I don't know anything about computers performance really, but I'm guessing Apple knows about a million times more than you do, and they know that quad core is all that was needed for the price point.
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 Sends Mac Pro Posters to Journalists: 'The Computer We Were Insane to Build'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know anything about computers performance really, but I'm guessing Apple knows about a million times more than you do, and they know that quad core is all that was needed for the price point.
They built a pretty impressive workstation using workstation components. Why is that insane again?
Is it cause they made the case round?
I don't get it.
Is it cause they made the case round?
I don't get it.
Not trying to be cynical, but besides form factor, what's revolutionary about this Mac "Pro"? They've done it before with iCube, the iMac on the stick (with a dome base, in face of predominantly square computers back then and even today). But otherwise, what's revolutionary here, I just don't see it?
With quicksilver PowerMac G4 - it was revolutionary, because unlike PC (and I've always build my own PCs), it could be opened in one motion with all expansion slots very easily accessible. To a bit lesser degree same was with Mac Pro G5. But G5 had innovation that on top of easily expandability, it had smart cooling and almost no visible internal wires.
What's innovative about new Mac Pro? They designed cylindrical from factor with a turbine inspired cooling, venting through the top... OK. Custom design proprietary motherboard to fit into small space (ala dome base iMac) - OK. But that's nice for a light consumer computer, where looks are super important. Heck for Apple pro-user, looks are really important. But what does it bring to the usability that pro users need? How does it improve my workflow when I cannot add graphics card, expansion cards, more hard drives - while retaining the elegant minimalistic looks?
It seems to me Apple thinks Mac pro users really don't need pro features, they THINK they need. Time will tell. But given that, there is no technological barriers this thing broke. Anyone with enough budget can design custom electronics to fit into a specific shape, especially if there is no requirement for extensive expandability.
Marketing talk, that what it is.
With quicksilver PowerMac G4 - it was revolutionary, because unlike PC (and I've always build my own PCs), it could be opened in one motion with all expansion slots very easily accessible. To a bit lesser degree same was with Mac Pro G5. But G5 had innovation that on top of easily expandability, it had smart cooling and almost no visible internal wires.
What's innovative about new Mac Pro? They designed cylindrical from factor with a turbine inspired cooling, venting through the top... OK. Custom design proprietary motherboard to fit into small space (ala dome base iMac) - OK. But that's nice for a light consumer computer, where looks are super important. Heck for Apple pro-user, looks are really important. But what does it bring to the usability that pro users need? How does it improve my workflow when I cannot add graphics card, expansion cards, more hard drives - while retaining the elegant minimalistic looks?
It seems to me Apple thinks Mac pro users really don't need pro features, they THINK they need. Time will tell. But given that, there is no technological barriers this thing broke. Anyone with enough budget can design custom electronics to fit into a specific shape, especially if there is no requirement for extensive expandability.
Marketing talk, that what it is.
Same concept as "can't innovate my ass" or most of the buzzwords from the last 2 events. It makes apple sound like apple is run by incompetent fools who can't properly express themselves. The current management team is so far beneath the quality of the company.
Apple has been kicking the *&%%* out of conventional thinking for years. And if that 147 billion in cash is any indication of their success then rock on Apple!
Besides looking cool, small and sexy, what is better performance wise about this over the same components in a case of conventional design?
It might be the MOST-WONDERFUL computer
But they aren't selling it well. First, it is radically different design and there is nothing solid concerning performance. They don't release even trial models to major tech mags or websites that doesn't breed confidence. Second, the release date is vague. Third, it's far more expensive than what one would expect for such a machine.
Until they actually release the machine to the press, at minimum, they don't have marketing legs aside from people that want a "nice looking" computer or fanboys who slaver for anything Apple. There should have been a new Pro given, instead of a comporn poster.
But they aren't selling it well. First, it is radically different design and there is nothing solid concerning performance. They don't release even trial models to major tech mags or websites that doesn't breed confidence. Second, the release date is vague. Third, it's far more expensive than what one would expect for such a machine.
Until they actually release the machine to the press, at minimum, they don't have marketing legs aside from people that want a "nice looking" computer or fanboys who slaver for anything Apple. There should have been a new Pro given, instead of a comporn poster.
He's being serious and has a point.
I mean if Apple can design something that runs better and faster with a quad then other competitors needing twice as much power, then what's the issue?
It's like having a race with a car that has a 700HP engine vs a 350HP engine but the 350HP engine is a better designed car from weight ratio to air flow, handling, etc. and in the end beats the 700HP car in the race due to the engineering feats.
Conventional thinking says you have to make a pro desktop tower computer fully upgradable on all parts by the user! Conventional thinking says you have to follow a certain tower design so standard components can be put in there more easily.
We say: **** that, no user serviceable anything! Everyone should throw their computer away after 4 years to buy a new one and if they need any additional hardware, which they will, yes, they should connect everything via thunderbolt. What, there are only a handful thunderbolt devices and almost all sold at outrageous prices?
Hey whatever!! No boundaries! Nothing user serviceable is the new creativity and innovation! We can't innovate anymore my ass!
We say: **** that, no user serviceable anything! Everyone should throw their computer away after 4 years to buy a new one and if they need any additional hardware, which they will, yes, they should connect everything via thunderbolt. What, there are only a handful thunderbolt devices and almost all sold at outrageous prices?
Hey whatever!! No boundaries! Nothing user serviceable is the new creativity and innovation! We can't innovate anymore my ass!
It's a $299 Xenon "server" processor.
Still, I don't see anything really revolutionary besides the fan placement and overall form factor. TB2 is cool, but since when was TB1 not fast enough? For For $3000 you can build a bonified multiprocessor server.
Sli is nvidia, AMD calls it crossfire.
The drivers are same ones as 7950/70 in OSX, you can see for yourself in 10.9 extensions folder.
The quote I can't get over from their letter. "And blew away limitation after limitation"
Curious what they meant.
All I can see is that they added a bunch.
By all accounts the graphics cards clock up a good chunk of the retail price. The CPU is expensive, as is the ECC RAM and the SSD. Throw in some money for design (R&D), materials, etc., and I don't think the opening price is really that high. Obviously not for every adolescent gaming hobo, but not so expensive if you work on it every day.
i fail to see the draw.
current workstations work fine thermal wise - what's the bleeding edge with this design???
it's not like theyre trying to save battery life or making it thinner and lighter so its easier to carry (ala macbook and ipad improvements)? for a workstation?
current workstations work fine thermal wise - what's the bleeding edge with this design???
it's not like theyre trying to save battery life or making it thinner and lighter so its easier to carry (ala macbook and ipad improvements)? for a workstation?
For $3000+, i rather build a workstation that has Intel extreme edition CPU that actually offers the performance. And put everythinf under water cooling so that i can overclock to juice more performance.
Which is what i did with my workstation system. I paid around $3000 too and get 50% or more performance than what new Mac Pro offers.
Which is what i did with my workstation system. I paid around $3000 too and get 50% or more performance than what new Mac Pro offers.
Apple has put themselves at the mercy of third party action with this machine. Whether this new MacPro is ever accepted by the "Pro" community will depend on what happens in the "Thunderbolt World". I imagine there will be some people who will buy the 4 core model with a Thunderbolt enclosure for their desktop, but all the "Pros" will need a special Thunder Bolt Rack of some kind. There are a few thunderbolt devices out there but most are too expensive or too limited.
Apple did release them to certain people in the tech industry but I'm sure they are prohibited from making any statements about it until release. Have you ever seen a single review on an Apple product yet to be released? No. Are you surprised they are following their usual routine with this one? Really?
And no, the price is basically what everyone expected it to be. Possibly even lower than some expected for the entry level one.
That might be true of cars and body aerodynamics, but there isn't anything specific to the Mac Pro that'll make it run faster than a PC workstation equivalent.
Yeah, it's cooler, smaller, and sexier for sure. But if someone really wanted to go all out, a gigantic watercooled workstation using equivalent hardware would run just as well, if not better.
Plus, when it comes to the types of jobs a Mac Pro or a workstation is mostly used for, no case design in the world will be able to compensate for having less cores to do work with. Not unless the CPU used in the MP was somehow 2x to 3x faster per core than anything else out there.