Exactly. <10% increase from a 3 year old machine that was hardly cutting edge even back then. What a joke.
But hey, it's smaller! Good job Fat Phil Schiller.
![]()
Jesus disapproves.
Exactly. <10% increase from a 3 year old machine that was hardly cutting edge even back then. What a joke.
But hey, it's smaller! Good job Fat Phil Schiller.
![]()
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'm still having to do extra work to finish projects containing plugins lost to the PPC/Intel switch. Pro users need continuity.
If that's still bugging you, you'd probably be better off on PC. Especially if you're running Cubase (or Nuendo).
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 WOOOWthis 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 ......
......wtf?
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.
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.
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
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_ _!
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 WOOOWthis 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 ......
......wtf?
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_ _!
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 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.
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
....
Now, they've all moved BACK to the HP and Dell workstation / Avid ISIS / Media Composer / ProTools systems that the industry never left behind.
This isn't even 64 buddyPathetically weak trash can.
Windows workstation it is for people who care about productivity and power over shiny looks. This is a rubbish bin.
This isn't even 64 buddy
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...![]()
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.
You bet because this thing is not coming in below $2499.00 count on that.
http://www.promise.com/storage/raid_series.aspx?region=en-global&m=192&rsn1=40&rsn3=49No 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.
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.