I don't remember any such ad. "Hi I'm a Mac," "And I'm a PC, and I'm drowning in despair with this s**tty Intel chipset...."
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.
Intel Debuts Xeon 5600 Series Processors Appropriate for Mac Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't remember any such ad. "Hi I'm a Mac," "And I'm a PC, and I'm drowning in despair with this s**tty Intel chipset...."
We're still a few years away from being able to play flash videos sadly. Maybe one day
lolApple Not a Computer Company Anymore.
Stevo Has Said it "Apple is a Mobile Device Company". If you Have noticed they changed their name. it used to be "Apple Computer Inc" if I am not Mistaken. After battling for a good wile I have switched to Adobe and if Apple does not get their act together I will go back to PC. Abobe's Master Suite on a high end PC Should do Just fine.
oh and I am Pissed at stevo and his stupid Ideas of holding Blue Ray, Limiting the Number of PC Slots, Limited Graphic Cards Options, etc on the Mac Pros. I am also Pissed off because I am having to learn a whole new set of Programs ASAP. I know in the long run I will be better prepared, but it is not fun having to learn a Bunch of pro applications in a hurry Just to be able to finish a project. by the way After Effects Rocks and the new Premier Pro and its Mercury Play back Engine will be Awesome, playing back multiple streams of Red 4K Footage in Real TIME.
Apple has Fallen WAY Behind (smelling some behind too). No Blue Ray. Stevo Called it A Bag or Hurt. Just Because he does not want to pay royalties to sony. Stevo Don't be A Cheapo.
Stevo Has Said it "Apple is a Mobile Device Company". If you Have noticed they changed their name. it used to be "Apple Computer Inc" if I am not Mistaken. After battling for a good wile I have switched to Adobe and if Apple does not get their act together I will go back to PC. Abobe's Master Suite on a high end PC Should do Just fine.
oh and I am Pissed at stevo and his stupid Ideas of holding Blue Ray, Limiting the Number of PC Slots, Limited Graphic Cards Options, etc on the Mac Pros. I am also Pissed off because I am having to learn a whole new set of Programs ASAP. I know in the long run I will be better prepared, but it is not fun having to learn a Bunch of pro applications in a hurry Just to be able to finish a project. by the way After Effects Rocks and the new Premier Pro and its Mercury Play back Engine will be Awesome, playing back multiple streams of Red 4K Footage in Real TIME.
Apple has Fallen WAY Behind (smelling some behind too). No Blue Ray. Stevo Called it A Bag or Hurt. Just Because he does not want to pay royalties to sony. Stevo Don't be A Cheapo.
What is the chance that the up-coming MacPro will be CPU upgradable? I recall that it is difficult and expensive to upgrade/swap the CPU in the 2008 and 2009 models because of the case size as well as availability of heatsink. I do not know when Apple is going to release the new Mac Pro. If I opt for the hackintosh, I can build one with the i7 980x or Xeon 5600 now and then upgrade the CPU few years later. From another thread, it seems that as long as I have the right components, no hacking is involved anymore.
You guys need to get a life! For now Apple is tied to Intels schedule.
The subject pretty much says it all, it is only reasonable and rational for Apple to update when Intel has suitable hardware for the upgrade. Honestly what do you expect Apple to do, deliver a machine that is a 100 MHz faster and call it an upgrade? The simple fact is that future performance upgrades will come from adding more cores with minor clock rate bumps.
All you guys whining about Mac Pro revs must think you are special or something. Special enough to think you deserve a Mac Pro built out of hardware that doesn't even exist yet.
The bigger question of course is this: is the CPU all Apple is waiting on? Let's face it Intel and Apple are involved in things outside of the CPU, thus they could be waiting on other hardware to become shippable. The point is Apple can't concern itself with external time tables, especially from people who haven't a clue and believe they can wish hardware into existance. Rather Apple needs to address it's internal goals that will hopefully lead to great strides in personal computer technology.
Dave
The subject pretty much says it all, it is only reasonable and rational for Apple to update when Intel has suitable hardware for the upgrade. Honestly what do you expect Apple to do, deliver a machine that is a 100 MHz faster and call it an upgrade? The simple fact is that future performance upgrades will come from adding more cores with minor clock rate bumps.
All you guys whining about Mac Pro revs must think you are special or something. Special enough to think you deserve a Mac Pro built out of hardware that doesn't even exist yet.
The bigger question of course is this: is the CPU all Apple is waiting on? Let's face it Intel and Apple are involved in things outside of the CPU, thus they could be waiting on other hardware to become shippable. The point is Apple can't concern itself with external time tables, especially from people who haven't a clue and believe they can wish hardware into existance. Rather Apple needs to address it's internal goals that will hopefully lead to great strides in personal computer technology.
Dave
I just swapped out my 920 for the 980 on a Hackintosh, my backup system to my Mac Pro. I've had it on backorder with a distributor out of Singapore for 2 months. I could have gotten an Engineering Sample or ES but I don't trust those based on what I've seen before.
All I can say is "Woah Momma!" Seriously. I had to pick up my lips when I tested it. With my SandCore SSD and GSkill 2133 Ghz RAM in the mix...I'm speechless. You'd need to see it to believe it. If I could overclock my dual Xeon Mac Pro and add faster RAM it would stand a chance...and I put emphasis on "chance".
My tests were Cinema 4D (rendering), Logic Pro 9.1 (the cores don't go over 20% with 100 tracks!), Compressor, and several Compressor plugins. Obviously I'm overclocking with this CPU and RAM but 16 cores and double the RAM cuts your time of sitting and waiting by about 30%.
Until they get their act together and stop focusing on all of these rinky dink obnoxious toys like iphone and ipad, us power users are going to make due with our own abominations. At least my Mac Pro makes a good conversation piece in the living room. But the snarling beast in my office is going to be doing the heavy lifting for the time being until it gets a big brother.
If I offend iphone and ipad users, that's just too bad. Some of us use Mac for entirely different reasons and we are really beginning to resent the neglect. I mean c'mon...11 months to fix the audio heating problem in the 2009 Mac pros? Seriously. I paid $6000 for space heater.
It's not only slot usage, but also harddrive compartments. I prefer having the chance to simply add a bigger (or faster - think SSD) harddrive into an existing housing over cluttering my desk further with yet another cable that has to be plugged into a not expandable machine (read: iMac). And up to now, external boxes usually offered slower speeds than internally attached harddrives.
Now if Apple would add 1-2 externally serviceable 2,5"-bays on the iMac (perhaps 1,8"-bays on the smaller model) and maybe one PCIe-x16-slot - THEN i'd be with you that the iMac would really fill the niche and probably many people would go that route. With the iMac having grown so much in size, the casing should offer sufficient space for such features.
Too bad, though, that it probably won't happen, as Steve would have to sacrifice thinness and Johnny would have to sacrifice the looks with more external openings.
The iMac is all about less clutter on your desk due to its one-box-design. Why on earth should apple suddenly promote external breakout boxes with all the cabling and ugly looks? Won't happen!
We ARE special. If it wasn't for the audio/video crowd who propped up Mac and continues to promote Mac in the mainstream (watch a TV show and look at what kind of gear they use even if you don't see the Apple - means Apple didn't pay to have their gear exposed) you wouldn't have your little tampon...I mean iPad.
And your lack of knowledge is exactly why you are not one of us power users. The hardware has existed since they released the 2009 series. Earlier than that even. Go do your homework and you will find out that you can easily drop in 32 nm Gulftowns into the 1366 chipset.
But I'm sure you have to go stand in line with the other social misfits to make sure you get yours first.
Wow that was fun. I'm out.
P.S. I cannot relate to you so don't even try until you actually use Mac for what it does better than Windows...and honestly Windows has much better Tablet technology. But I couldn't care less about that either.
From Apple Computer to Apple...I JUST NOW realized this when you pointed it out. DAMMIT!!!
I am so not looking forward to having to relearn an entirely new suite with CS5 but it doesn't look like we'll have much of a choice seeing as how bad of a stink bomb Final Cut 7 has been. It's almost a joke "What goes render, render, render, crash, render, render, render, crash?"
Good questions. Honestly not everybody needs twelve cores today but
It is not so simple that a blanket response is possible.
So you see even today it isn't that difficult to stress a four core machine running a common use. As a workstation though the ability to use all those cores is left open to the software developers and the apps they write. It would not be impossible to imagine that a talented user might have two or more apps that are resource intensive running at the same time. It doesn't have to be a single app using all those CPU resources, but frankly people running demanding software have not had the ability, in the past, to run lots of demanding apps in an interactive way.
Well this is certainly true, all the whining here about new Mac Pros built on chips released yesterday is a bit immature to say the least. I'd far prefer that Apple get the machine right and as bug free as possible. Plus I want to see Apple keep the hardware on the bleeding edge and adopt new features like Light Peak and maybe USB 3. I really don't see the point in a rev that is a simple respin of yesterdays technology when so much new and viable stuff is on the way.
That is not to say I don't think quad cores are important. Rather they are very important and work hand in hand with Apples new software technologies. You see I'm almost certain some idiot on the web will buy a Mac Pro and benchmark in some silly way and declare all those core to be useless. You and I both know that will happen. The problem is that a Mac Pro isn't the platform for this guy. Rather it is a platform for users that can see and leverage the value in the workstations right away. Plus it is the platform for the more forward looking in the world, be those developers or users. A developer obviously needs a heavily threaded machine generate the next generation software on. Like wise a forward looking person might see a Mac Pro as a better long term investment or have a loner term plan to leverage those cores.
For somebody like me, running a MBP, a twelve core machine might be overkill. Yet even on this very nice laptop I run into performance issues from time to time. While it is not likely I'd replace the MBP with a Mac Pro something with more cores and overall better performance would be welcomed on the desktop. In fact one of these quad cores in a Mini would be impressive. The point is I know what I have today and thus understand where a bit better performance would be useful. Generally the performance issues arrise when doing multiple things at once or when something very resource hungery (flash) runs. So even if this lowly user can see the need for a couple of more cores more demanding users should find empolying twelve cores to be a snap.
Dave
It is not so simple that a blanket response is possible.
I'm certain there are some apps that would benefit right now but obviously it depends upon the user. One example would be Ray tracing graphics, another would be software engineering. For audio video some codecs would likely win with the additional cores but the even bigger win would likely come with production software. That is programs working with many tracks of source material or synthesizing tracks. Garage band might even make use of the cores. Similarly there are various engineering crafts that could use the power, everything from geological research to gnome research.
Yes this is all true but honestly Apple does not play in that field much. Also those are very old uses for multi core machines.
The above really bothers me because just about everybody has more than one app running at a time. It might only be iTunes or a IP radio running in background but it is an app. Often though workstation owners will have several apps running at the same time with various levels of CPU load. Or conversely may have one app running generating multiple threads of execution. A very common place for this to happen is in a web browser. For example browsers are now running Flash as a separate process and long running downloads can spawn threads. So on a modern machine simply running a webbrowser could tie up a few cores, especially in the context of Flash which can kill a single core all on it's own.
So you see even today it isn't that difficult to stress a four core machine running a common use. As a workstation though the ability to use all those cores is left open to the software developers and the apps they write. It would not be impossible to imagine that a talented user might have two or more apps that are resource intensive running at the same time. It doesn't have to be a single app using all those CPU resources, but frankly people running demanding software have not had the ability, in the past, to run lots of demanding apps in an interactive way.
The value is huge because it ups the performance of the apps that do run well on multiple cores plus it allows for continued use of the machine when those highly serial single thread apps run that you allude to. The bigger question is why ask now and not when the two or four or eight thread machines came out? Eventually even the lowliest of computer users started to expect the performance that comes from having all these threads running. Just try moving a quad core user back to a Celeron for example.
Well this is certainly true, all the whining here about new Mac Pros built on chips released yesterday is a bit immature to say the least. I'd far prefer that Apple get the machine right and as bug free as possible. Plus I want to see Apple keep the hardware on the bleeding edge and adopt new features like Light Peak and maybe USB 3. I really don't see the point in a rev that is a simple respin of yesterdays technology when so much new and viable stuff is on the way.
That is not to say I don't think quad cores are important. Rather they are very important and work hand in hand with Apples new software technologies. You see I'm almost certain some idiot on the web will buy a Mac Pro and benchmark in some silly way and declare all those core to be useless. You and I both know that will happen. The problem is that a Mac Pro isn't the platform for this guy. Rather it is a platform for users that can see and leverage the value in the workstations right away. Plus it is the platform for the more forward looking in the world, be those developers or users. A developer obviously needs a heavily threaded machine generate the next generation software on. Like wise a forward looking person might see a Mac Pro as a better long term investment or have a loner term plan to leverage those cores.
For somebody like me, running a MBP, a twelve core machine might be overkill. Yet even on this very nice laptop I run into performance issues from time to time. While it is not likely I'd replace the MBP with a Mac Pro something with more cores and overall better performance would be welcomed on the desktop. In fact one of these quad cores in a Mini would be impressive. The point is I know what I have today and thus understand where a bit better performance would be useful. Generally the performance issues arrise when doing multiple things at once or when something very resource hungery (flash) runs. So even if this lowly user can see the need for a couple of more cores more demanding users should find empolying twelve cores to be a snap.
Dave
Garage band? Are you kidding me? What professional uses Garageband? Haven't you ever heard of their flagship product Logic and now 9.1 with 64 bit capabilities? You have no idea how ridiculous you sound pretending to lecture us on what we need or why. Garageband is for...I have no idea who it's for and I don't care. It's not for a pro.
See my post above where, during the 11 months after initial purchase, I had a $6000 "space heater" every time I ran Logic Studio.
So why are you on this thread if this has nothing to do with you or your concerns?
Seriously. If you are using a MacBook Pro, this discussion doesn't concern you.
You really don't know what you are talking about.
In any event you have your priorities way out of whack with respect to the Mac Pro. First Apple has never rushed out revs to this machine, for one there is no point in minor upgrades but even more so it is a pro machine marketed to people whom appreciate a stable platform. Ceratainly performance is an issue but so are the knowledge about what you are getting with anyone model. In any event this is not a machine for consumers that gets reved ever five months to allow the new label to stick inplace even longer. If you can't understand that then you aren't the pro you are trying to imply in this thread. You either understand business or you don't.
Frankly I'm not sure what you do care about. For one thing there has not been a compelling hardware reason for Apple to update the Mac Pro. It really is that simple. Especially considering that there is a lot more to a Mac Pro than an Intel CPU. Like it or not Apple will update the Mac Pro when it has all of it's ducks in a row.
Frankly that is how it should be because it is never wise business practice to respond to self important people that don't have a clue as to what is going on in the labs.
Dave
Really you aren't special in any way. Further your comments below seem to indicate a disconnect with reality.
So you also have some sort of super hero complex? Get over it you nor your industry did no say Apple from self destruction. As to iPad sorry buddy but I don't have one nor will I likely soon.
Frankly my knowledge extends far beyound anything you can deal with. At least I'm not dwelling on tech that isn't viable.
OK bud spell out just exactly what that would have done for you or Apple besides lower to power profile a bit. The performance gain wouldn't have been worth the trouble.
In any event you have your priorities way out of whack with respect to the Mac Pro. First Apple has never rushed out revs to this machine, for one there is no point in minor upgrades but even more so it is a pro machine marketed to people whom appreciate a stable platform. Ceratainly performance is an issue but so are the knowledge about what you are getting with anyone model. In any event this is not a machine for consumers that gets reved ever five months to allow the new label to stick inplace even longer. If you can't understand that then you aren't the pro you are trying to imply in this thread. You either understand business or you don't.
First off I'm not standing in line for anything at the moment! Second you are one publically whining in ignorance over the missing Mac Pro you want to rush out and buy. So bud who is the social misfit here? Come on bud you can figure that one out can't you.
Wow it is fun for you to display even more immaturity and technical ignorance in a public forum. If you want to be accepted here offer up a GOOD arguement for Apple to have made an early update to the Mac Pro. You can't of course because there are no sound reasons for Apple to jump off the tracks to respond to the likes of you.
No the problem you have relating to people, is that you can't live outside the shell you have built up that colors facts and reality to your choosing. For example what does any tablet have to do with this discussion? Nothing due to the Mac Pro being targetted at an entirely different class of user. So until you can realize that tablets and Mac Pros aren't even closely related for this discussion, how do you expect anybody to take you seriously? Please do address this question because you have already burnt up a lot of credibility here.
Frankly I'm not sure what you do care about. For one thing there has not been a compelling hardware reason for Apple to update the Mac Pro. It really is that simple. Especially considering that there is a lot more to a Mac Pro than an Intel CPU. Like it or not Apple will update the Mac Pro when it has all of it's ducks in a row.
Frankly that is how it should be because it is never wise business practice to respond to self important people that don't have a clue as to what is going on in the labs.
Dave
Dave,
You didn't understand a word I said did you?
This is a discussion about what "is" and what "is not". No more, no less. You blew your credibility with your "maybe" (meaning you have no idea what you are talking about) and bringing up Garageband.
You can throw out as many off-topic remarks about my conduct or behavior as you want. The topic is about multi-core processors and those who would benefit. I am one of those people. You are not. Until you are one of those people, your opinion is irrelevant since again, this doesn't concern you and your widdle iddy bitty MacBook Pro! I have one too but I wouldn't dream of comparing it with a 1366 socket motherboard.
Yea...you know a ton *whoop cough cough cough* Garageband *cough cough cough*
Peace
NOW I can leave this to the rest of the Mac Pro users who are just waking up to this nonsense to see how MacBook Pro users know what's best for us
You didn't understand a word I said did you?
This is a discussion about what "is" and what "is not". No more, no less. You blew your credibility with your "maybe" (meaning you have no idea what you are talking about) and bringing up Garageband.
You can throw out as many off-topic remarks about my conduct or behavior as you want. The topic is about multi-core processors and those who would benefit. I am one of those people. You are not. Until you are one of those people, your opinion is irrelevant since again, this doesn't concern you and your widdle iddy bitty MacBook Pro! I have one too but I wouldn't dream of comparing it with a 1366 socket motherboard.
Yea...you know a ton *whoop cough cough cough* Garageband *cough cough cough*
Peace
NOW I can leave this to the rest of the Mac Pro users who are just waking up to this nonsense to see how MacBook Pro users know what's best for us
Do you even understand what the question was about?
The question posed concerned the usability of twelve core machines and was not directed specifically at professional users. In any event I don't really give a damn about Logic, it is only a minor consideration in jusifying multi core machines. Frankly the market for Logic is so small it would never jusify keeping the Mac Pro line around. If you want multi core machines from Apple you really have to understand the larger market for the machines. If you don't then the machines won't be around long.
In any event the point of my response to the original poster is that multi core machines do have uses that encompass everything from the desktop user to the bio engineer.
So yeah it is not a perfect world but at least Apple had the wisdom to address real security and reliability issues first. It is the only rational thing for them to do because all of the whining about machines that where otherwise working is just that when you are working through a list of critical bugs.
I don't want to undersell the issue of bugs because when they are causing you problems they basically suck. However I do know that for each rev of Mac OS/X that I've installed my machine has gotten better and not worst.
As to why I'm on this thread; well it is pretty simple really, it is to adress the people making irrational demands for rapid Mac Pro releases and to provide balanced answers to questions being posed here.
In other words I'm hoping to provide a perspective that I hope is a little more grounded.
If I'm in the discussion it concerns me. Further the discussion can't concern you because you don't seem to grasp the technology involved nor the value in making random knee jerk updates to the Mac Pro. Just because Intel has released chips over the last few months that might plug into a Mac Pro doesn't imply that they are of value to Apple or that they even fit into Apples Mac Pro plans.
It is very easy for people here to point to the latest ATI or Nvidia video card or the latest Intel CPU and then swear at Apple for not offering said chips immediately. But really what good does that do? Even if Apple delivered said Intel improvement would it offer a significant performance boost? In case you are wondering they wouldn't have.
Oh dismiss my Mac Book Pro if you want but the comments where important to the question I was responding to. Besides it isn't the only machine I have at home, just my favorite. At work there are a lot more but they run Windows so I avoided bringing them into the discussion. The point remains though the utility of multi core processors depends upon what you are doing with them.
Dave
I'm sorry I have to ask this question; but do you even have the ability yo read for content? Did you even read the questions asked by the person that originally posted them? It is hard for me to grasp the idea that you have the ability to log on yet can't keep a line on the context of the discussion.
The question posed concerned the usability of twelve core machines and was not directed specifically at professional users. In any event I don't really give a damn about Logic, it is only a minor consideration in jusifying multi core machines. Frankly the market for Logic is so small it would never jusify keeping the Mac Pro line around. If you want multi core machines from Apple you really have to understand the larger market for the machines. If you don't then the machines won't be around long.
In any event the point of my response to the original poster is that multi core machines do have uses that encompass everything from the desktop user to the bio engineer.
So? Look at it this way the machine did work didn't it? You did make some bread with it didn't you? The simple fact is there has not been a computer made without bugs in it. Did it take Apple to long to fix it, maybe but I don't have the internal information to say positively. In the mean time they fixed a hell of a lot more important bugs.
So yeah it is not a perfect world but at least Apple had the wisdom to address real security and reliability issues first. It is the only rational thing for them to do because all of the whining about machines that where otherwise working is just that when you are working through a list of critical bugs.
I don't want to undersell the issue of bugs because when they are causing you problems they basically suck. However I do know that for each rev of Mac OS/X that I've installed my machine has gotten better and not worst.
It probably would make sense for me to reflect this question back to you. The reason is simple your needs are so narrow and minor that Apple can't adressed them directly. There is no way that they can let the needs of a small minority of users dictate long term plans for the Mac Pro.
As to why I'm on this thread; well it is pretty simple really, it is to adress the people making irrational demands for rapid Mac Pro releases and to provide balanced answers to questions being posed here.
In other words I'm hoping to provide a perspective that I hope is a little more grounded.
If I'm in the discussion it concerns me. Further the discussion can't concern you because you don't seem to grasp the technology involved nor the value in making random knee jerk updates to the Mac Pro. Just because Intel has released chips over the last few months that might plug into a Mac Pro doesn't imply that they are of value to Apple or that they even fit into Apples Mac Pro plans.
It is very easy for people here to point to the latest ATI or Nvidia video card or the latest Intel CPU and then swear at Apple for not offering said chips immediately. But really what good does that do? Even if Apple delivered said Intel improvement would it offer a significant performance boost? In case you are wondering they wouldn't have.
Oh dismiss my Mac Book Pro if you want but the comments where important to the question I was responding to. Besides it isn't the only machine I have at home, just my favorite. At work there are a lot more but they run Windows so I avoided bringing them into the discussion. The point remains though the utility of multi core processors depends upon what you are doing with them.
Dave
HP and Dell has much better server hardware than Apple. do xserves even support running VMWare on the bare metal?
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple didn't discontinue the Xserves by the end of the year.
I just don't see Apple becoming a serious hardware company anymore.
The market for Mac Pro and Xserve systems may be small but it is crucial to Apple and both lines offer more than just revenue. Not least of all for internal use at Apple.
You'd be surprised at how many Apple stores run off of Mac Pros as servers.
Besides, the only reason Apple is keeping the Xserve is because there needs to be a "Pro" server option that runs OSX Server. Since Apple isn't going to put OSX on anything other than a Mac it has to be in the lineup.
The XRaid on the other hand, was just a storage solution, and got the axe a few years ago because Apple didn't want to put in the R&D for a new box.
I agree, but I have a felling that if it weren't for OSX on a Pro server, we'd see an end to the pretty much left behind Xserve.
I also have that "2.66 GHz" processor running at 3.79 GHz on my PC (for gaming of course, as my MBPu doesn't fit an OC 275 GTX
). The trick is to never use Intel's stock heat sinks. A very cheap third-party heat sink and some good airflow will do the trick. A $15 heat sink keeps me idling at about thirty-some degrees Celcius and not more than 52 degrees (ever) under full, over-clocked load.Good thing Apple uses their own custom heat sinks.
Last edited:
You still don't grasp what I'm saying.
My point is very clear and that is that Apple has not had viable hardware available from Intel until yesterday for an upgrade. I'm sorry you don't like that, even then it is only one element in getting out a platform that needs to remain viable for a year or more. There are far more things that could be holding up the Mac Pro and some of them might have long term importance greater than this months new Intel hardware.
The reality is if you are in a niche industry and want bleeding edge hardware to support it then you need to engage business wise with a supplier capable if delivering that hardware. This is NOT Apple, the Mac Pro has to serve a much wider user base than is represented buy one industry. You may think you are special but Apple can't keep the Mac Pro line going just selling to special. The economics simply aren't there.
As to the other issues I alluded to above, Apple could also be considering supporting new interfaces on the Mac Pro. Right now that means extra Chips and drivers for USB 3 or Light Peak. Both of these are or should be important to Apple long term and the best place for them to show up is on the Mac Pro. This doesn't even dive into the video card sea, but does highlight that there are things important to people outside of the number of cores in the CPU complex.
Of course no one knows what the make up of the new Mac Pros will be. I'm just saying that the whole package is of greater importance to Apple than the number of cores shipped.
It is not like you or people in your line of work can't make use of more cores or in general faster machines. Rather it is the attitude displayed that makes all the difference in how people see you.
For example let's say a Genetic Engineer could make good use of such a machine, I'm certain that there are some out there that could put such a little machine to good use. Why are they not on the forums whining like little children about the lack of twelve core Mac Pros? The same could be said for any number of professions commonly using Apple hardware. This isn't a question specifically for you but rather for Logic users in general, what makes you guys think you are so special that you should think that the rest of us should tolerate all this noise and crap about the next Mac Pro update? The update is coming just give it time.
The reality is that multi core hardware mixed with Snow Leopard has had a dramatic impact on many existing apps as the system can no more efficently make use of the hardware available. Yes even GarageBand along with Aperture and a number of other Apple apps perform better when more cores are available. How much better is an open question but it addresses the question at hand.
Well more twisting of my words into something never said. In a nutshell I've said clearly that the whining about more cores in the Mac Pro or an upgrade in general is totally unjustified. Apple can't pull six core CPUs out of it's a$$ to make the machines you want. Intel has to first deliver viable Silicon. Second; there is a lot more to moving the platform forward that just the Intel CPUs.
Your position just doesn't make sense. It can be likened to running into a car dealer today demanding a 2011 model. Baring the fact that the car manufactures are a bit fuzzy with model years the fact remains you can't buy something until it is ready. It is not a question of knowing what you need, even though I have a good idea, it has to do with Apple having access to viable hardware that will likely be the basis of the platform for well over a year. Sitting in your easy chair demanding something that Apple can't deliver just doesn't make sense. It is sort of like people demanding an end to all wars, a nice thought but only viable if everybody is of like minds. Viable is an important word there too, because the cycle times on pro hardware are long they need to remain viable for a very long time.
A long time in this case would be until Intel comes out with another set of CPUs and Chipsets. A lot of this stuff is in the public domain especially with respect to the schedules for various Intel chip releases. One only needs to look at Intels public schedules and from there slot in Apples Pro updates.
Yeah I know all of this combined means that Mac Pros don't see the constant little tweaks and updates that the iMacs and notebooks get so that Apple can call them new. That is the whole point though as this makes for a more stable platform in the Mac Pro which is very important to the larger user community that the Pro addresses.
Dave
It's more a matter of believing that you don't know what you are talking about.
The reference to GarageBand was perfect in the context of the response being made at the time. Again you un willingness to grasp the context of the discussion and the original questions I was responding to makes a rational discussion impossible.
You may be but as this discussion goes on and on I'm not sure if you will ever address the technical issues nor will you address the niche market that your industry represents.
My point is very clear and that is that Apple has not had viable hardware available from Intel until yesterday for an upgrade. I'm sorry you don't like that, even then it is only one element in getting out a platform that needs to remain viable for a year or more. There are far more things that could be holding up the Mac Pro and some of them might have long term importance greater than this months new Intel hardware.
The reality is if you are in a niche industry and want bleeding edge hardware to support it then you need to engage business wise with a supplier capable if delivering that hardware. This is NOT Apple, the Mac Pro has to serve a much wider user base than is represented buy one industry. You may think you are special but Apple can't keep the Mac Pro line going just selling to special. The economics simply aren't there.
As to the other issues I alluded to above, Apple could also be considering supporting new interfaces on the Mac Pro. Right now that means extra Chips and drivers for USB 3 or Light Peak. Both of these are or should be important to Apple long term and the best place for them to show up is on the Mac Pro. This doesn't even dive into the video card sea, but does highlight that there are things important to people outside of the number of cores in the CPU complex.
Of course no one knows what the make up of the new Mac Pros will be. I'm just saying that the whole package is of greater importance to Apple than the number of cores shipped.
Funny but I haven't even discussed why this is important to me. I've tried to suggest very strongly that the market for the Mac Pro extends far beyound the self important. Like it or not that is how you are coming off here. You haven't addressed the technical issues or even offered up a justification for your outrageous demands that Apple deliver for you a twelve core machine right now.
It is not like you or people in your line of work can't make use of more cores or in general faster machines. Rather it is the attitude displayed that makes all the difference in how people see you.
For example let's say a Genetic Engineer could make good use of such a machine, I'm certain that there are some out there that could put such a little machine to good use. Why are they not on the forums whining like little children about the lack of twelve core Mac Pros? The same could be said for any number of professions commonly using Apple hardware. This isn't a question specifically for you but rather for Logic users in general, what makes you guys think you are so special that you should think that the rest of us should tolerate all this noise and crap about the next Mac Pro update? The update is coming just give it time.
The point isn't the comparison but rather acknowledging a wide range of needs. The fact is few laptops can compete with contemporary desktops.
You still dint get it do you. The original question was about the viability or usefulness of multi core machines in a general context. The question never directly addressed your specific interests.Yea...you know a ton *whoop cough cough cough* Garageband *cough cough cough*
Peace
The reality is that multi core hardware mixed with Snow Leopard has had a dramatic impact on many existing apps as the system can no more efficently make use of the hardware available. Yes even GarageBand along with Aperture and a number of other Apple apps perform better when more cores are available. How much better is an open question but it addresses the question at hand.
Well more twisting of my words into something never said. In a nutshell I've said clearly that the whining about more cores in the Mac Pro or an upgrade in general is totally unjustified. Apple can't pull six core CPUs out of it's a$$ to make the machines you want. Intel has to first deliver viable Silicon. Second; there is a lot more to moving the platform forward that just the Intel CPUs.
Your position just doesn't make sense. It can be likened to running into a car dealer today demanding a 2011 model. Baring the fact that the car manufactures are a bit fuzzy with model years the fact remains you can't buy something until it is ready. It is not a question of knowing what you need, even though I have a good idea, it has to do with Apple having access to viable hardware that will likely be the basis of the platform for well over a year. Sitting in your easy chair demanding something that Apple can't deliver just doesn't make sense. It is sort of like people demanding an end to all wars, a nice thought but only viable if everybody is of like minds. Viable is an important word there too, because the cycle times on pro hardware are long they need to remain viable for a very long time.
A long time in this case would be until Intel comes out with another set of CPUs and Chipsets. A lot of this stuff is in the public domain especially with respect to the schedules for various Intel chip releases. One only needs to look at Intels public schedules and from there slot in Apples Pro updates.
Yeah I know all of this combined means that Mac Pros don't see the constant little tweaks and updates that the iMacs and notebooks get so that Apple can call them new. That is the whole point though as this makes for a more stable platform in the Mac Pro which is very important to the larger user community that the Pro addresses.
Dave
The new Intel's are fast indeed, but who needs this much power when most software can't even use it?
more cores means more threads. means your database server that runs 20,000,000 some commands a day will run better. there is also support for new low power memory. i haven't run the math, but you will probably see a big payback in electricity savings