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.
Mac Pro Reviews Find Impressive Hardware, But Few Software Titles Take Advantage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm guessing that the marketplace will speak and some sort of thin disc that sits under the Mac Pro with varying levels of connection will be made available for purchase.
I know for sure.....
modern software is made to run optimized. I am on the point of actual software not optimized to use the special hardware the new Pro have. Or any machine, for that instance.
I clearly stated what I prefer: A machine capable the running in multiple scenarios in peak performance. With a 25% or more of gain in my workflow. Does not matter if have 10, 100 or 1000 cores....
modern software is made to run optimized. I am on the point of actual software not optimized to use the special hardware the new Pro have. Or any machine, for that instance.
I clearly stated what I prefer: A machine capable the running in multiple scenarios in peak performance. With a 25% or more of gain in my workflow. Does not matter if have 10, 100 or 1000 cores....
If you need more than 12 CPU cores (compute than can't be offloaded to the GPU), there are better alternatives than the Mac Pro -- it's not the machine for you.
Outside of a very few video apps (which should be using the GPU anyways), most are not built to scale much past 4-6 cores.
Apple is making the smart bet on OpenCL and GPGPU.
----------
IIR, Avid hasn't been particularly profitable in the last decade. You'd think if they were really "being lazy", expending less resources on development, but people were still paying them, they'd be making more money.
Don't underestimate the resources software development takes.
modern software is made to run optimized. I am on the point of actual software not optimized to use the special hardware the new Pro have. Or any machine, for that instance.
I clearly stated what I prefer: A machine capable the running in multiple scenarios in peak performance. With a 25% or more of gain in my workflow. Does not matter if have 10, 100 or 1000 cores....
right.. i know what you're saying.. most people think the same way.. i was saying something else in an effort to change your mind.. the question becomes-- do you understand what i was saying? like, can you repeat it back to me in your own words just to make sure we're talking about the same things?
Power cord, most will want that facing away.
This device raises all sorts of question like yours. And one in general: what ports need to be forward facing for accessibility/convenience, which want to be backward facing for permanence/tidiness.
The device seems to answer all of these questions by secretly lowering all expectations of aesthetics and usability. Finally a mac with enough native ports, but clustered all on top of each other. I'm actually curious if it's heavy enough to handle multiple cords tugging at it and trying to topple it.
"Here's a super pretty machine designed for photoshoots, that looks great until you unpack it and start to use it."
I mean, I'm a fan, but the ports cluster innovation is not ideal. Having a back and front of a device makes sense, it's not some antiquated notion that needed to be abolished.
The crappy part is now we have to wait for software companies to revise programs for this platform before we see the "true" potential? The true potential is how it handles software TODAY.
Maybe you need to review the meaning of the word "potential"... Then you won't be so
So we're all back in the Altivec situation again: only highly optimized software will show the full potential of the system. Wonder if it's going to work out this time. It never had the chance to last time.
Well, I've been waiting and waiting for this thing' to arrive but I got to inpatient and ended up blowing my money on other toys! Based on the initial reviews I'm sorta glad I did.
By the time I recover from all of the Christmas bills I'm hoping the new updated Mac Mini Will be available. Frankly, I think my MacPro days are pretty much over. That's not to say I won't be jealous every time I see somebody talking about their beautiful black beauty!
Merry Christmas to all and a Happy New Year!
By the time I recover from all of the Christmas bills I'm hoping the new updated Mac Mini Will be available. Frankly, I think my MacPro days are pretty much over.
That's not to say I won't be jealous every time I see somebody talking about their beautiful black beauty! Merry Christmas to all and a Happy New Year!
Last edited:
Not really. Any software that uses Apple technologies like Grand Central Dispatch will automatically take advantage of the fact it's a 12 core system. If software was written for 4 core / 8 thread systems in mind then it's pretty automatic to scale up to 12 core / 24 threads because it should already be sufficiently generalized.
With Altivec, on the other hand, you had to completely rewrite your code to use SIMD intrinsics. That's actually quite time consuming to do! And dangerous too because assumptions about the hardware, which could change in the future, would start to get engrained in your code. In a lot of cases the benefit just would not justify the engineering cost.
I doubt that most consumer software will ever benefit from the new Mac Pro's 12 cores, but most high end professional software (video editing, 3D rendering) is probably taking advantage of it already without any added work.
Last edited:
It's not about 8 core or 12 core, it's about harnessing the power of dual GPUs massive computational power and no, I don't think grand central will do diddly squat for that.
You're right in that GCD does not use GPUs.
Unfortunately GPU computing technologies are still in their infancy. I wouldn't expect massive gains from this except in certain niche applications. For image and video processing as well as 3D rendering, yes, this can help a lot. For other applications the engineering trade off doesn't seem to be in its favor yet.
except Pro software doesnt (yet).
The only software right now that is showing any real leveraging of the setup is Final Cut Pro X.
Which professionals have be ranting against since it came out and have been leaving for Adobe's options for a while now.
This reeks to me more of Apple trying to solve that problem. While (i haven't used it) FCPx has been updated and a lot of fixes done to make it more in line with what people wanted, the damage was done and the impression was bad.
SO
Apple releases a new "Pro" computer that ONLY benefits if you use their software.
They're hoping this will drive people back to FCPx and their own software library, since the old Pro computers are starting to feel their limits.
"want to upgrade? use our software or don't bother" is effectively what this is saying for now. There is a world lot more pro software outside of the OSx world than in the OSx world. if that software doesn't run better on this, than this becomes overpriced for what it is.
So basically it's exactly like it was with AltiVec: massive gains in certain applications after software adaptations and zero benefit in most other things... Qed
tech chops can be the best in the world, but if the software can't drive those chops, than they're irrelvant.
the Verge review i sjust one of many. Take it as that. view others, view many. and take it as just information to be digested.
All it shows is that this machine, while potentially being a beast of a performer is seriously crippled by software. Software that the Majority of production houses are currently using. And the reason for that is Apple has decided to go towards a setup that nobody else is really using right now, which means all other software houses are going to either have to custom code just for this machine, OR ignore it completely. the install base of Mac's is tiny. the Mac Pro will be even smaller due to its incredibly niche components and target. it will be interesting to see just how many software companies decide to try and code to leverage the particular hardware setup.
As they said in their review. This machine is better than their old boxes. But not enough so without the proper software to warrant going out and replacing their hardware.
in Accounting terms. The Return on investment stinks at this point unless you're a 100% OSx / Apple software house
That creates more problems than it solves. Without question I will have many of the ports on back filled and the last thing I want is to have a pile of cables wrapped around the machine to where the peripherals will be located.
I have 4 drives inside my MP now and will have to remote 3 of them in addition to the numerous external devices already connected.
I just like being able to conveniently connect a device temporarily without a lot of extra boxes and fanfare.
Not to worry, I'm sure someone is working on a low profile Lazy Susan on rails that will only cost $49.
...and if not, this post is time stamped.
They just tried very hard to find an excuse for why nMP performs the same (and often worse) than the old one. And you might be overly optimistic about advancements in software. Utilizing specialized hardware (GPGPU) is hard, parallelization of algorithms is hard. Not everything may be parallellized. There is not easy replacement for raw CPU power. It may take quite a while for developers to optimize the software and even then many tasks will not be accelerated at all.
And waste all those clean and nice design? What's the point of getting a Mac if it's going to look like snakes nest? A few front ports won't kill. The old MacPro has it, you know?
