Mac Pro Reviews Find Impressive Hardware, But Few Software Titles Take Advantage

[SeattleMoose]

As an audio engineer who wants a headless Mac to run Logic, I have decided to bide my time.

1) Even if I order today it will be 1/4 year before it even shows up
2) V1.0 bugs will have better chance of being identified and resolved by then
3) In 3 months Logic may be optimized similar to FCP X (at least partially)

If they had a HW configuration that was say $2499 and did not include a 2nd GPU, it would be a much easier decision. Having one side "spare" for growth screams expandability. Locked into two GPUs screams "Pro" = Video Editor.

 

[iSayuSay]

It's been available for a week... can you expect software developers to potentially rewrite large portions of their code to take advantage of this hardware? I hardly think so. Even if they've had it for months in advance (like Adobe or something) it's likely the titles will be available 'soon'.

The same thing happened with the Retina display on the iPhone and MacBook Pro: it took developers a little time to roll out the enhancements.

Another problem: iPhone and iPad are popular products. Like it or not, developers will follow suit quickly with necessary changes.

Now MacPro is not your everyday computer nor it will sell millions like iOS or macbook does. Not to mention all MacPro software also needs to be able to run on other consumer Macs so they need to compensate. Most likely you need custom built in house software to be able to use it to its fullest.

Being the most powerful car means nothing if you don't have your own roadtrack built specifically for it. You can't enjoy its fullest potential.

 

[TMay]

So in my opinion Adobe is the one that is lacking here and just shot themselves in there foot, because they love nvidia gps and cuda, and barely support OpenCL. What a stupid company. Also in the verge's test there comparing there 2010 12 core mac pros to a 2013 8 core. If you want the test to be correct then compare a 2010 mac pro 12 core to a 2013 12 core mac pro.
But then the verge never lets truth get in the way.

Actually, Adobe is as of early summer a full member of the OpenCL group.

Adobe also worked with AMD to optimize Premiere Pro for OpenCL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3LwNT1QUPQ

 

[lesferdinand]

I second most everything you said, but it's not ahead of time if you ask me. It was basically the same when the Retina displays were introduced with the MacBooks Pros. A great display with only Apple being able to provide such high revolution software. But soon after a large number of the popular software around supported the high resolution. I guess exactly the same will happen the next couple of month. So, I don't think it's ahead of its time.

Yes, I worded it a bit strong. My bet is it won't be too much ahead of its time (I ordered one). But I expect software adaptation to take longer than in the case of retina, as it appears to me to be a more fundamental change.

 

[AppleScruff1]

like the video said, the premiere which doesn't optimize for dual gpu and using mostly cpu ran a bit slower than the 2010 mac pro. which is sad.

while this is intended for video editors, but only FCP flies on this thing.

and the cable port on the back, ugh what a mess really.
i'm in favor of the old form factor.

Understood, but would Premiere run faster on a pc with a Quadro 6000 and the same CPU, RAM etc as the new Mac Pro?

 

[Roykor]

I am still have the argument that this machine is a monster, but to call it Pro…. when it basiclly for the most part will only cover the video editors. And that is just a slice of the big pie of creative people that would like to have horsepower (and more) . I am a professional, but I can not configure this machine to my needs (hardcore Photoshop). So the only option i have is to go for a maxed out iMac.

 

[AppleScruff1]

You can't get a PC with the same setup, there are too many custom components, including the GPU which is, according to Apple, much faster than the CPU and Premier should be using it. Apparently Premier uses the GPU now, just not very well. Presumably a future version will fix that.

AMD's GPU lineup for PCs includes ones that are a lot slower than in the mac pro, or a lot faster (and insanely expensive), but they don't offer anything the same.

You could of course install Windows on a Mac Pro... but the GPU drivers are probably not good enough for a fair comparison.

What about a Window pc with a high end Quadro card, and similar specs? I'd be curious to see how Premiere runs on the Windows setup versus the new Pro if you used high end off the shelf components for the Windows machine.

 

[TennisandMusic]

You can't get a PC with the same setup, there are too many custom components, including the GPU which is, according to Apple, much faster than the CPU and Premier should be using it. Apparently Premier uses the GPU now, just not very well. Presumably a future version will fix that.

AMD's GPU lineup for PCs includes ones that are a lot slower than in the mac pro, or a lot faster (and insanely expensive), but they don't offer anything the same.

You could of course install Windows on a Mac Pro... but the GPU drivers are probably not good enough for a fair comparison.

The D700 is basically just an AMD Radeon 7950. It's an old card, and the drivers on the Windows side should be fine. You can get a much more powerful setup on the Windows side. Of course if you don't want to use Windows, the point is moot.

 

[osx11]

Lets be realistic though how many times did you turn your old mac pro around?
I don't touch mine its too heavy. once it is set up, it stays. Get a desktop hub for things plugged in and out all the time.

Well that's exactly my point. Apple is marketing the lit-up ports but in reality you aren't going to be using the ports directly on the back. You won't be turning the device around like Apple believes.

----------

I am still have the argument that this machine is a monster, but to call it Pro…. when it basiclly for the most part will only cover the video editors. And that is just a slice of the big pie of creative people that would like to have horsepower (and more) . I am a professional, but I can not configure this machine to my needs (hardcore Photoshop). So the only option i have is to go for a maxed out iMac.

How would you like to configure the Mac Pro?

 

[blackhand1001]

Tell him to talk to Intel and AMD.

Why, apple decided to to go single cpu, not intel or AMD. Intel and AMD offer 2, 4, and even 8 socket systems.

 

[TMay]

I am still have the argument that this machine is a monster, but to call it Pro…. when it basiclly for the most part will only cover the video editors. And that is just a slice of the big pie of creative people that would like to have horsepower (and more) . I am a professional, but I can not configure this machine to my needs (hardcore Photoshop). So the only option i have is to go for a maxed out iMac.

Not understanding what the new Mac Pro is missing for Photoshop; can you elaborate?

 

[rainbowsofwhite]

So basically we're stuck with using a Sharp monitor with the MacPro?

No Apple Thunderbolt 2 Display upgrade??

I think stylistically, it's a very ugly setup... disappointing.

 

[Roykor]

Not understanding what the new Mac Pro is missing for Photoshop; can you elaborate?

This pro machine is not doing much better than a maxed out imac in PS. Why is that? Because the mac "Pro" is a video machine, and not really interesing for the rest of the creative market. They abandoned the rest. I dont need dual gfx cards. I need a single monster. I really like to have more horsepower on my desk than my imac, But the imac owns the Pro in PS at this moment (cost/score).

 

[69650]

There's a lesson for Apple here. Unless they continue to develop their own Pro software they're always going to be at the mercy of other software companies to develop and optimise their software for the Mac Pro. There's no guarantee that Adobe will do this anytime soon making the Mac Pro less attractive to potential pro buyers.

 

[SusanK]

I'd bet good money that the front ports on the Mac Pro tower were NOT Ive's idea.

Steve

 

[wovel]

And people would have complained that they waited 4 years for the same old design that is getting long in the tooth.

And it would have been 10 times as loud as the case fans, gpu fans, etc. spun up under load. There is an engineering reason for this design. From every review so far, the single fan is working flawlessly and quietly.

 

[paulrbeers]

This pro machine is not doing much better than a maxed out imac in PS. Why is that? Because the mac "Pro" is a video machine, and not really interesing for the rest of the creative market. They abandoned the rest. I dont need dual gfx cards. I need a single monster. I really like to have more horsepower on my desk than my imac, But the imac owns the Pro in PS at this moment (cost/score).

How would you build a machine that "does better in PS" then? With photoshop using GPUs to accelerate functions more and more wouldn't this be exactly what you need? The entire computer industry is moving towards GPUs doing the heavy lifting. Look at how much better an i5 iMac does in PS compared to a maxed out Mini even though the Mini actually hasa faster processor! Just proves that GPU is everything (or will be). But please tell us what you think you need....

 

[wovel]

No ******, Dick Tracy. And they're all the same length? Not tangled? Some not headed for the floor and others headed out on the desk?

Sure, you can tip it or put the back to one side -- of course. But that's not what I'm talking about. The "just spin it" thing was pushed as a great thing. I think we're going to see that it's not. I see the spinning thing as a triumph of marketing spin over function spin.

I spent 25 years plugging and unplugging cables carrying crucial real-time data inside and (mostly) outside, in crowds, in any kind of weather, in panics and in hurries and so really, I don't need to be told about "slack."

You want to know how you do "slack" for when it really counts? That's when you take your ethernet cable or your data cable or your power cable or the cable to your UPS or the one coming from the generator and you tie the damn thing off to something solid. Then you run some slack to your router or switch or RFID electronics controller or barcode reader or electronic timer sitting a hundred yards away or computer. And you know just how long the slack is and every cable going into the same box has the same slack. That's how you do what I used to do, when having stuff come unplugged would be disastrous.

Unless your the moron who made the silly picture people keep posting, a little cable management makes that a non issue....

 

[dysamoria]

I always had a conspiracy theory that Apple could beam out a silent OSX upgrade to old machines, that would make them chew additional CPU cycles to make them feel appreciably slower, prompting you to want a new machine. I swear it happens every time a new model comes out!

That's how I feel about my iPhone. Such a revelation would present monstrous lawsuits, though. I don't think even Apple is big enough for that level of capitalist stupidity.

 

[lesferdinand]

How would you build a machine that "does better in PS" then? With photoshop using GPUs to accelerate functions more and more wouldn't this be exactly what you need? The entire computer industry is moving towards GPUs doing the heavy lifting.

Exactly. It's a bit rubbish to blame Apple for Intel's (or physic's?) failure to keep cranking up CPU clock speed. People complain that the nMP was long overdue and at the same time bitch that the CPU isn't exponentially faster than the one from 3 years ago...

 

[dysamoria]

Anything new would eclipse what I have now...

 

[paulrbeers]

Exactly. It's a bit rubbish to blame Apple for Intel's (or physic's?) failure to keep cranking up CPU clock speed. People complain that the nMP was long overdue and at the same time bitch that the CPU isn't exponentially faster than the one from 3 years ago...

Like the guy saying his friend "who does CGI in Hollywood" was underwhelmed by the small bump in processing power.... The 12 Core Ivy Bridge is what all OEMs are using for their workstations. The entire industry is moving to power efficiency and not speed in the CPU.

 

[manu chao]

Sure, you can tip it or put the back to one side -- of course. But that's not what I'm talking about. The "just spin it" thing was pushed as a great thing. I think we're going to see that it's not. I see the spinning thing as a triumph of marketing spin over function spin.

The 180º spin is unrealistic but I'm pretty sure that a 45º spin can be helpful at times.

----------

This pro machine is not doing much better than a maxed out imac in PS. Why is that? Because the mac "Pro" is a video machine, and not really interesing for the rest of the creative market. They abandoned the rest. I dont need dual gfx cards. I need a single monster. I really like to have more horsepower on my desk than my imac, But the imac owns the Pro in PS at this moment (cost/score).

And because PS isn't very good at using multiple cores, anything over 4 doesn't really speed up PS at all.

 

[GenesisST]

Dumb question

If an app already makes "good" use of OpenCL and Grand Central Dispatch, wouldn't it already be optimized for this Beast(tm)?

 

[manu chao]

Even though I somewhat like the looks of the computer, I still don't get it why they haven't kept the old design, just updated with current gen cpu's, TB2, TWO cpu sockets etc etc. Option for AMD AND nVidia gpu's.

Everyone would've been happy… And it would be much faster than the current version.

There are lots of reasons:

• This design allows for a much much more quit fan.
• This design takes up much less space on or under your desk (even if you add an external four(or six)-drive HDD enclosure and two PCI expansion boxes.
• In addition, it makes the Mac Pro portable when really needed.
• Both the volume reduction and general design create much more positive vibes than a plain internal update of the old Mac Pro would.
• It allows the Mac Pro to be better in some aspects than conventional tower designs. That doesn't mean it is better for everyone, but with the conventional design there is not much of a difference between a Mac and a PC. Apple wants to be better than the competition. Not for all use cases but for those where they can, where they can create synergies (the value of FCP has increased by being able to run it on a machine heavily tuned for it).
• The conventional physical design of video cards would not make it possible to combine the DisplayPort signal and the TB signal into one output.

Note, I don't say that those reasons outweigh the negatives of the new design. Just that there are good reasons for the change (as there are for not changing the design). You can still say you don't understand why those reason should outweigh the negatives, but you should not say you don't understand why Apple has taken that choice.

Apple has made a choice and you are not happy with it. Fine, but claiming that everybody would have been happier is simply not true as the new Mac Pro has received far higher positive reactions than what a simple update would have produced (ditto for the negative ones).