I don't use final cut pro and I don't need two grafic cards for daily work.
The new MacPro would have been great if you could extend and/or choose your own grafic cards, maybe with an GTX780M option (inkl. gaming support for two grafic cards).
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.
New 12-Core Mac Pro Once Again Shows Up in Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't use final cut pro and I don't need two grafic cards for daily work.
The new MacPro would have been great if you could extend and/or choose your own grafic cards, maybe with an GTX780M option (inkl. gaming support for two grafic cards).
I don't know how technically feasible it is, but it'd have been neat to see Apple offer the option of either 2 GPUs/1 CPU/RAM board, OR 1 GPU and 2 CPU/RAM boards in the 3-board configuration. Would have made for a far more versatile machine and met the needs of many more, I imagine.
The triangle in the machine is not a perfect triangle, the cpu board is alot wider then the gpu board. Gpu's can be attached eith just a sata port. Cpu's need alot more connections. Im not saying its not possible, but the current machine needs alot of modification to make a 2cpu 1 gpu setup happen.
And apple wants to push developers into implementing opencl wich can be alot faster then current cpu heavy tasks. But i guess this is another "skating where the puck will be" maybe thy can push the market, and if it doesnt work and implementation takes 7+ years. Current gen mac pro will have failed. Except for some specific gpu intensive workflows such as mari and zbrush etc.
Last edited:
OK. I just posted the prices of the Chips above and Whilst that of course is probably possible. You will/can spec a dual 12 Core With Enough Ram and a couple of decent Cards and it would cost you $20,000+
The benefits of dual CPU is overstated. The overhead and heat is really quite high. and pretty power inefficient. The speed is exponential the more cores the less over all speed per core.
I suspect the 12 Cores will be very expensive as it is and if they Did produce one and who's to say they won't in the future - I imagine building a dual motherboard into this would be technically challenging but may happen. It's entirely possible it could come out in 6 months... The original 12-core came out on it's own as I recall.
As for PCIe cards... what ones do you actually use? I am just interested to know what people actually need. The Red rocket card is one but that is not actually needed as this can shift 4K quite happily it seems.
More expansion boxes will come - perhaps even apple will come out with one. I've already run a 10m corning Thunderbolt cable to my garage. Storage and noise out there please
What you say about multi CPU's is very out of date. A lot depends on what you are woking on, but if you have software that can use 12 cores, it will usually scale to 24 cores fine.
Like you mention, it would be difficult to put a dual CPU motherboard in the machine. In my view this is a design flaw, they should just have made it slightly bigger.
As for the cards, the main ones I use are broadcast I/O cards as well as higher quality audio. At work our macs use AJA Kona cards for capturing video, using the new mac pro would mean ditching those cards and having clutter on the desk from having an external solution and all its associated cables.
its engadget. Their reviews often don't have any backup or credibility and are mostly "fluff" pieces.
if you notice. the majority of the Endgadget review is about the look of the device and has very little actual tech talk.
the most techie comment was "it gets warm to the touch".
go to Engadget for blogstyle information. Not for real reviews. They have long been known to be Apple fanboys in their reviews and have even recently gone so far as to post on their facebook feeds such wonderful posts like "Why you should switch from Android to iOS" and "Why Apple is the best".
the most recent spammed link: "Sell me on why the Chromecast is worth purchasing" with a giant picture of the Apple TV
heck. when they posted that review, they posted on facebook the link 5 times during the day.
Last edited:
Depends on if he actually bought a copy of OSX or not. If he did, then he's not pirating, just dancing around in the grey area that is EULA breaking.
I like iFixit, but I don't generally go there for reviews, just product teardowns and tech candy.
However, iFixit doesn't like Apple. Its a known bias. Everything from Apple gets incredibly low repairability scores. EVen I think a little "too low" scores sometimes.
Its a known thing that Journalism is dead and that the paid bias world of today is strong.
Some places try to at least come accross as legit. Engadget, especially with their most recent management shuffle has thrown any real credibility for reviews and journalism out the window.
oyu know it's a sad sad SAD state when The Verge actually had a better less bias review of the Mac Pro with actual Video producers giving their input into the new Mac Pro, and not some woman who's more enarmoured by pretty case designs.
it's just unfortunate. I used to love ENgadget. But the amount of fanboyism from their editors is sick. I've seen more balanced reporting here.
you think i'm kidding though about their facebook feed? I just counted 5 times on the 21st that Engadget posted a link to that review. this does not include the posts prior to the review about the Mac pro (in which there were several leading up)
Last edited:
Oh, I'm not thinking about iFixit for the reviews. I'm wanting them to strip it such that OWC can think about the feasibility of replacement GPUs.
we will likely see them soon. But I think iFixit due to low scores have been put on apples "naughty" list and don't get review devices. from my undrestanding, iFixit ahs to buy their Apple products like the Rest of us before being torn down.
Ive heard it happen quite a bit around the internet. Major review houses who don't give favourable apple reviews stop getting early review samples. Leading to either that place not having timely reviews, or a string of "sexual favour like" reviews to get back into Apples good books.
The Verge I believe also lost favour with Apple for a short while and put out a string of overly glowing Apple reviews. Probably in hope to get back into Apples good books
now i'm going to be called a hater for this commentary. it always happens, so i'm heading it off at the pass. I LOVE APPLE PRODUCTS THAT I HAVE USED. But apple is a very unethical business.
Hello,
To those in the 3D/motion graphics industry, would you recommend purchasing this new Mac Pro? I am a production graphic designer and management had asked me to learn Cinema 4D, video editing, and After Effects for motion graphics. Will this new Mac Pro with it's dual D700 card be able to accommodate 3D animation 10 to 20 seconds long? An example would be like the NFL's 3D animated backgrounds during football game stats with bursting gears, fire, spining/shaking logos, and lens flare etc.
I am starting from scratch, learning from home & office, and so far I only have Lynda.com and Video Copilot as for instructions.
I would like to hit the ground running and not have to worry about hardware issues/setups and programming.
Thanks in advance for feedbacks. - Jason
To those in the 3D/motion graphics industry, would you recommend purchasing this new Mac Pro? I am a production graphic designer and management had asked me to learn Cinema 4D, video editing, and After Effects for motion graphics. Will this new Mac Pro with it's dual D700 card be able to accommodate 3D animation 10 to 20 seconds long? An example would be like the NFL's 3D animated backgrounds during football game stats with bursting gears, fire, spining/shaking logos, and lens flare etc.
I am starting from scratch, learning from home & office, and so far I only have Lynda.com and Video Copilot as for instructions.
I would like to hit the ground running and not have to worry about hardware issues/setups and programming.
Thanks in advance for feedbacks. - Jason
I think Mac Pro is a really nice machine but in your case you will be paying a lot of money for power you won't use.
About cinema 4d:
For OpenGL things are looking better compared to an imac but the score isn't something you wouldn't be able to see with a cheaper graphics card on a PC. They would have to rewrite to take advantage of open cl and I bet this is going to take some time.
In the CPU department. A lot of the processes (not only in cinema but in general) are single threaded so in a lot of cases you would have to wait for something approximately equal amount of time on the iMac and the Mac Pro.
Where you will start seeing the difference is in the final rendering and test rendering where you will be taking advantage of more cores compared to the 4 core imac.
And there's nothing better than more cores especially when you're test rendering and figuring out the lighting for your scene. More power means you can test a lot of different styles and variations (sort of live through the progressive physical renderer) and thus improve your final look of your animation.
For final renders you could always use a network of computers in the office or a payed service so for me it's not a big deal if I don't have the absolute fastest machine.
After effects is in a similar situation in the GPU department. At the moment graphics wise it supports nvidia cards (CUDA) for very specific computations but the majority of the program doesn't. So in a lot of cases you'll be seeing performance similar to a maxed out imac. It'll be faster but think also the amount of money you're paying! In the final render of course the new Mac Pro will beat the imac.
Adobe isn't very fast implementing new stuff so you might have to wait a little bit more for the program to take advantage of the dual gpu setup.
Open cl, which is what apple is pushing for, isn't being used extensively by third party programs at the moment but things will probably change in the future.
For example there are only 2 or 3 gpu renderers at the moment that use open cl.
For editing if you go the final cut route you'll see loads of speed compared to a maxed out imac. If you go the premiere route you'll see more moderate improvements (while you're working on your project) compared to final cut.
The way I see it, if you're going to buy this machine you are investing for the future. Doesn't mean that things will work out but if everyone starts supporting open cl you'll have a really powerful machine. Don't get me wrong it already is a powerful machine but at the moment you won't see a lot of this power for the amount of money you'll be paying now.
If you have the money and you want a really powerful mac go for it. You can do all of these things you mentioned with a maxed out imac. But the Mac Pro in the end will always be faster.
If I was you I would order a maxed out imac and learn all these things with this machine. It's a very capable machine and once you feel the need in a couple of years for a new one you can then buy the 2nd or 3rd generation of the Mac Pro.
As a plus you will also learn to optimize your scenes a little bit better!
People that start out learning 3d have a tendency to just toggle every feature on and be done with it.
With a machine with multiple cores and a powerful GPU you can get away with this sort of behavior because you have power to burn!
With a more modest setup you will learn that you need to optimize some of those things and as a result learn the program a little bit better.
About cinema 4d:
For OpenGL things are looking better compared to an imac but the score isn't something you wouldn't be able to see with a cheaper graphics card on a PC. They would have to rewrite to take advantage of open cl and I bet this is going to take some time.
In the CPU department. A lot of the processes (not only in cinema but in general) are single threaded so in a lot of cases you would have to wait for something approximately equal amount of time on the iMac and the Mac Pro.
Where you will start seeing the difference is in the final rendering and test rendering where you will be taking advantage of more cores compared to the 4 core imac.
And there's nothing better than more cores especially when you're test rendering and figuring out the lighting for your scene. More power means you can test a lot of different styles and variations (sort of live through the progressive physical renderer) and thus improve your final look of your animation.
For final renders you could always use a network of computers in the office or a payed service so for me it's not a big deal if I don't have the absolute fastest machine.
After effects is in a similar situation in the GPU department. At the moment graphics wise it supports nvidia cards (CUDA) for very specific computations but the majority of the program doesn't. So in a lot of cases you'll be seeing performance similar to a maxed out imac. It'll be faster but think also the amount of money you're paying! In the final render of course the new Mac Pro will beat the imac.
Adobe isn't very fast implementing new stuff so you might have to wait a little bit more for the program to take advantage of the dual gpu setup.
Open cl, which is what apple is pushing for, isn't being used extensively by third party programs at the moment but things will probably change in the future.
For example there are only 2 or 3 gpu renderers at the moment that use open cl.
For editing if you go the final cut route you'll see loads of speed compared to a maxed out imac. If you go the premiere route you'll see more moderate improvements (while you're working on your project) compared to final cut.
The way I see it, if you're going to buy this machine you are investing for the future. Doesn't mean that things will work out but if everyone starts supporting open cl you'll have a really powerful machine. Don't get me wrong it already is a powerful machine but at the moment you won't see a lot of this power for the amount of money you'll be paying now.
If you have the money and you want a really powerful mac go for it. You can do all of these things you mentioned with a maxed out imac. But the Mac Pro in the end will always be faster.
If I was you I would order a maxed out imac and learn all these things with this machine. It's a very capable machine and once you feel the need in a couple of years for a new one you can then buy the 2nd or 3rd generation of the Mac Pro.
As a plus you will also learn to optimize your scenes a little bit better!
People that start out learning 3d have a tendency to just toggle every feature on and be done with it.
With a machine with multiple cores and a powerful GPU you can get away with this sort of behavior because you have power to burn!
With a more modest setup you will learn that you need to optimize some of those things and as a result learn the program a little bit better.
Last edited:
the hardware is serious overkill for what you want to do as the poster above indicated quite well and i agree with him that the time savings in output renderings will be worth it if you don't have a problem with the cash . the graphics cards handle most of the rendering of the preview you see in your work window but the final full size output used to take a day not that long ago
and if you made a format or aspect error you had to start over .
its better to grow into hardware than to grow out of it (imho)
i work mostly in 3d cad applications actually making objects but i have played in maya and rhino if you get stuck understanding nurds or c splines I'm your man
1. It's not about the cost of the plastic/aluminum (or whatever else) used - it's the about the cost of designing and engineering the internal structure of this computer, allowing it to be as small as it is, as energy efficient as it is and as fast as it is. Or do you still believe all that work is only worth a $100?
2. Disregarding the above facts, find me a workstation with the same components (forget about i7s, non-ECC RAM, gaming cards etc.) that's actually competitively priced.
#SIGH