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 Mac Pro: Simultaneous Real-Time 4K Effect Rendering, +900MB/s Read/Write
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hmm new years resolution list:
1 get macbook pro fixed
2 sell macbook pro and buy surface pro 2
3 buy 6 core Mac pro
4 live in nerdgasm happiness
Hmm, first two are easy, number 3 will take some saving..
But damn the new Mac pro is powerful.
1 get macbook pro fixed
2 sell macbook pro and buy surface pro 2
3 buy 6 core Mac pro
4 live in nerdgasm happiness
Hmm, first two are easy, number 3 will take some saving..
But damn the new Mac pro is powerful.
I normally don't care what they say either as 99% of their articles are pure click bait designed to garner as many page views as possible. Just this morning they ran a poll asking if the nMP was overpriced and over 50% responded yes.
oh.. i don't edit video anyway.
was just saying this version of final cut should be encouraging to developers in general.. like a large-scale proof-positive openCL example.
Probably!
I would give it a try, but the new FCPX requires 10.9 and I'm stuck on 10.8 on my 5,1 because Resolve has some lag issues with my unsupported GTX 570 (yeah, for me as long as the graphics that come with the machine [D700 in my order] are [near] the current top of the line I don't mind so much the inability to upgrade).
you must be joking.
CPUs and GPUs upgrades are what matter.
----------
The same way apples keeps saying the same thing "make it smaller, more expensive and more controlled" for every product.
And how many people with old Mac Pros upgraded the CPU ?
I've heard dozens of people on MacRumors say they're still using a 2009 or 2010 Mac Pro today.
So why don't they just pop in a 2013 CPU and be done with it?
I agree... CPU upgrades matter... but I haven't heard much about them actually being done.
Maybe I'm the oddball but on the PC side of things whenever there's a big enough upgrade to CPU or GPU thats worth getting I find that my current hardware won't run it efficiently. I generally buy the "top of the line" at the time so that I dont have to upgrade for a while. But then I find that the latest graphics card that offers a significant improvement over my current one needs a beefier power supply and wont work well on my motherboard. So off to get a new board. Then off to get new RAM because the new board wont run my current. Of course the new board then also has a different socket so its off to get a new CPU. While I'm at it I wind up getting a better case and a faster/newer/larger HDD/SSD. Basically, I bought a whole new computer to upgrade a video card.
I know this doesn't have to be every time, but I generally will skip a few generations of graphics cards as to justify spending near $1k on a card it has to offer a massive noticeable improvement over my current. The average time for that to happen I usually wind up with a whole new system
The so called "lack of expandability" is in fact the key feature of this machine.
WTF do I mean? A hard engineering look at higher end desktop systems for the past few years showed that the PCIe bus was becoming the bottleneck in performance for real time video and other rendering packages.
It is a classic sacrifice to committee meetings where what was supposed to go into the current PCIe standard was held back for margins of existing video cards and saturated supply lines. Apple saw this and walked away form the cattle and their commodity semiconductor spreadsheet jocks.
From taking this other road, we have a machine that is so high performance and cost effective, it makes mockery of so called "open systems" where a cheap third party accessory maker can bring down Amdahl's Triangle making the higher end parts look bad.
One more kick in the gut to the PCIe bus.
Question
for all of those screaming that they want to be able to upgrade their system. It is a fair point but let be describe a scenario first to set the stage for my question.
You buy a computer for say 2000. 2 years dow the line you swap out the CPU and RAM only finding out you need a new motherboard as well. Thankfully your old graphics is still PCI xpress 16x so your upgrade is about 1000. A further 2 years down the line you swap your HD to a faster SSD and replace the GPU. Another 1000. Giving your computer another 2 years. That is 4000 over 6 years. Let's for arguments sake say that you then repeat from start.
Apple's suggestion: Buy a computer now for 4000 that should last 6 years.
The real difference between these scenarios, or offerings if you so will is that in the first scenario you have an adequate, but not great system and it keeps being adequate. At no point in time will you have a great system.
In Apple's suggestion you will have a great system in the beginning, an adequate system half way down the line and a less than adequate at the end.
So, finally to my question, is it really such a big difference? Isn't the real win with upgradeability that you get to spread out your spending and never have to deal with the lows?
Consider that you can most likely reduce the 6 years in Apple's suggestion by selling your old system before buying a new one and still stay at the 4000 / 6 years, while upgrading by replacing your entire system every 5 or even every 4 years.
Thoughts?
for all of those screaming that they want to be able to upgrade their system. It is a fair point but let be describe a scenario first to set the stage for my question.
You buy a computer for say 2000. 2 years dow the line you swap out the CPU and RAM only finding out you need a new motherboard as well. Thankfully your old graphics is still PCI xpress 16x so your upgrade is about 1000. A further 2 years down the line you swap your HD to a faster SSD and replace the GPU. Another 1000. Giving your computer another 2 years. That is 4000 over 6 years. Let's for arguments sake say that you then repeat from start.
Apple's suggestion: Buy a computer now for 4000 that should last 6 years.
The real difference between these scenarios, or offerings if you so will is that in the first scenario you have an adequate, but not great system and it keeps being adequate. At no point in time will you have a great system.
In Apple's suggestion you will have a great system in the beginning, an adequate system half way down the line and a less than adequate at the end.
So, finally to my question, is it really such a big difference? Isn't the real win with upgradeability that you get to spread out your spending and never have to deal with the lows?
Consider that you can most likely reduce the 6 years in Apple's suggestion by selling your old system before buying a new one and still stay at the 4000 / 6 years, while upgrading by replacing your entire system every 5 or even every 4 years.
Thoughts?
lol, i feel bad (not really 
) for all you pro video editors out there that were on the fence about upgrading or not. I can see these reviews really making it almost a must buy when you do this professionally. It just sounds pretty fantastic, even though I admit this is coming from a person who hasn't edited a video beyond iMovie.
(No idea how the now-old Mac Pro performed compared to this - this is mostly meant to be a humorous post).
) for all you pro video editors out there that were on the fence about upgrading or not. I can see these reviews really making it almost a must buy when you do this professionally. It just sounds pretty fantastic, even though I admit this is coming from a person who hasn't edited a video beyond iMovie.(No idea how the now-old Mac Pro performed compared to this - this is mostly meant to be a humorous post).
Last edited:
That is not a troll but a damn good question. Of all the reviews read so far, there hasn't been a single one looking at Boot Camp and Parallels running on the Mac Pro. I'm sure the Parallels folks are working hard on a release for the Mac Pro due out before the end of the year.
As for myself, I'm holding back on picking one up to see if it is economic to replace both my Mac Mini and my custom build Windows box with a single Mac Pro running Boot Camp / Parallels with two monitors. Where the can mix between Mac and Windows desktops as my workload changes from day to day.
----------
You are assuming we all have an six year amortization on our equipment. I know professional VFX guys that expect to cover the cost of the new Mac Pro in less than a year based on increased deliverables of works for clients.
lol, i feel bad (not really
(No idea how the now-old Mac Pro performed compared to this - this is mostly meant to be a humorous post).
I only work with prores and 2.5K raw (BMCC), but I believe in order to actually work with 4k RED Raw footage in real time on the current Mac Pro's you basically need a Red Rocket PCIe card. And I believe they go for like $3k, used. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Are you a j**k or are you just being an a*****e because you have nothing better to do? You still use an abacus, correct.
Man I'd love to buy one of those to edit family videos on but I know that would be such a waste on powerful machine. I'd be embarrassed to use iMovie on it
I wonder if the 6 core model is even overkill for a professional photographer...
I'm over here wondering, is this overkill for a professi... err, amateur.. musician who loves his Logic Pro Studio? Probably...
This is always the content of the first post in these kinds of threads. Wonder why that is.
----------
Why is one of these not on my desk? Oh yeah, I'm broke.
I'm very well off. I don't really need it. But I ordered a fully loaded one.
It's become very clear that this forum has become absolutely useless for intelligent conversation and any kind of learning. Sadly, you and yours are becoming the standard for forums all over the internet. That's the real downside of the internet. Any fool can demonstrate that he's a fool and remain anonymous. Well done.
I also like that they say this... "The Mac Pro is a high-end professional product too far-reaching to fully test in an initial day or two." and then already have assigned a rating to it. LOL.
Ya.. you probably need a pretty nice GPU (7970) that does well with opneCL.. and an SSD giving you 900 MB/s.
yes, but only because I was addressing the guys that complain about the lack of upgradeability. I guess if you have a payback on this investment in less than a year, pay the 10k and be happy. It is my assumption that if you consider upgradeability such an issue, you expect to have your investment last much longer than that.
For best results in Parallels you should have an ultimate configuration: 64 GB RAM (32+32); 1TB SSD (512+512); 12 cores (6+6) and I am not sure how the graphic RAM on both cards will be distributed to each OS.
Why not running it in Bootcamp? Transition should be quick, because of SSD.
----------
After all, I am not sure if Autodesk will ever produce 3dsMax or Revit for OSX?
So do other PC manufactures. The motherboard on my old Dell had just about everything soldered onto it. No way you get that memory controller off to replace it.