their reputation upon, and that old standard has been what's kept them alive all these years, up to the unveiling of the iPod. I can guarantee that there are ALOT more people using Pros for editing now than there were IT guys using Xserv as their internal corporate server.
The only way I can see it happening is if Apple really take Thunderbolt seriously by buying out a third party Thunderbolt hardware developer or start up their own product line - ranging from Thunderbolt RAID all the way through to PCIe enclosures, Thunderbolt to USB3 and Thunderbolt to eSATA dongles. If they provided all that a pro needed to move from Mac Pro to the 'iMac Pro' then the transition will be smooth but if they sit back like they do right now and simply fail to do something you'll see many pros simply hold their nose and purchase a PC running Windows 7.
The only place I've seen OS X Server really take off was in the education market and even then the situation today one can easily achieve a similar result grabbing a Mac-mini server, hook up a Thunderbolt RAID and voila given that most of the work is done by the RAID device itself and not the built in hard disk there really is no need for a massive server. I mean, I look at the server I maintained at a high school of around 500-600 students and it was an overkill what we had when compared to what could have been achieved based on the technology that is now available.
Nope, according to the 'System Information' I have a AMD Radeon HD 6970M which was a BTO option along with upgrading the CPU to an i7 3.4Ghz. In the end I don't think it really matters given how craptacular Adobe takes advantage of their GPU in the first place. What annoys me is how Apple doesn't see there being an opportunity by them buying out Quark, Pixelmator, Hype, spending some heavy money upgrading them so that they're using the latest Mac OS X technologies and adding features that pro's want then selling it through the AppStore at a rock bottom price to undermine Adobe. For too long, quite frankly, Apple have been putting out powerful machines only to have Adobe fail to take advantage of the enhancements - and this isn't a Mac OS X only problem given that the situation is universally crappy on the Windows side of the equation as well. What ever Apple end up choosing if the software is crappy then all the hardware Apple is able to throw at the problem won't actually address the fact that the problem resides with Adobe.
Last edited:
Since you've now revised your argument to "software in general", then you certainly aren't wrong, and I'll certainly agree that the software that most people use will run on much lesser computers, or even iPads and iPhones.
However you were wrong for badly wording your argument then, since you did say "Computing power increases faster than software can keep up." Software. Not some specific software. Software. Just Software. And that statement IS wrong. From games to 3D processing systems, there is plenty of software written for hardware that doesn't even exist yet, and in the case of renderfarms where you have hundreds of machines working together it'll be along time before computing power comes to the point where even one high end computer will do the job, let alone an iPad.
We're actually arguing at cross-purposes here over semantics. I am not worried about footprint. I am worried about the amounts of cables I would need to replicate a Mac Pro set-up. The space thing is not an issue for me since I can put the big, beautiful box under the desk or hide it away (why would you though) in other places.
I can't stand cables all over the place, particularly since they are always too long/too short and your work area starts looking like a spaghetti junction. That's my issue when people suggest that Thunderbolt will fix all of these problems. It won't. Thunderbolt is great and I welcome it, but it's not the solution to everything.
Let me quote this guy because he nailed it
brentsg said: