Heck, I bought a MBP simply because my work computers, including a Mac Pro, are Macs. If instead I was working on some "big, dumb linux box" at work, I probably would have just gone the dual boot Ubuntu/Windows route. Apple just makes it easy to go between computers. Without that advantage, I wouldn't have a particularly compelling reason to buy a Mac for working from home.
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's Processor Options for Early 2012 Mac Pro Begin to Firm Up
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Heck, I bought a MBP simply because my work computers, including a Mac Pro, are Macs. If instead I was working on some "big, dumb linux box" at work, I probably would have just gone the dual boot Ubuntu/Windows route. Apple just makes it easy to go between computers. Without that advantage, I wouldn't have a particularly compelling reason to buy a Mac for working from home.
You'll always have the capability for at least ~2x the RAM on a Mac Pro, just on a SP. Sure the iMac can handle 32 GB of RAM, but that costs about $800 to do right now. Then the current SP Mac Pro tops out at 48, the next gen SP will be able to get to 64. Double those numbers for the duel processor systems. Then there's HD space issues. For the foreseeable future, those Thunderbold RAID systems are still crazy expensive when compared to internal RAIDs on a Mac Pro (i.e. 6TB thunderbolt RAID =$1500, 6TB internal RAID = $300-400). So, by the time you put a SSD and 32 GB of RAM into an iMac and attached a TB RAID system, you're outspending the Mac Pro. Right now all that would cost you $4K+, and that's just the 4TB RAID. Its just silly. Buy the right computer for the right task. For $4k you can buy the top SP system and still have some money left over for other upgrades. If spend $4500 or $5000 on a Mac Pro, you'll destroy the system you tried to build with the iMac that cost you $4K. Its just silly, and that isn't going to change for at least several years, if not more.
You are missing the point. Just how many people like you and me need a system like you just described? Not very many and the number is DECLINING every year. THAT is the point. That is why MacPros will die. And given the speed at which prices fall on storage and in particular memory it won't take years for the delta in the above scenario to become moot. Not sure who you are quoting for memory upgrades but I never buy memory upgrades from Apple as you can get them 2x to 4x cheaper elsewhere at any given point in time. Demand for SSD's is increasing all the time which will really drive the price down for them fast.
Last edited:
You still haven't addressed the 'ecosystem' point though.
Apple needs a serious headless desktop that takes multiple drives and PCIe cards in it's lineup.
It's a necessity for anyone working in professional video or audio (you need PCIe for high end Pro-tools rigs).
Loose the high end creatives, and you loose a lot of press and 'hipster' sentiment.
No, they don't give a rat about "hipster" sentiment. Look at FCP. They pissed off ALL of Hollywood with the release of FCPX. They don't care. They lost a few thousand seats there and will gain hundred's of thousands of seats from young new "Indy" movie makers that are the up and coming generation. That is what they care about. You are taking this too personal. It's not. Apple does not care about the high end Glam. They care about selling a bazillion units of something and making great products that millions of people like. Not serving the needs of a few.
Apple has been putting effort into appeasing film makers. If they just wanted to slash'n'burn that whole segment, they wouldn't have rereleased FC studio, or added XML back into FCP X.
I think you'll find that you're wrong when the new machines come out - it's just a matter of time.
WHAT?
Seriously, what?
Thunderbolt will not spread in video and audio industry unless Intel brings it to Windows machines as well. So we are very far away from that point no matter how much we would love to see that happen. I applaud Matrox for being one of the pioneers in this field btw, you have to check their MXO2.
Unfortunately whole industry is waiting on Avid. Pro Tools 10 just came up and no Thunderbolt. Other leading audio companies haven't announced anything yet.
Apple needs to step in and make few Thunderbolt accessories just to kick start the trend.
Once GPU goes Thunderbolt like Sony did with their new laptop then Thunderbolt will live up and iMac could get a boost from it.
As of right now iMac is inferior in every single way to MacPro.
Knock yourself out. We will see. Just ask the people who were using XSan about that. oh and FCP Server. And Apple Servers........
I use FCP. I also own FCPX. FCPX is great but it does not nor will it ever have what FCP offered the very, very high end editing community. Go watch Other People's Money. As Danny Divito's character said in the movie, "I'm sure the maker of the very last buggy whip made a fantastic buggy whip. The problem is new technology supplanted it and made it obsolete." Very high end workstations are becoming buggy whips as compared to the enormous volume consumer market. They will be around but there will be a declining number of manufactures that will support them and they will cost more.
----------
AVID just laid off 200 people. Adobe is gaining markeshare like crazy. Their sales in PP increased about 50% since June. FCPX works and will fill a niche of what many movie makers will need. I doubt seriously that you will see Avatar II cut on it however. Walter Murch already said he won't cut on it (http://www.chris-portal.com/2011/10/28/walter-murch-at-the-boston-supermeet/)
As far as iMac being inferior to MacPro. Yep it is..... and it out sells MacPro's probably 10:1 with that number getting larger every month. Let's see what Apple does, but my business depends upon a stable, cost effect, upgrade-able, very high end workstation. I did not see that becoming a reality in Apple's future based on their current and past ACTIONS. Not what they say. Look at what they have done. Then make your decision. A company is never going to tell you in advance that they are killing something until they kill it... but if they do and you needed it, your left holding the bag. That is why the Cow and other editing forums are filled with professional editors fuming over FCPX.
Last edited:
So you removed the start of my sentence totally changing the context of what I said because?
Sorry, I did change a bit of your statement but the point is everyone here seems to think that the very high end workstation, MacPro, is some critical can't do without part of the Mac ecosystem. I say it is not. It's relevance is becoming moot as iMac's become far more powerful and the market Apple really wants to serve, the middle 80%, is where ALL of Apple's growth is. Does anybody seriously believe a $250M product line with DECLINING unit volumes is going to be critical to Apples future? Give me a break. As I said. LOOK at what they have done. XSan. Dead. FCP Server. Dead. Appple Server. Dead. Shake. Dead. Color. Dead. FCP. Dead.
Again, I disagree completely.
Let's do a little spec comparison here (education pricing, as that is what I will be paying).
Current Mac Pro Setup
2.66Ghz W3520 + 12GB + HD4870 + 160GB Intel X25-M
300GB Velociraptor: Windows
2x1TB WD Blacks: Documents & Photo/Video Libraries
1x1TB WD Green: TM
iMac (CPU Performance +40%)
27" 2600K + 2GB GPU + 2TB HD = £1,800
16GB RAM = £70
256GB SSD (So OS X + App + windows can go on it) = £400
TB Enclosure for external drives = There isn't any!?!
So essentially a incomplete iMac setup is the best part of £2270 without any external HD using TB, therefore UTTERLY USELESS.
And if it's useless for a someone who doesn't really push the MP to it's limits then what about people who do!?
Mac Pro 2012 (CPU Performance >+80%)
E5-1650 + Bottom spec GPU + 1TB HD = £2000
16GB RAM = £100
Total: £2100
Plug my current HDs, SSDs, etc straight in and BANG. More performance for less.
So the even the mid (and actually the bottom spec Mac Pro) would outperform the top end iMac (The E5-1620 4 core will outperform the 2600K).
Your comparison on with the Xsan and Xserve is wrong. They were cancelled because they were very very dedicated kit requiring OS X server and a lot of additional server R&D with a even smaller market share. Apple knew other people did this better and therefore left the game.
The Mac Pro is simply there to be the most powerful Mac money can buy. It doesn't require additional software R&D and the R&D on it will be minimal at most. I would bet my iPhone 4 that the 2012 MP will be exactly the same inside except with a updated Mobo and CPU tray due to the change to LGA2011.
You also forget that the MP is what all the developers use to make content for the devices, no development = no platform.
I think you also miss the point that it doesn't have to be a big seller, or at the forefront of Apple's ethos. It's what it is. A powerful, expandable powerhouse which is bought by people that require it's abilities. And ontop of that, if they don't sell Mac Pro's and they are at the core of a workflow then all the other Apple kit (which may be iMacs, MacBooks, iPads) would also be ditched.
It's here to stay. I guarantee it.
We will both see won't we.
----------
Oh really. So XCode, that I installed on my iMac and MPB doesn't work. Well that is certainly a good thing to know.
I think you don't have a clue as to how business decisions are made in a multi-billion dollar corporation.
I never said it doesn't work. Bigger projects will compile faster on a MP than it will on the rest of the line.
Some people need the Mac Pro is their workflow. This is a fact.
Until the other OEMs have had their SB-E based workstations out for a good month without a new MP then I will start thinking that the MP line has been EOL'd.
Not until that point.
Edit: Had a quick look at the rough equivalents to the MP in the PC world. Most of them were released back in 2009 as well... funnily enough... [with additions for the Six-core chips like the 2010 MP, obv] So clearly everyone has left the workstation go as well...
Last edited:
My option,
Apple will continue to sell MacPro's as long as they still sell the various pro multimedia software that won't run on the Air. There is little love for Adobe, and Adobe continues to neglect all their software except Photoshop.
You don't need a MacPro where a iMac or the Mini will suffice. So that is most consumers, the same ones that buy iPhones and iPads.
Professional users (Sound mastering, Film, Photo, 3D modeling, software developers, etc) are not going to buy a stack of Mini's because the bottleneck is the ethernet interface. These users have been using high powered workstations forever and it's not going to change.
I'd expect new MacPro's around early 2012, +/- a month from other socket 2011 boards becoming available. I'll certainly buy one if I can get build of comparable value to what I could build from parts.
In the server market, the Mini is suitable for one specific purpose (see macmini colo) and that is the low-end non-VPS webserver. It's also suitable for a home/small-business file server. It's not a serious replacement for the Xserve. The MacPro is also the replacement for the Xserve.
What I expect is that Apple will have 3 SKU sets like they do for the Mini. Two prosumer SKU's (UP and DP) and one server SKU (DP) that are all Build-to-order in which the server SKU will have rack mounts and hotswapable hard drives in front, and the prosumer models would have a different front face to hide this. Apple creates attractive products so I'd be disappointed if they took a "Sealed box" approach.
There are customers that money is almost-no-object that will spend several thousand dollars on a full loaded MacPro because that's what they use, and that's what their employees want. The only segment of the market that Apple can't serve is the Hardcore gamer, because Apple never sells bleeding edge parts.
Apple will continue to sell MacPro's as long as they still sell the various pro multimedia software that won't run on the Air. There is little love for Adobe, and Adobe continues to neglect all their software except Photoshop.
You don't need a MacPro where a iMac or the Mini will suffice. So that is most consumers, the same ones that buy iPhones and iPads.
Professional users (Sound mastering, Film, Photo, 3D modeling, software developers, etc) are not going to buy a stack of Mini's because the bottleneck is the ethernet interface. These users have been using high powered workstations forever and it's not going to change.
I'd expect new MacPro's around early 2012, +/- a month from other socket 2011 boards becoming available. I'll certainly buy one if I can get build of comparable value to what I could build from parts.
In the server market, the Mini is suitable for one specific purpose (see macmini colo) and that is the low-end non-VPS webserver. It's also suitable for a home/small-business file server. It's not a serious replacement for the Xserve. The MacPro is also the replacement for the Xserve.
What I expect is that Apple will have 3 SKU sets like they do for the Mini. Two prosumer SKU's (UP and DP) and one server SKU (DP) that are all Build-to-order in which the server SKU will have rack mounts and hotswapable hard drives in front, and the prosumer models would have a different front face to hide this. Apple creates attractive products so I'd be disappointed if they took a "Sealed box" approach.
There are customers that money is almost-no-object that will spend several thousand dollars on a full loaded MacPro because that's what they use, and that's what their employees want. The only segment of the market that Apple can't serve is the Hardcore gamer, because Apple never sells bleeding edge parts.
People like me? All of them. People like you? I don't know.
Prices fall, but people keep needing more and more computing power too. So while per spec technology prices do depreciate, we keep spending roughly the same amount of money on technology to deal with increasing demands. Which means, yes, the iMac will get better and faster over time, but people's computational needs will also increase. Unless we reach some sort of data wall, the Mac Pro is always going to be better option to meet those increasing needs.
That was newegg. Those 8 GB sticks are expensive. The Mac Pro will use expensive sticks too (ie 16 GB ECC RAM), but it will also have the option of distributing the same amount of RAM over more slots. So if you need a decent amount of RAM, that would max out an iMac, but not a Mac Pro, you could actually get it cheaper with less dense sticks on the Mac Pro.
People have been saying that ~2 years. Its been getting cheaper, but not that fast. And part of that reason is the demand is outstripping the ability to produce more of them. And I'm not sure why this is such a huge deal for these purposes. Both the iMac and the Mac Pro could put use to larger, cheaper SSDs. The mac pro already holds the advantage of being able to RAID them together as well.
Do yourself a favor. Put a ruler up to the screen on this graph (https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1267234/) and extrapolate where the destination of this curve is.
Seriously. How long do you think a company making assloads of $$ in hand held and portable consumer devices is going to subsidize this curve. QED.
That's a stupid thing to do. Ever tried to pick a stock? Did you use this method? If so, how did that turn out for you? The lesson? Past trends do not necessarily predict the future. Second, that's just sales inside Apple and expressed as a percent no less. Desktop sales could actually be increasing, but if laptop sales are increasing faster, the percentage will drop. So, if one product line is expanding, but another is expanding faster, does that mean you drop the less-quickly expanding product line? Third, even if a product line is shrinking, that does not mean it isn't profitable, or even extremely profitable.
Put it all together, and that curve is meaningless. Heck, you could look at that say the iMac should axed, just as much as you can for the Mac Pro.
Yep. Thats right and perhaps, when iPads, Airs, etc. reach a 90 to 95% mix they probably will kill it. Now you are getting it. This curve does not even throw in iPad sales. If you put that in the mix the portable to desktop ratio looks even worse.
This is business. Apple is not going to continue to make MacPro's because you want them to. They are going to make them because 1) they make money, 2) their niche in the market is growing (It's called INCREASING revenue. Business like that.) 3) It fits an overall strategy. When those metrics don't fit a smart business will kill the product line and get into something else.
Did you read what I wrote? Because I know you certainly didn't comprehend it.
You can have INCREASING REVENUE and DECREASING percentage of total sales from the same product line. Clearly you think you're smart. You're not. You need to look at the right numbers before making such claims. If you took two seconds to google Apple's revenue, you'd see the very first hit showing you desktop sales are UP $280M in Q3 2011 over Q3 2010. They generated nearly $1.6B in revenue. But oh, the portables went from $3.1B to $3.5B. So, your hypothesis is that desktops are dead or dying? Insanity, pure insanity. Luckily the people at apple are a little too smart to look at only the graph in this blog post and wanting to axe the entire desktop line, much unlike you.
Never, apparently, in those 28 years did anyone teach you how to logically interpret data. Knowledge of PCs is not you problem here.
Only the PC market isn't shrinking, not for Apple, and not for global sales. The portable market is growing. You wish to equate PC's percent of computing sales to a declining market, when really its just the faster relative expansion of the portable market, while both markets are growing that you are seeing. Even the workstation market isn't easily described. Its up, its down. It cycles with the Intel chips. It moves with the general trend of the economy. It fluctuates seasonally. But it isn't clearly shrinking. It might in the future. You could have that hypothesis, and you might be right, but there isn't a whole lot of reason to be particularly confident in that hypothesis.
You're arguing not only in ignorance of the data, but against the data. The PC market is fine. Its actually growing. HP's problems are interesting, but they don't have much to offer us here. They haven't been able to compete with the mobile market, but they are still racking in a considerable amount of revenue. You're confusing the difference between missing out on more profit with being profitable. If HP can continue its PC market dominance, they will be fine. It would be better, of course, if they could increase their share of the mobile market, as well. That's what you're seeing and misinterpreting.
You keep saying this, but you've yet to even attempt to prove this assumption that is necessary for your entire argument is even true. I wonder why....
I'm sure the Mac Pro's time will come, as will every other product Apple offers right now. The point is, it isn't yet time.
You're rambling. I don't depend on the Mac Pro for my lively hood. Nor is such an emotional attachment needed to explain my argument.
You've done a lot of telling me you're right, but you haven't actually attempted to prove you're right. I'm left wondering if you even know the difference.
I disagree. I don't think the number of people that demand such systems is decreasing. The number of people that want the other more consumer-friendly models is INCREASING though.
It seems as though a lot of people don't understand that correlation does not imply causation.
Ok a lot of you know way more about computers than I do...Since we are talking about speed and upgrades...I like Twitch have a 2005 power mac dual processor. I for sure want to upgrade!!!!
I am running Digital Performer and will be running up to 8 plugins (as in Samplers, keyboards, etc)...and could be up to 15 effect processors.
In the future I also plan on maybe running Final Cut Pro with Motion
Ok to my question:
In your opinion, what would be the better setup for all these?
1. Quad Core with a solid state hard drive with 6 gig ram
or
2. 8 core processor with 6 gig ram
I probably cannot afford the solid state in the 8 core. I guess what I am asking what is more important, the processor speed or the access to information?
Any other suggestions welcome too!
Thank You in Advance!!!!
I am running Digital Performer and will be running up to 8 plugins (as in Samplers, keyboards, etc)...and could be up to 15 effect processors.
In the future I also plan on maybe running Final Cut Pro with Motion
Ok to my question:
In your opinion, what would be the better setup for all these?
1. Quad Core with a solid state hard drive with 6 gig ram
or
2. 8 core processor with 6 gig ram
I probably cannot afford the solid state in the 8 core. I guess what I am asking what is more important, the processor speed or the access to information?
Any other suggestions welcome too!
Thank You in Advance!!!!
You're in luck. Anything you buy will blow away your Power Mac, even a Mini.
Audio production with a lot of plugins and FCP X are two uses that can actually make use of a lot of cores. That said, for audio production I'd want more than 6G of ram, in order to keep all those samples running from memory.
The problem with the 8 core is that the base model has quite slow CPUs. So you have to take the decision whether the apps you're running will really make use of the extra cores, in comparison to having only 4 much faster cores.
Personally I think the 'sweet spot' is the 6 core model, as you have more cores and more speed too.
If I were you I'd either splash out on the 6, or save money by going for the 4, but build out a more balanced machine with 12-16GB of memory and a faster drive.
Both! I think that you'll end up with a more flexible machine if you balance your spending and get more memory and a faster drive.
On the other hand, starting out with a more expensive base machine (6 cores), you could get going on that and upgrade memory/disk later as funds allow.