Apple's Processor Options for Early 2012 Mac Pro Begin to Firm Up

[AidenShaw]

Definitely good info for everyone out there... it is totally true that each application should be tested with Hyperthreading... and never really gives great benefits.

Of course I'm aware of this... and it's one of the things I like least about my mac pro. I really wish it had more real cores in it (hence why I'm excited about getting 4 more cores (2x8 vs 2x6) with these new processors). This is also one of the reasons I went with the i5 for my home iMac instead of the i7.

Even though hyperthreads don't help with FP (because of lack of duplication of floating point units) and as you say can actually be detrimental...

Another big issue with SPEC fp is memory bandwidth - even if there are idle execution units, the bottleneck is memory bandwidth to get data into and out of the CPU.

So the HT problem is not only contention for execution units (because every thread needs the same CPU resources), but also memory bandwidth (since all logical cores share the same memory channels).

BTW - Since Snow Leopard, OSX has gotten really good at managing processes in a hyperthreaded environment. It won't do anything stupid like assign two processes to the same physical core if there are other physical cores available.

Nice to hear that Apple OSX is becoming more NUMA/HT aware.

However, note that the general case is a very hard problem.

Imagine a simple case of two physical HT cores. (In the case of a single HT core, HT will always be a win.) Physical core 0 is LCPU 0 and LCPU 1, physical core 1 is LCPU 2 and LCPU 3:

• µsec 0 - 2 threads active, on LCPU 0 and LCPU 2 (scheduler has assigned active threads to idle physical cores)
• µsec 1 - 4 threads active, on LCPU 0,1,2,3 (scheduler assigns the 4 threads to the 4 logical cores)
• µsec 2 - threads on LCPU 2,3 complete, leaving two threads active on LCPU 0 & LCPU 1 (oops, the 2nd physical core is idle and two threads are sharing one physical core)

There's a real cost to moving threads between cores (register/L1/L2 caches need to flush), so you don't want to rebalance every nanosecond.

You should assume that the OS designers have done performance studies to determine an appropriate period to allow for unbalanced operation before taking the cache flush hit for moving a thread between logical CPUs. Sometimes, in fact, it can be better to suspend a thread and resume it some nanoseconds later rather than immediately move it to an idle logical CPU.

Multiprocessor scheduling is a very, very hard problem to optimize for all workloads. There are nuances to handle with single-socket multi-core systems (L1 and/or L2 caches may be private and L2/L3 caches shared - or they may be two single core CPUs in the same socket; a CPU may be complete, or it may be a logical CPU sharing some cache levels and execution units with other logical CPUs).

With multi-socket systems, the complications explode. You have all of the cache issues with single socket systems - with the complication that moving an active process from a logical CPU on one socket to a logical CPU on another socket requires flushing and invalidating all cache data on the first socket, and starting from scratch on the second socket.

And with current x64 multi-socket CPUs you have the added issue of NUMA. Since each socket has its own memory controller - a process running on a logical CPU in socket A on many systems initially will have its memory allocated on the memory connected to socket A.

If the scheduler moves the thread to socket B (or if the process has threads running on both socket A and B) threads on socket B will have slower access to memory.

Lion is even better in this regard. In our testing there is no longer any penalty for leaving hyperthreading on (only if you actually try to use them with more FP processes than you have real cores).

Lesson Is: It depends. Hyperthreads can help, but they certainly aren't as good as real cores!

Bing! You need to look at the load that's most critical for you, test it, and decide. Sometimes HT will help, sometimes HT will hurt.

 

[LillDrutten]

Why no 2x6 core at 3.3 Ghz? That would be the ultimate DAW machine. Or even better a 2x6 higher speed and no hyperthreading.

 

[H2SO4]

Sure do. Apple tax again. I'll keep building my own for about half the cost. Linux is working just fine. When this gets launched shortly .......
http://www.lightworksbeta.com/ , won't need apple anymore.

Apple Tax. Dang I hate that term, you odn't want it don't buy it!
There isn't a single company that doesn't put on a mark up that they don't think they can get away with. Rolls Royce tax anybody, (7 Series in disguise), Bentley Tax, (VW Phaeton in disguise), Audi tax, (Skoda in disguise??).

They buy the raw material, they modify/assemble it, they sell it adding a bit for the advertising, expenses and good measure.
You don't want it don't buy it. When the new Pro comes out I'll look at it and make a decision, it's that simple.

Those bits that go to make up the linux box are also marked up. If the manufacturers of the raw materials could get away with charging more - they would. As I suspect you would.

 

[apolloa]

Apple Tax. Dang I hate that term, you odn't want it don't buy it!
There isn't a single company that doesn't put on a mark up that they don't think they can get away with. Rolls Royce tax anybody, (7 Series in disguise), Bentley Tax, (VW Phaeton in disguise), Audi tax, (Skoda in disguise??).

They buy the raw material, they modify/assemble it, they sell it adding a bit for the advertising, expenses and good measure.
You don't want it don't buy it. When the new Pro comes out I'll look at it and make a decision, it's that simple.

Those bits that go to make up the linux box are also marked up. If the manufacturers of the raw materials could get away with charging more - they would. As I suspect you would.

I voted you down because your analogies are utterly ridiculous and you have NO idea what the difference between a BMW built by robots and a car hand made is. You don't think the Bugatti Veyron is a Phaeton as well do you? The engine in a Veyron is two VW units bolted together, yeah it's just a VW Beetle in disguise mate

If you can't afford it, ignore it, don't come on here and feel jealous.

 

[deconstruct60]

• with hyper-threading, each logical core effectively has half the shared cache as the same system with hyper-threading disabled - so some apps will lose more to the diminished cache than they gain from the extra logical cores
• if the threads are limited by memory bandwidth, additional cores (even additional physical cores) won't help - and will aggravate the issue with the effective reduction in cache size

that is really an implementation issue, not necessarily SMT (intel speak Hyperthreading) issue.

Typically L3 caches are shared with higher set associativity. Intel doesn't particularly optimize the offset needed for the L1/L2 values though. I can be done.

In the second item, it depends upon what the root cause of the limitation is. If it is delays from wait states to RAM , disk , etc. or because just too much traffic being delivered. Again the Intel implementation tends to be designed around slower disk accesses to weave the alternative thread into the larger wait state. In contrast, "too many cars on a single road" is not necessarily the processors fault. That is not its job.

Finally, as pointed out later, in part this is just flawed implementation at the OS scheduler level. It is not hyperthreading that is at fault. It is the OS asleep at the wheel not effectively managing the resources present.

The new bulldozer processors are going through the same issue. Tweaks to scheduling get a 2-20% boost in performance. (first from initial article on processors that highlights problem that AMD told the develpers upfront. And second a link to some experienments that show gain. )

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865

And there aren't technically even any hyperthreads involved. (really management of the "Turbo" modes but some of the root cause issue of being aware of the sharing implications of the resource being managed by the OS. ) . It is the OS's job to give abstraction layers to the applications. Not to be abstracted from the resources it is trying to manage.

 

[lukarak]

I voted you down because your analogies are utterly ridiculous and you have NO idea what the difference between a BMW built by robots and a car hand made is. You don't think the Bugatti Veyron is a Phaeton as well do you? The engine in a Veyron is two VW units bolted together, yeah it's just a VW Beetle in disguise mate

If you can't afford it, ignore it, don't come on here and feel jealous.

You completely misunderstood his point. And your going into the extremes doesn't make you right, as argument ad absurdum is used when you don't have anything worthy of saying.
Some of those luxury marks exactly are just regular models with a greater attention paid to detail, and packaged beautifully, just as Apple's hardware is. Hardware used by Apple can be found in every other computer manufacturer's models, just like a skoda and an audi have the same engines, suspension, ECUs and lots of other stuff. What the user sees is different, of course.

It doesn't mean that that's Apple or anybody else's Tax. It's just a package they sell. And just as rarely as a car is just a transportation device from A to B is a computer or an electronic device just a number crunching machine. Otherwise every car would be a Dacia and every laptop would be E-machines model.

 

[H2SO4]

Read it too fast, and shot from the hip so I deleted it.

 

[apolloa]

Wow, no crap PC components are shared amongst manufacturers! But like I said, if your jealous then just leave. No point being a green monster.

I'm sure Mac Pro owners will state the differences for you, just as much as owners of Rolls Royce will show you the way to your stupidity when they claim it's a BMW underneath.
You also show a total lack of understanding how car engineering works.

 

[H2SO4]

Wow, no crap PC components are shared amongst manufacturers! But like I said, if your jealous then just leave. No point being a green monster.

I'm sure Mac Pro owners will state the differences for you, just as much as owners of Rolls Royce will show you the way to your stupidity when they claim it's a BMW underneath.
You also show a total lack of understanding how car engineering works.

Of course I do. I know nothing about cars, you got that from two posts. LMAO! Oh, and I have a Mac Pro. No jealousy here.

OMG!! I need to slit my wrists, you've voted me down whatever shall I do??
Look that Bentley has a significant number of parts that are shared with the Phaeton, (I don't mean they both bought the same alternator from Bosch either), including pretty much the whole of that W12 engine. BMW and Rolls Royce share a significant parts similarity too. This is how things are today, it's too expensive to do things otherwise.
Tell you what as you obviously own a Bentley which is why you are so defensive, go and find a cheapskate with a Phaeton, ask him to have a look under the bonnet, have a look at his keyfob and lots of the fittings in the car. Then go take a deep breath.....

I have a complete Denon Hi fi system. I also have a Benz some Tommy jeans and quite a few other premium goods. I have paid a premium for the way the things look/are put together and the name on the cover, I know that.
I could have bought a lot cheaper and ended up with pretty much the same thing, maybe even better.

 

[Chris Tilton]

You're not the person I was replying to obviously. So why bother replying to me ? That guy was running a 7 year old G5. I really, really doubt it had 16 GB of RAM...

I guess I didn't realize who you were replying to. Apologies, for singling you out, but I used your reasoning on why bother with the Mac Pro as a launch pad to explain why the Mac Pro is still very relevant to some folks who work in certain industries, and that it can do things that none of the other Macs can do.

 

[H2SO4]

I guess I didn't realize who you were replying to. Apologies, for singling you out, but I used your reasoning on why bother with the Mac Pro as a launch pad to explain why the Mac Pro is still very relevant to some folks who work in certain industries, and that it can do things that none of the other Macs can do.

I saw that a few moments ago and edited my post, apologies for the insults. Oh, and the Mac Pro is also relevant to people who have simply done a lot of overtime and want a new computer.

 

[apolloa]

Of course I do. I know nothing about cars, you got that from two posts. LMAO! Oh, and I have a Mac Pro. No jealousy here.

OMG!! I need to slit my wrists, you've voted me down whatever shall I do??
Look that Bentley has a significant number of parts that are shared with the Phaeton, (I don't mean they both bought the same alternator from Bosch either), including pretty much the whole of that W12 engine. BMW and Rolls Royce share a significant parts similarity too. This is how things are today, it's too expensive to do things otherwise.
Tell you what as you obviously own a Bentley which is why you are so defensive, go and find a cheapskate with a Phaeton, ask him to have a look under the bonnet, have a look at his keyfob and lots of the fittings in the car. Then go take a deep breath.....

I have a complete Denon Hi fi system. I also have a Benz some Tommy jeans and quite a few other premium goods. I have paid a premium for the way the things look/are put together and the name on the cover, I know that.
I could have bought a lot cheaper and ended up with pretty much the same thing, maybe even better.

No, you DON'T know about cars, if you did you would know the differences. Just the same as your Mac Pro is not a Dell just because it has an intel CPU.
Still, I'm not sure what a pair of jeans, japanese hifi system and a Merc have to do with it? Stating you own those things makes you come across as a bit arrogant to be honest.
And if I had a Bentley mate I would be doing something much better and more exciting on my Sunday evening then talking to you! You should learn to not judge people by the cover.
Interesting how you have a Mac Pro, you stated in your post about how people should not buy it if the don't want it, then use a stupid analogy?

 

[H2SO4]

No, you DON'T know about cars, if you did you would know the differences. Just the same as your Mac Pro is not a Dell just because it has an intel CPU.
Still, I'm not sure what a pair of jeans, japanese hifi system and a Merc have to do with it? Stating you own those things makes you come across as a bit arrogant to be honest.
And if I had a Bentley mate I would be doing something much better and more exciting on my Sunday evening then talking to you! You should learn to not judge people by the cover.
Interesting how you have a Mac Pro, you stated in your post about how people should not buy it if the don't want it, then use a stupid analogy?

Or, maybe as I've been to the factory on quite a few occasions and seen it, I know about this example in particular, even if I don't know about cars as you wrongly claim. I'm done with you anyway. I have tried my damnedest to reduce my IQ to your level, but I just can't.
Dufus, ever thought that if I knew about cars I'd also know the similarities?

The reference to the other branded goods was just that. Branded goods. They are all over priced. It wasn't nor was it meant to be arrogant, I could have said the same about Ben and Jerrys as opposed to a stores own brand.
The MacPro reference, merely to cover the if you are jealous don't by one reply you made, and if you had a Bentley judging by your idiotic response it was either a gift, a win or stolen. You couldn't have earned on the merits you have displayed here.
Oh, and that bit about not judging people by the cover.....beautiful! (No, you DON'T know about cars) LOL.

 

[wallysb01]

Wow, no crap PC components are shared amongst manufacturers! But like I said, if your jealous then just leave. No point being a green monster.

I'm sure Mac Pro owners will state the differences for you, just as much as owners of Rolls Royce will show you the way to your stupidity when they claim it's a BMW underneath.
You also show a total lack of understanding how car engineering works.

apolloa, you're way off base. lukarak did a pretty good job explaining just what you missed, and somehow you couldn't understand that either. No one here is being jealous. Instead it seems like you have some sort of superiority complex you need to try to enforce.

...Just the same as your Mac Pro is not a Dell just because it has an intel CPU.

No kidding. THAT'S HIS POINT. They share components, but its the overall quality of the build and attention to detail that makes people willing to buy a MBP for $2K instead of a Dell XPS with the same basic components for $1K. His point is that isn't a tax. That is real value added to the product. Sure, in terms of looking at parts in a spread sheet it won't look that way. But in the overall use, feel and look of the product it shows up. Same thing with VW Jetta or Audi A4.

And if I had a Bentley mate I would be doing something much better and more exciting on my Sunday evening then talking to you! You should learn to not judge people by the cover.

Say's the guy that instantly assumed another's post was motivated by jealousy... And why do you need a Bentley, or be able to afford a Bentley, to do something exciting on a Sunday? I mean wow, just wow.

 

[apolloa]

Or, maybe as I've been to the factory on quite a few occasions and seen it, I know about this example in particular, even if I don't know about cars as you wrongly claim. I'm done with you anyway. I have tried my damnedest to reduce my IQ to your level, but I just can't.
Dufus, ever thought that if I knew about cars I'd also know the similarities?

The reference to the other branded goods was just that. Branded goods. They are all over priced. It wasn't nor was it meant to be arrogant, I could have said the same about Ben and Jerrys as opposed to a stores own brand.
The MacPro reference, merely to cover the if you are jealous don't by one reply you made, and if you had a Bentley judging by your idiotic response it was either a gift, a win or stolen. You couldn't have earned on the merits you have displayed here.
Oh, and that bit about not judging people by the cover.....beautiful! (No, you DON'T know about cars) LOL.

Touched a nerve did I? Like I said, arrogant.

 

[wallysb01]

Touched a nerve did I? Like I said, arrogant.

First he's jealous, then he doesn't know what he's talking about, now he's arrogant... right.... Can you make point without resorting to as hominems?

 

[vladi]

Sure do. Apple tax again. I'll keep building my own for about half the cost. Linux is working just fine. When this gets launched shortly .......
http://www.lightworksbeta.com/ , won't need apple anymore.

Interesting stuff, looks like a good quick cut/output tool. I will give it a shot.

Currently I use Vegas Pro 11 for stuff like that and I am very satisfied (new GPU accel across whole app puts Premier to shame) and OFX support means I can apply those Sapphires on a go

Our team works on Avid MC/DS combo, I never fully got used to it. Coming from graphic design background I always preferred rough quick cuts (and I think Vegas is the easiest) and than import them to Fusion or DaVinci for retouching. Shot by shot I would bring them back to NLE and give it to someone to put it all back together. That's how we work when they need me to spice it up

Like I said Lightwave looks promising and if its output render is fast and glitch free it will be a blast.

 

[Umbongo]

I don't think they will put 150 W processors in the Mac Pro ever. The wattage is going down if anything.

They already have used three different 150W processors in Mac Pros. The X5365, X5472 and X5482 have all been sold in dual processor configurations in Mac Pros.

 

[Inconsequential]

They already have used three different 150W processors in Mac Pros. The X5365, X5472 and X5482 have all been sold in dual processor configurations in Mac Pros.

Not in the last two refreshes tho.

 

[rimcrazy]

Mac Pro's are dead

You people are dreaming. There has not been an update to MacPros because there is not going to be any more MacPros. The current high end iMac fills all the needs of what Apple is selling and wants to sell. FCP was the last big need that justified getting a MacPro. With FCPX there is no need for a MacPro. Statically speaking in terms of % of revenue MacPro's don't even come up to 0.5% of annual sales to Apple and that includes throwing in FCP sales. This product line is a forgotten step child at best. Look at the sorted updates they've made to this box in the past 3 years. A kid out of high school could have spec'ed it better and come up with a more competitive design. It's been shoddy work at best because Apple internally has not supported it. My guess is they have only a few poor un-appreciated HW engineers who are working their collective arses off while all the R&D $$$$ are going to iPhone, iPad, iEverything else in the company. From a business perspective, killing it is the right thing to do. The slope of the curve on iEverything is Up, Up, Up. The slope on the curve of MacPro's is down, down, down.

If you were CEO where would you put your money and resources? Me, I'd shoot it in a heartbeat. As Tony Soprano says, "Hey, it not personal, this is just business"

 

[Umbongo]

You people are dreaming. There has not been an update to MacPros because there is not going to be any more MacPros.

Right, couldn't possibly be because there is no hardware to upgrade it with? I suppose you think Apple's own engineers and developers will all migrate to PCs or settle for a third of the performance available with dual processor workstations?

If I were the CEO I would want those providing the content for the vast majority of my userbase/customers to be using my platform to create it with and want them be heavily involved in my ecosystem. If they all have to use Windows or Linux for productivity then I would see that as detrimental to the overall goal of full system integration.

The Mac Pro may have low sales, but they must be making at least $1,500 per unit sold. More than enough to add Apple's touch to Intel's standard workstation specifications.

 

[rimcrazy]

... the vast majority of my userbase/customers to be using my platform to create it with and want them be heavily involved in my ecosystem. If they all have to use Windows or Linux for productivity then I would see that as detrimental to the overall goal of full system integration.

No, the VAST majority of your user base uses iMac,s Macbooks, Macbook Air, iPads, and iPhones. A very insignificant user base uses MacPro's. Apple demonstrated in spades exactly where they see the video market going with the release of FCPX. I would agree with them. They would rather sell millions of copies of FCPX that will run on and help enable the sale of the current high end MacBook Air's and iMac's then cater to a few thousand sales of MacPros.

Unlike most conglomerates, Apple wisely knows that to continually grow into new markets you need to have the ingenuity to both create those markets and the willingness to venture into them at the expense of eating your own products and making them obsolete. The recently booted CEO of HP wanted to dump their consumer PC product line because he knew HP missed the boat on Smartphones and Tablets and that the consumer desktop market and even high end workstation market is headed one way and one way only and that is down.

It's not a matter of if the Mac Pros are dead simply when. Apple did not kill XSan because it was doing so well, they killed it because it reached a point where the ROI could be better spent on other projects. MacPro's are headed the same way.

 

[Inconsequential]

No, the VAST majority of your user base uses iMac,s Macbooks, Macbook Air, iPads, and iPhones. A very insignificant user base uses MacPro's. Apple demonstrated in spades exactly where they see the video market going with the release of FCPX. I would agree with them. They would rather sell millions of copies of FCPX that will run on and help enable the sale of the current high end MacBook Air's and iMac's then cater to a few thousand sales of MacPros.

Unlike most conglomerates, Apple wisely knows that to continually grow into new markets you need to have the ingenuity to both create those markets and the willingness to venture into them at the expense of eating your own products and making them obsolete. The recently booted CEO of HP wanted to dump their consumer PC product line because he knew HP missed the boat on Smartphones and Tablets and that the consumer desktop market and even high end workstation market is headed one way and one way only and that is down.

It's not a matter of if the Mac Pros are dead simply when. Apple did not kill XSan because it was doing so well, they killed it because it reached a point where the ROI could be better spent on other projects. MacPro's are headed the same way.

Rubbish.

As long as the Mac Pro is making a profit then it will continue to be sold.

Once the SB-E and X79 chips are released and in general supply Apple will update the Mac Pro. Simples.

My point will be proved when I have a Early 2012 Mac Pro sitting on my desk.

 

[firestarter]

It's not a matter of if the Mac Pros are dead simply when. Apple did not kill XSan because it was doing so well, they killed it because it reached a point where the ROI could be better spent on other projects. MacPro's are headed the same way.

The problem with that sort of strategy is that Apple sells an 'ecosystem' of products that are increasingly tightly integrated. So I use my iPhone when I go out, my iPad around the house, my MacPro for serious work and my MacBook for travel. (And I'm sure that a good proportion of MacPro owners also own Mac laptops).

You buy apps which you use across all your computers, and that becomes an investment. I can use iWork on my desktop, and that will (soon) sync files with iWork on the iPad using iCloud. You start video editing in the field on a laptop using FCP X and then load that onto your Mac Pro to finish and render. I use OmniFocus which manages my to do list across all my iOS and OSX devices.

If Apple stop producing one element of that ecosystem, then the whole concept breaks. If I have to run Windows 8 if I want to own a serious powerful desktop computer, then why would I keep buying Mac laptops and paying for software twice over?

Servers are a bit different, because they provide pretty generic services. Disk space/mail etc. doesn't have to be provided by a server running OSX and it wasn't that big a deal to get rid of that line.

But if they remove an essential part of the ecosystem then I'll go elsewhere - and not with just that one machine; I'll switch all my machines.

 

[rimcrazy]

Rubbish.

As long as the Mac Pro is making a profit then it will continue to be sold.

Once the SB-E and X79 chips are released and in general supply Apple will update the Mac Pro. Simples.

My point will be proved when I have a Early 2012 Mac Pro sitting on my desk.

And if you do it will be one of the last ones. I'm sure I could be wrong as to weather there may be one or even two more spins on the box but it's life will be short lived for certain.

You all seem to think that simply because you can add up the cost of the bag of parts it takes to make a MacPro and then look at what it sells for, that there is a profit in that number Apple will continue to make the product. I'm sure that, that analysis showed an XSan was profitable when they killed it. You are all missing one HUGE part of how a business like Apple looks at product development. There is a very important and significant cost called "Opportunity Cost" That is an analysis of what is the best way to use your R&D resources to maximize your return on investment. (ROI). Apple's R&D overall as a % of sales is around 2.5%. The MacPro hardware line alone, at best, is producing around $250M annual sales. I would also suspect that the R&D cost of this particular product line as a % of sales is significantly higher than the rest of the company. Having worked at a number of computer companies it is probably around 5% to 10%. Let's say 5%. That translates to an annual R&D budget of about $12.5M which is approx 100 people. Apple needs to look at that number and say can we take those 100 resources and put them on, say, a low cost iPhone for the masses, that could produce $10B in revenue in two years vs a paltry $250M/yr revenue and declining in MacPros. I will guarantee you that is the discussions going on right now in the business development halls at 1 Infinity Loop.

As I said, it's not a matter of if, just when.

And the comment on Ecosystems..... the delta between a high end iMac and what a MacPro offers is becoming very very small. You take a high end iMac with an i7 core and an SSD and you have to ask yourself why in the world do you think you need a MacPro. There will be screaming Thunderbold RAID systems that will hook up fine to an iMac. So why MacPro's? They are redundant. All you get are slots and another CPU. At some point in time there are diminishing returns for a second CPU for the 80% market Apple targets. They don't give a rat about the top 10% or the bottom 10% and they shouldn't. It's a whole lot of expense for very little return.

Me, I switched two years ago and I'm an original Apple Fan-Boy. Got me a brand new iPhone 4S and I love it. My laptop is a 2 month old MBP loaded to the hilt and it is the best Win7 machine I've ever owned. Yea, I bootcamp it and run Windows 7. I do 3D animation work and as much as I love OSX and Mac's all of the software I use runs best on Win7. Most of it will work on OSX but it is a major PITA. Apple does not support the graphic cards I need nor will they. (nVidia Quadro 6000's) And even if they did their support of high end graphic cards sucks. Just got me a rendering workstation. 2x Xeon Hex cores + 24Gb Ram all in a 1U box for $2500. Works great. Fits what I need. My MPB is nice as I still have Apple apps I want so for the moment I get the best of both worlds, but I suspect too, that MPB's are going the way of the Dodo too as high end MacBook Air's will eat them for lunch too.

Face the music people. All of us who's work requires high end workstations are going to be in a big bag of hurt. We've enjoyed ever increasing price drops and performance improvements because of the tag along with the volume of the consumer market requirements. As the consumer market shifts to smartphones and tablets and Air's the cost of very high end workstations is going to cease to go down so much and over time I suspect it's going to cost more simply because the overall production demand is reducing. Other comments in this thread are showing it already in that everyone is saying the cost of MacPros is not going down and if anything they are going up.