That's why the use of effecient displays make sense, those IGZO screens said to use 10% of what current LCD's consume is the underlying reason as to why the introduction of high resolution panels is a realistic prospect.
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.
Details on New Mac Pro and MacBook Pro Specs Surface, Retina Notebook Still Under Wraps [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's why the use of effecient displays make sense, those IGZO screens said to use 10% of what current LCD's consume is the underlying reason as to why the introduction of high resolution panels is a realistic prospect.
I would definitely consider the Mac Pro dead if it came out with the same GPU it had almost 2 1/2 years ago.
Glad this is just a rumor.
Glad this is just a rumor.
I absolutely agree!
But now think if you could but a lot of the workload on an external GPU, connected with Thunderbolt 2.0. Maybe that changes the equation for some people. There are a LOT of Applications who can utilize a powerful GPU.
I'm not sure, what about rendering? Is the CPU still more important even if the Application is optimized for GPU use? Anyone?
No, it means that you will be able to connect a Thunderbolt Display to a network router.
(On a more serious note, this is for MB Air without a dedicated ethernet port and similar machines).
The MBP CPU choices make sense and are in-line with what Apple has offered in the past, just shifted to use the appropriate, and similar, mobile CPUs from the Ivy Bridge family. No real surprises there.
Misinformation. Apple may be sending out all kinds of bogus information through different people to find the leaks.
In this retina obsessed market it would be of little surprise for apple to ultimately insult and schlep the cute screen across the lineup without adding much of anything of significant value. In any case, it is fundamental not to spend your money on things you don't need, and to closely evaluate the worth prior to making any purchases.
If you were Apple, you'd keep the Mac Pro in the lineup, because it is profitable, and because there is no cannibalization of more profitable products because of the Mac Pro. If Apple stops selling the Mac Pro, people don't go and buy iMacs, miniMacs, or various mobile products. They go buy a Dell. That's not just throwing away money, that's handing money to your competitors.
Profit is profit, and you don't just decide not to take some in. The only reason you choose to do so is if there's large opportunity costs involved. Is the talent pool and resources used to put out new Mac Pros so large that they'd be better off working on the iPad 4? I doubt it. The Mac Pro uses mostly stock parts inside a case that hasn't changed for a very long time. There's basically no real design costs for the outside, and the inside is a pretty typical motherboard and various other components. It's not like an iPhone that needs each piece custom built. Would that little effort put into the Mac Pro make much difference over in the iPad division? I rather doubt it. There are diminishing returns when you put everyone on a single project.
Now, that's all just standard business sense, but Apple's in a somewhat unique position that gives them a slightly different outlook than most businesses. The thing is, Apple has fans. Fans that have been loyal since the beginning. You can't buy that, but you can lose it given enough mismanagement. A lot of Apple professionals aren't just using Apple products at work, they're using them for play, for personal use, at home. They tell their friends and family to buy Macs, iPhones, iPads, and iPods. It's not just a halo effect of iMac users buying iPhones, it's Mac Pro users getting other people to buy iMacs, MacBooks, and iPhones.
So, besides the standard business reasons for keeping the Mac Pro alive, there's additional incentive. If I can think this up, I'm sure the much smarter folks at Apple know it too. If the Mac Pro wasn't profitable, or if there was substantial market cannibalization, I'd be worried, but neither is the case.
I absolutely agree!
But now think if you could but a lot of the workload on an external GPU, connected with Thunderbolt 2.0. Maybe that changes the equation for some people. There are a LOT of Applications who can utilize a powerful GPU.
I'm not sure, what about rendering? Is the CPU still more important even if the Application is optimized?
Rendering is more a CPU intensive task that GPU unless the application is coded to take advantage of the GPU.
Personally, I think the nagging need for a big system like the Mac Pro will start to dwindle. Adobe CS6 was written with the mobile and iMac user and is no slouch in rendering, transcoding, etc. I am sure it CS6 screams on the Mac Pro, and other workstation class machines, but it's fast becoming an even smaller niche product.
Especially when houses have to upgrade their Mac Pros, and it takes almost 2 years to be released.
Isn't CS6 specifically optimized for nVidia GPUs? That's whats get me excited about the 650M. a LOT of Pro Users will have a faster Workflow.
Yes, on the GPU side of things. Watching their vids online fills your ears with out just about everything is optimized for single screen, mobile workflows and the like.
I believe it's been rewritten to also utilise OpenCL, therefore AMD users are not completely left out in the dark.
When i bought my last MBP 17" in 2006 (the one i'm using right now), the landscape in Advertising Agencies & Broadcasting was filled with Mac Pros.
Now i get the feeling that most of them have been replaced my iMacs. Of course, not all of them, but MOST of them.
When i buy my next MBP in the next weeks and that one will be at the end of its Lifecycle, i think the computing landscape will be very different again. But the trend speaks against the Mac Pro.
Of course, there will be always Trucks and Cars. But will Apple still be in the Truck business? I feel they are going the Bicycle Route ...
Now i get the feeling that most of them have been replaced my iMacs. Of course, not all of them, but MOST of them.
When i buy my next MBP in the next weeks and that one will be at the end of its Lifecycle, i think the computing landscape will be very different again. But the trend speaks against the Mac Pro.
Of course, there will be always Trucks and Cars. But will Apple still be in the Truck business? I feel they are going the Bicycle Route ...
This is a trend that's been happening almost across industries. I am in education, and most of the universities near me have already made the switch, or never went the Mac Pro route.
I am about to replace many of our 6 year old 8 core Mac Pro systems with SSD equipped maxed out 21.5" iMacs. I used to be in broadcast news, and many of the editors I worked with have 27" iMacs on their desks. Then theres this guy who writes a very compelling argument in favor of a reduced Mac Pro back end to his post house.
As far as giving money to competitors, Apple pretty much signed that into tradition with the axing of the Xserve, Xserve RAID, Final Cut Studio 4 (that never came), glossy displays, etc. etc. etc.
Apple tweaks the iMac and Mac book designs every year and they havent changed the Mac
Pro since 2003... Thats's 9 years...
Since it was called Power Mac G5.
BS!
Pro since 2003... Thats's 9 years...
Since it was called Power Mac G5.
BS!
This.
I think it's just a question of time. Apple already gave notice (i think it was in part a clever marketing move) with the long wait for a refresh. I'm expecting a last update, lets hope for all who depend on the unit that it's a decent one.
Please check what you're regurgitating from 9to5 for heaven's sake!!
Radeon 5770? A 3 year old card? Look, Apple does not always use the latest and greatest, but to reuse the same card that's been the entry-level in the Mac Pro since 2010 would be a new low.
3.2GHz quad-core processor? There is no such processor in the Sandy Bridge Xeon line-up. There is a 3.2 Quad core Nehalem, but you can buy it right now in the 2010 Mac Pro.
It's more likely to be a 3.6 GHz Quad (E5-1620) or the 3.2 Hex (E5-1650)
In the Sandy Bridge Xeon line-up you can get a 2.4 8 core (E5-2665) , which is ridiculously expensive, thus it would be a 16 core model (2x8) or you can get a 2.3 6 core. The 2.3 6 core (E5-2630) is less than half the price of the 2.4 8 core.
At least try to get the basic facts right. Seriously, you guys.
THere is a 200$~ quad core Xeon with hyperthreading (i.e. 4 cores, 8T) out since last september or so. I agree, 5770 is completely useless unless you're going to do CLI or make bitcoins, even then, its underpowered (in 2012) and eats up PSU like mad. But really, if you're buying a pre-configured pc for 3000$ from Apple's own website, chances are you don't need anything more than integrated anyways...
People like you irritate me with your ALL-knowing, then pretend its 'complicated' AFTER you go on a 300 word rant.
Rumors Are interesting when they are a possibility.
Last minute rumors like these are useless and dumb. People wanna be the ones that
Nailed it so they can be credible in the future.
Come on! Just 4 hours to go. Who cares about rumors when u will See the real thing soon?
Last minute rumors like these are useless and dumb. People wanna be the ones that
Nailed it so they can be credible in the future.
Come on! Just 4 hours to go. Who cares about rumors when u will See the real thing soon?
