I said the extra threads didn't make much of a difference. You're the one whos saying otherwise.
Seriously, Really? How complicated are your renderings?
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 Update With 6-Core Xeon Gulftown Processors Due Soon?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I said the extra threads didn't make much of a difference. You're the one whos saying otherwise.
Seriously, Really? How complicated are your renderings?
I can't quite agree with you on the price honestly. I don't think people actually compare similar computers when doing this sort of comparison on the Mac Pro, since it is rather high end with Xeon processors.
A quick compare of Dell T7500 workstation dual 2.26: $2,843 and Mac Pro dual 2.26 @ MacMall: $3,096.99.
The case alone would probably make a $100 difference, going from plastic to aluminum. Don't get me wrong, I think there's definitely a Mac Tax but that's the choice you make when purchasing the computer.
I chose Dell, just because the website is easy to quickly configure a similar computer, but I'm sure HP, IBM, etc are right around the same ballpark or higher than Dell honestly. I honestly can't wait to have 5 virtual servers running on this new box and hopefully still have processor and memory to spare.
The crucial thing is that Dell doesn't have an enormous price gulf whereby a step down from the baseline octo is either a consumer model with a built-in 27-inch display, or a baseline quad pro that costs about the same as the consumer model but doesn't come with a screen and is outperformed by it.
Yeah, it's a joke. I'm all for 12-core hyperthreaded machines for those who need them, but those of us that need a more modest pro machine shouldn't have to be upsold from an imac into an overpriced six-core. Here's to hoping.
It's true that the single processor versions of Mac Pro are very pricey, and the dual processor versions are very close to the competitors.
I'm pretty sure that Apple was limited to Xeon processors at that time (there weren't any Core i7's) so you may get your wish with a Core i7 model. There is also a less costly line of Xeon's available here or on the way; basically a Core i7 with ECC memory capability.
Regarding software that makes use of EVERY computational resource on the computer check out mental images iray:
http://www.bunkspeed.com/news/news_mental_images.html
It will use whatever combination of CPU's and GPU's (nvidia at this point) for rendering. A demo follows:
http://www.mentalimages.com/index.php?id=634
I didn't say anything of the sort. I merely pointed out your apparent contradictory statements.
It doesn't matter how complicated they are. An 80% reduction from 10 minutes to 2 minutes is the same percentage as an 80% reduction from 1 minute to 12 seconds. Both are an 80% reduction. To some people, the reduction from 1 minute to 12 seconds is worth it.
To 'professionals' who do renderings (and other highly CPU intensive applications, such as compiling, video encoding, etc,) where something can cause a multi-minute time savings, the extra threads are helpful.
I do video encoding for purely personal projects, and I would love to have as much processor power as I can get.
Well said. Not a pro in video, etc. but I use MCAD for simulations, and I do render. Pro software is expensive, and time is money. I've found that a Mac Pro Dual Processor will probably cost me a $5000 premium but it gives me expansion, which will come into its own with OpenCL.
Figuring a life of two years, that's about a $7 a day; a dollar an hour overhead or maybe a latte and a softdrink.
Of course, you have to pay for it upfront, but to me it is a good investment.
Intel has had quad-core desktop CPUs (single socket, no ECC) alongside
Xeons (dual-socket capable, ECC) that are basically the same for
a long time. The desktop Core i7 quads were available before the
"Core i7" Xeons.
I don't think that there's been much change in the situation,
Apple's been able to use cheaper desktop CPUs all along, but
chooses not to sell an affordable mini-tower.
Unfortunately for those looking for a price break, the single
socket quad Mac Pro is already using the cheaper Xeon 3500 CPUs.
Marketing hype for you... to me, 24 hours down to 16 for a single render.
That's a huge business efficiency boost not mentioning a steady extra few hundred $$ per project. Give me a loaded 24 core system and I'll be the first person to buy it no matter how overpriced it is in the eye of general public. Pays off in a blink of an eye.
Not hugely heavy from a geometry standpoint, but we use Maxwell which is ludicrously well-threaded.
We need all the cores we can get. If we see a 12 core / 3ghz Mac Pro for $5K in a month we'll order at least two.
I'm all for the update, but I'll be more exciting when they rewrite all their software to utilize all those power. For goodness sake, my Mac Pro has only quad core with 6gb and I still haven't find any non-pro (even some pro) software that can use all that power....my meter always at 200-300% while it should be at 800% when I do heavy works....
I agree.
I have a 2008 2.8 8 core mac pro and I am not going to upgrade until the software has surpassed its capabilities.
I upgraded the ram to 16 gb, the video to a gtx 285 and went to snow leopard under the delusion that it would make a real difference.
It's was all a marketing lie, and most of the power of the computer remains untapped by the software on it.
If Apple and Adobe ever get their act together and write apps that can actually utilize all of my cores and ram and gpu power, then I'll be ready to upgrade.
Until then, the only upgrade I will even consider is going to ssd if they grow a lot in size and drop a lot in price. Right now, they are also largely useless and ridiculously expensive.
It's appalling that Photoshop can only use 3 gb ram.
Clarified that for you - Photoshop can use much more
than 3 GiB on a different platform (an OS that will
run on your Mac Pro).
Nice to actually have a pretty solid Mac-based rumor finally appear
I just picked up the Core i7 iMac, so I am no longer in the market for a Mac Pro, but I am very curious to see what they are going to do with it and if they will update the Cinema Displays.
The Core i7 iMac is oh so tempting, but I'm holding off to see what the new Mac Pros bring to the table. Hopefully there will be some shiny new 16:9 cinema displays to go with that
I think he's learned from his mistakes, and has gotten a little classier as the show has gone on. He's still the ultimate guido poster-boy though. Oh wait.
I am only upgrading because I am due for one, but I agree with you guys on the state of multi-core computing. Snow Leopard brought true 64-Bit potential to the Mac Pro... it's time for lazy Adobe to stop releasing annual buggy bloatware and focus on a complete rewrite of their software. Creative Suite needs to be leaner, faster and scaleable to the number of processors available on the computer. It's a shame that in this day and age Photoshop uses a single thread to save a file. Seriously Adobe, it's time to think out the box, if you can't make use of multiple threads to save a file, at least allow me to keep working on other files while a save is happening in the background.
Yes actually! Adobe apps on the other OS (the only other one that can run those pro adobe apps) are completely 64Bit so they can address more than 4GBs of RAM. The issue is partly because Adobe didn't code the Mac OS version to be 64Bit, but made certain parts of it 32Bit executable chunks.
The Core i7 iMac is oh so tempting, but I'm holding off to see what the new Mac Pros bring to the table. Hopefully there will be some shiny new 16:9 cinema displays to go with that
It is! It is! It SO is!
A friend of mine and I are going back and forth on whether to pull the trigger on the Core i7 or the Mac Pro, with the only hold back being the need for the PCI expansion for video work. No use getting a four bay enclosure for scratch and plugging it into a FW800 port.
Personally, my Matrox MXO2 only connects through Express Card 34 or PCI, so that automatically pushes me up to the Mac Pro.
My biggest disappointment is the lack of major revisions to Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro. I use Motion quite a bit and I'm waiting till march to upgrade my video card from an X1900XT to whatever will be the top of the line of the new Mac Pros, but Final Cut Pro should be utilizing all the cores I have in my late 2008 Mac Pro, and it doesn't. I have the latest version of the Final Cut suite and the only thing that I noticed was that Motion 4 runs a lot better (not crashing every other second).
And DVD SP should be able to give us some basic Blu-ray creation capabilities. I know Apple is afraid of cannibalizing their iTunes content, but working in broadcast media has taught me that almost everyone still wants a hard copy of their media. If Blu-ray is the best option to provide the highest quality image, then Apple's "professional" software (including playback in OSX) should be available as well. And don't hand me the BS of it costs too much or there's too much licensing management going on. If other can offer it, so can Apple. I'm not expecting to have all the tools that major Hollywood studios have in creating Blu-ray discs, because I understand that the coding is completely different from standard DVDs, but if they can build basic functionality into Compressor to handle Blu-ray DVD SP should be able to do it as well.
So, like some of you in this thread, I'll be waiting to upgrade until the software I use, software made by APPLE, can actually take full advantage of the hardware.
Sorry for the rant.
And DVD SP should be able to give us some basic Blu-ray creation capabilities. I know Apple is afraid of cannibalizing their iTunes content, but working in broadcast media has taught me that almost everyone still wants a hard copy of their media. If Blu-ray is the best option to provide the highest quality image, then Apple's "professional" software (including playback in OSX) should be available as well. And don't hand me the BS of it costs too much or there's too much licensing management going on. If other can offer it, so can Apple. I'm not expecting to have all the tools that major Hollywood studios have in creating Blu-ray discs, because I understand that the coding is completely different from standard DVDs, but if they can build basic functionality into Compressor to handle Blu-ray DVD SP should be able to do it as well.
So, like some of you in this thread, I'll be waiting to upgrade until the software I use, software made by APPLE, can actually take full advantage of the hardware.
Sorry for the rant.
Guys will the new Mac Pro come out in March 100%??? I have to work on a big project so I need it as soon as possible
There is no 100% with product refreshes/releases
If you can wait, do so.
If you can't, don't
ORLY? Somehow my MacBookPro3,1 from 2007 manages. It's currently hooked up to a FW800 CF reader and a FW400 disk.
I did some ExpressCard research about 1.5 years ago, and the above was true then too, so I'm skeptical that 10.6 alone is at fault. I gave up on an EC aircard and went with a USB unit.
Curiously, Lightroom seems *less* snappy for me in 64bit vs 32bit on my MBP (not to mention Canon's stupid printer driver...)
That'd be nice. My Microsoft-centric employer will only buy low-end Mac towers, hence the 1.6 G5 that I don't do much with any more -- can't add a second CPU on my own, I/O sucks rocks, etc. Today they'll only do single-socket MP's, so I couldn't add a second even out of my own pocket. I'd love a move to a single physical configuration so that I could at least fill out what they'd get me.
Forgive me for being such a newbie but are these Mac Pro Update With 6-Core Xeon Gulftown Processors faster than the 8-Cores??
Actually, and correct me if I'm wrong, it seems the current "highest" singular core is a quad core and the 8 core is basically 2 quad cores. This new 6-core would be the 'new highest' singular core. AKA 2 would be a 12-core (?)