Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
IMHO the biggest failing of Apple is their reliance on third parties when they should be using their cash and buying out the big names, firing their management who made the stupid decisions that held back product development for OS X and push forward with products that are optimised for OS X rather than it being an after thought.

I agree that the big name software devs should be coding their apps for optimisation on OSX. OpenCL/GL have been out for some time (from what I remember at least 6 years) and are truly what makes FCPX smooth as butter on a Mac.

I am no dev, and don't know the story behind their inability to adopt those platforms.

I'm still having to do extra work to finish projects containing plugins lost to the PPC/Intel switch. Pro users need continuity.

Now, I do agree that the pro market needs to have continuity in many areas, but I don't mind it when a company shakes things up for the better. When the changes make me work faster, smarter, cheaper, etc. it's more than welcomed.

I still see the MacPro as being a niche product. Something that won't replace a facilities' big iron systems. Something that sits in a client area to show off. Or again, something that an iMac user or Macbook Pro user can upgrade to.

Apple is essentially pulling themselves out of the enterprise workstation game, which in all due respects it wasn't gaining any traction in.

If that's still bugging you, you'd probably be better off on PC. Especially if you're running Cubase (or Nuendo).

I am surprised most haven't already moved on. I know three universities in my area that got suckered into adopting FCP and FCP Server with Xserves as their end to end collaborative post environment, thinking Apple would continue to support it.

Now, they've all moved BACK to the HP and Dell workstation / Avid ISIS / Media Composer / ProTools systems that the industry never left behind.

Those few houses that were medium sized enough to use MacPros and Apple systems are now faced with only that choice.

Mark my words, this MP is going to be a failure...the size is just plain ridiculous, are these guys serious?

first time i saw the sneak-peak i was like WOOOW:eek: this is going to be one bad ass machine for pros....then i saw the image of the size in comparison with the current mac pro and i was like ......:confused:......wtf?

Same here. I REALLY thought it was going to be the same size, with 3.5" HDD caddies that pivoted out from the sides and such, a true tool less system like the ones we get from HP.

Once i saw the comparison I was PISSED.

Then after the presentation, I knew Apple just resigned from the workstation market. No more servers, RAID boxes, fibre channel cards, RAID cards, media asset managers, etc. from Apple.

SMBs, boutique shops, indie production houses etc. will be this machines main focus. Oh, and only those indie production houses that don't plan on using shared storage systems for video post production.
 
Last edited:
Ok...

Fact is, Intel is not pushing the 12core CPU past 2.7 GHz (as far as we know). Apple cannot do anything about that. And it's still questionable if this 12core is able to be put into multi-socket systems.
Using more cores (or sockets) is one thing that could've been possible, but most of the speed gains in rendering, recoding whatever are in fact possible using the GPGPUs in todays modern systems when the software uses the APIs that provides access to the GPGPU system (doesn't matter if it's CUDA, OpenCL or QuickSync or whatever).

For example: using Handbrake with Intel QuickSync loweres the recode times drastically in comparison to just using more cores. CPU doesn't scale as well as using GPGPUs.

So let's wait for real world benchmarks with software that can use GPGPU when doing their work in comparison to the same software using only the CPU for the same task. We'll see how fast the new MacPro (or comparable machines which use GPGPU processing) is then.

Note that Apple says the Mac Pro will be available w/ "up to" 12 cores. That implies there were will be versions with less than 12 cores... that means 10 core parts or lower. And those parts run up to 3.5 GHz.

If available such a 10-core part (E5-2650L v2) would be the one I would get @ 3.4GHz -- so 1.25x faster than the 12-core part on single core tests.
 
Just because it's a "desktop" computer doesn't mean it has to take up a significant fraction thereof.

Very high quality systems take a little extra time to look like it. Cray 2 comes to mind.

CPUs haven't improved much in raw processing power for years. Everything is stalled out at ~3GHz. GPUs are where it's at, pursuing a wildly different computing paradigm which a smart power-hungry user will make clever use of. Apple builds systems, not processors, and the new Mac Pro is about the best that can be done with available components.

The "inside" you refer to requires a cavernous space which almost nobody uses (and still requires a massive power supply 'just in case'). So if nobody is using that volume which makes the machine 6x bigger than it need be, and Thunderbolt is just routing the internal bus to the outside via thin simple plug-and-go screaming fast cables, suck the air out of the box already - hey, look, the result is a compact tube!

And when you do need to move it, it's easy to and you don't have to clear off several square feet of new desk space.

No, but I'll giggle with joy at having the fastest dang machine in the coolest package, looking way better than a monster box which contains little more than hot air.

CPU's not improved in speed? IBM must be creating Scotch Mist then. The POWER7 is up to 4.25GHZwith 12 cores on a single CPU. The POWER8 about to be talked about and released will be even better.

Remember why Apple dumped the POWER chips? They didn't hit the GHz demanded by Jobs.

Do you have any idea how much power those dual FirePro GPU's draw? Didn't thing so.

The current Mac Pro has a 1000W PS, how much do you think the new one will need?

Each GPU draw between 250 and 375. So you're going to need a a similar supply in the new little box.
 
Apple claimed twice as fast as the current 12 core. I also saw benchmarks that were higher than this. What happened? Are we comparing Apples with Apples here?
I less interested in this now. Maybe Phil was just talking out of his A_ _!
 
Meh. I expected higher to be honest. Kinda underwhelming. I'll await more tests before making a conclusion though. I really want one of these for some reason.
 
Do these things have power in the box, or are they going back to the "power brick"? Well at least I'l keep my coffee warm.
dougbassett.jpg
 
On a prerelease machine, with a beta software? compared to one of the most powerfull workstation which exist today? The results are already very good and i'm quite sure it will change a lot with final hardware.
Also the new Mac Pro will destroy the old one in gfx performance, you will not see this thing in geekbench since it counts only cpu and ram speed.
Also think about 1000MB/s SSD speed compared to standard 80-100MB/s HD or even raid :-D
it will be a GIANT LEAP

We are also talking about a 3 year difference in CPU architecture. Yet some geekbench scores show the older versions geting 25K+. I don't think the whole pre-release argument is a strong argument at this point.

The fact of the matter is that after 3 years of waiting, there is no major difference in CPU performance. That is disappointing.
 
Looking at those scores, I will be keeping my dual xeon X5670's as not much improvement. Would thing with the new tech, those scores would be allot higher. Maybe the 2nd generation new mac pro will do better. For now, I'll stick with linux.
 
Apple claimed twice as fast as the current 12 core. I also saw benchmarks that were higher than this. What happened? Are we comparing Apples with Apples here?
I less interested in this now. Maybe Phil was just talking out of his A_ _!

The term "faster" is pretty ambiguous.
 
Euh ok....but who cares about size. I care about performance for all i care they could have kept the original case, its sitting under my desk anyway.

this new mac pro is obviously one of Ive's wet dreams screwing everything up and taking his "it needs to be small and minimalistic" ideas to an extreme.

Mark my words, this MP is going to be a failure...the size is just plain ridiculous, are these guys serious?

first time i saw the sneak-peak i was like WOOOW:eek: this is going to be one bad ass machine for pros....then i saw the image of the size in comparison with the current mac pro and i was like ......:confused:......wtf?


i'm definitely sure they are going to release an XL size for geeks. :)
 
Apple claimed twice as fast as the current 12 core. I also saw benchmarks that were higher than this. What happened? Are we comparing Apples with Apples here?
I less interested in this now. Maybe Phil was just talking out of his A_ _!

I think everyone from Apple does that from time to time. Leaving the fanbase to defend false or misguided statements.

Now to be honest, it may just be twice as fast, but we don't know what they were running when they did their tests. I am a video guy, so I will use NLEs as a comparison.

Final Cut Pro X is wicked fast on Apple systems . . . . as it should be.

While I prefere Avid and Adobe NLEs, I do notice, see, feel a reduction in performance.

We are also talking about a 3 year difference in CPU architecture. Yet some geekbench scores show the older versions geting 25K+. I don't think the whole pre-release argument is a strong argument at this point.

The fact of the matter is that after 3 years of waiting, there is no major difference in CPU performance. That is disappointing.

Very much so indeed. I know a lot try to excuse it away but no matter how you look at it, after 3 years and an entirely new architecture this machine should be screaming fast.

For comparison, here's what a search on the HP Z820 + Geekbench gave me

Looking at those scores, I will be keeping my dual xeon X5670's as not much improvement. Would thing with the new tech, those scores would be allot higher. Maybe the 2nd generation new mac pro will do better. For now, I'll stick with linux.

You might too especially if you are using a lot of PCIe cards. I was hoping to jump into workstation class machines with the next MacPro. Save a ton of space on my desk by putting the external boxes and converters and I/O on the inside.

Now, I have to either go with a PC or deal with a headless iMac with Xeon chips. Essentially adding yet another power cable to my already messy desk.
 
While I think the iTube is an iJoke that will go away soonish, we are comparing and a single 2.7 12 core to a 3.06 DP 12 core.

The 5345's in my 1,1/2,1 score 10,300ish in GeekBench. The 3570 in my 4,1/5,1 scores 11,300ish in GB. One has 667Mhz DDR2 ECC one 1333Mhz DDR3 ECC the tech has progressed we just got half a computer.
 
I'm sorry for throwing this pretty naiv question into the round, but can someone tell me what if apple made it possible to adequately connect 2 or more of these machines via TB2 to a grid system or the like and a well written drive utilizes the additional resources??
A quick pro and con list would help me immense for better understanding.
 
The more info I find on the new Mac Pro offering, the less I like, and the deeper my expectations drop. Apple excels at marketing and hype, but I feel they are losing significant ground in delivering actual impressive technology.

It would have been nice if they made the tube much larger, and included space for PCI slots, RAM, more than one CPU, and at least *some* internal storage expansion. Perhaps in a few more years, they'll nail it... provided they haven't lost the remaining users by then.
 
Apple uses UPOD. This was "leaked" to lower expectations. The deliverable will scream. Expandability with legacy cards is the only fair criticism I have heard. That can be addressed by putting your old MacPro on the TB network. Apple should make a PCIe connector on the new and cable and PCIe card for the old.

Prior geekbench scores from leaked models have been reasonably accurate. It could change a bit, but it won't be drastic.

And what's the price for that machine? Just check Dell's site for Intel® Xeon® Processor E5-2665 with only eight cores....$2973.00 Didn't see the dual 12 core, it must be around 6000.00

Go look up Apple's current pricing structure on 12 core models using an older architecture. I'm not sure what they pay for those cpus these days, but it's unrealistic to expect Apple to undercut Dell. It happened in certain configurations a number of years ago, but I wouldn't look for it today.
 
....
Now, they've all moved BACK to the HP and Dell workstation / Avid ISIS / Media Composer / ProTools systems that the industry never left behind.

How is Avid ISIS not aligned with the design of the new Mac Pro ? Centralized storage.

ProTools native with TB interface. Other avid software?
....

Betting the Apple was going to go whole hog long term on a Java based program they bought because that vendor couldn't cut it in the market .... probably not. But the above are a different story.
 
THIS IS COMING FROM A MAC PRO WHICH IS 1/8 IN SIZE OF THE CURRENT MAC PRO!

CAN'T INNOVATE MY ASS INDEED!!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry i had so say this...:eek:

Not comparable as there is no facility for large data storage. Once you add all the peripherals you will have (a) a right mess and (b) be skint.
 
How is Avid ISIS not aligned with the design of the new Mac Pro ? Centralized storage.

ProTools native with TB interface. Other avid software?
....

Betting the Apple was going to go whole hog long term on a Java based program they bought because that vendor couldn't cut it in the market .... probably not. But the above are a different story.

No Fibre channel unless you throw in a 3rd party PCIe box which could be an option if you don't mind throwing another party in there. Or wait until Avid recommends some certified vendors.

Or run your systems off of the GigE ports, but then you'll suffer a drop in performance.

I never said the new Mac Pro wasn't aligned with other Avid interfaces or software.

I agree about the history of Final Cut. . . . . then again . . . . that would be all of Apple's pro video history.
 
You bet because this thing is not coming in below $2499.00 count on that.

Right I meant the "xMac" people asked would have been under $2k. I expect the proprietary hardware + dual gpus + ssd/blades + assembled in the USA = $3-4k starting. Hopefully I'm wrong.
 
No Fibre channel unless you throw in a 3rd party PCIe box which could be an option if you don't mind throwing another party in there. Or wait until Avid recommends some certified vendors.

Or run your systems off of the GigE ports, but then you'll suffer a drop in performance.

I never said the new Mac Pro wasn't aligned with other Avid interfaces or software.

I agree about the history of Final Cut. . . . . then again . . . . that would be all of Apple's pro video history.
http://www.promise.com/storage/raid_series.aspx?region=en-global&m=192&rsn1=40&rsn3=49
http://www.attotech.com/products/product.php?scat=29&prod=100&sku=TLFC-1082-D00
These will probably get the support. Before you balk at the price it is really only 150-200 more than a proper PCI card. Probably for the TB controller price.
 
CPU's not improved in speed? IBM must be creating Scotch Mist then. The POWER7 is up to 4.25GHZwith 12 cores on a single CPU. The POWER8 about to be talked about and released will be even better.

In a short casual post, I (once again) did not expect a need to enter encyclopedic detail covering all conceivable wanton misunderstandings of the obvious point.
Since we're on a Mac discussion board talking about a new Mac with the same processor line Macs have used for many years, reference to stalled speeds seemed obviously limited to that context. If you wish to argue the obvious point by returning to a CPU line :apple: abandoned 6.5 years ago, completely eradicated software support for almost 4 years ago, and shows absolutely no signs of interest therein, well, go pipe your diatribe to /dev/null while the rest of us acknowledge that the processor family obviously under discussion has, in fact, been stalled out around 3GHz for a few years now.

As for your rant against me about GPUs, I said "GPUs are where it's at" and lauded their use as the new path to high-processing-power activities. Yes, they require significant power draw - duh. Not sure why you want a heated agreement on that obvious and tangential point.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.