I was not discussing how many cores adobe could use effectively at once but that if you compare multiple cpu's vs a single cpu, both with the same number of total cores (say 2 4 core cpu's vs 1 8 core cpu), the single cpu will be faster.
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 MacPro already
- Thread starter rawdawg
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Professional post production software 'Scratch' licensed ProRes on Windows and is an official encoder.
http://www.assimilatesupport.com/akb/KnowledgebaseArticle50778.aspx
So maybe Da Vinci Resolve could support that someday as well.
http://www.assimilatesupport.com/akb/KnowledgebaseArticle50778.aspx
So maybe Da Vinci Resolve could support that someday as well.
Hmmm, I feel like the opposite is true. Take for example Ivy Bridge CPUs, which the 6,1 uses:
- The fastest 12-core CPU runs at 2.7GHz
- The fastest 6-core CPU runs at 3.7GHz
Also, two socket motherboards support many more RAM slots. So if you have very high RAM needs, the 2-CPU setup is potentially much faster from that aspect too.
Last edited:
Did you read the article I linked to on how Photoshop handles 2 CPU's? They ran the tests and indicated that Photoshop can be up to 30-50% slower with dual CPU's vs single CPU.
Well, they said majority of effects didn't show the performance drop. Their tests seemed to show that the drop was limited to 3 single effects in a single application. And two of the three performance drops were so small that a 37% faster clock rate in a dual CPU setup would still be faster anyway, even with the performance drop.
So a single effect in a single application being slower doesn't mean much compared to everything else being faster. Unless you spend an inordinate amount of time doing that one effect, I suppose.
So yes, dual CPUs can be slower, but the scenario seems extremely limited and I don't think it would outweigh the benefits unless your machine was dedicated to doing tilt shift blurs in Photoshop.
The obvious way around that would be to charge for an Apple OS that is to be used for a non Apple box. While Unix is free, there are versions that people pay for. Sell it for around the price of a MS retail Pro OS. IMO it would be good for Apple to keep some premier performance space. It would protect their legacy, and their reputation. There are two sides to doing so - one is avoiding damage to a "Pro" premier sector, the other is an ongoing benefit of still having a premier space. And if it was profitable, that would be a win win.
(sorry for the MS pun).
IMO too, the 6.1 could have been better but for the expensive add ons. While market theory said such 3rd party add-ons would become cheap, they have not been.
We've seen how Apple's interest in "pro" products waxes and wanes. RIP Aperture, etc.
One hope for a new Mac Pro is Apple's sudden public statements about "augmented reality." Now, that probably just means "yeah, please do go for it on the iPhone!" But if they are secretly working on VR (as they likely are), then supporting Mac Pros longer could make sense as a development platform.
One hope for a new Mac Pro is Apple's sudden public statements about "augmented reality." Now, that probably just means "yeah, please do go for it on the iPhone!" But if they are secretly working on VR (as they likely are), then supporting Mac Pros longer could make sense as a development platform.
I doubt it'll be anytime soon. The app store version is gutted in some ways compared to the dongle version. Resolve and similar render and post-production tools are favored to be run on Linux systems because of less overhead compared to OSX or Windows, plus it's easier to set up a chain of workstations to do the job faster.
I think Apple is seriously considering jumping to ARM. Then all they need to do is glue a keyboard to iPad Pro and call it an updated MacBook. We know Apple has gotten terribly lazy on the Mac side, has a predilection for glue, and their abandonment of professionals means a dead market for macOS developers.
The way the iPhone really flipped around the entire company must give them the sense that looking for the next disruptive avenue is going to pay off far better than continuing to invest in the PC, which will one of these days get replaced by tablets and cloud computing. We'll see if their car ever works out. But all that's a few years away, the terrible internet speeds in the states are definitely going to hold things back for a while cloud-wise and the PC will still be relevant for developing and maintaining apps that will be used in the future.
[doublepost=1476608303][/doublepost]
The problem for Apple is that most of their profits come from casual users and media pros, they don't have the enterprise stuff to fall back on that fuels Microsoft. So when everyone just pirates their OS, not much in it for them.
I didn't realize dongles were suppose to be awesome.
But also Apple's move away from the pro market isn't something that just makes sense the way not updating the iPod might. There is still a market there to be served. Their decision not to serve it is burning bridges and creating a lot of resentment and the question is what effect will that have on the status of the brand itself in the long term.
Last edited:
I think it’s down to how much wattage is sucked from the PSU. The single 6 core runs faster as it uses less power. I can certainly see that 2 x 6 x 3.7 is better performance wise than 1 x 12 x 2.7, but it might be that there isn't enough of an envelope available in the one chassis in the case of the nMP at least?
The Linux version, a name I can't recall at the mo', is fine. Though I believe companies like Autodesk have their own networked render software for Linux or whatever. Don't quite me on that though. To get around MBP and I suppose Mac Pro issues, some opt for an expansion case. It's a band aid solution.
No... A dual or even quad processor board, such as those from Super-Micro, are capable of handling full TDP for each chip, as each chip gets its own electrics units to support that power. All filters are equal but are also not equal; in other words, not one filter uses the processor the same as the next one, and some filters are severely dated in their implementation. With current six core Xeon tech compared to a 6800K Broadwell-E, you're not looking at a huge difference. Maybe 40 seconds to a minute in render time for video, less for photos. High speed single processor performance shines in certain areas, whereas low speed Xeons will shine in other areas. 4 or 6 core Xeons from 6 years ago may very well outperform today's Broadwell-E in 6 core config at heavy renders in 3D applications. Especially as the Xeon will likely be paired with a Quadro card capable of using CUDA.
A motherboard is designed to give equal power to components in their specified slots as chosen in the BIOS. If I want to add .3 volts to my processor, I can and it'll remain like that provided heat dissipates, and the rails from the PSU are capable of holding that increased power at a steady rate. In the generations prior to the trash can design, the PSUs in a Mac Pro were rated for around 1,000 watts usage.
Last edited:
I think we may be looking at it from two different perspectives. You are looking at it from a hardware perspective and I am looking at it from a software perspective. 8 cores wether in one CPU or 2 CPU's should work identically, however, the way that it works with Adobe's software appears to indicate an advantage for higher threaded operations to work better on a single CPU.
iOS on its own is not an ecosystem. Abandoning the computer market is the dumbest thing Apple has done. Gadgets will NEVER replace computers for productivity. Nobody really is asking for gimmicks either; just regularly updated hardware with less proprietary garbage.
I am not an expert of this, but our IT people who specializes in high-speed computing told me different stories. According to what I heard from the guy, it really depends on the nature of the computation. If frequent data exchange between the CPU and RAM is required, a two-CPU system can be faster than a one-CPU system (if the total numbers of cores and clock speed are all the same). This is because the two CPUs can share the load of accessing the RAM, since each of them have its own bus to the RAM.
On the other hand, if frequent exchange of data between the cores is required in the computing, a single CPU 8-core system can be faster than a two-CPU (still 8 cores in total) system. This is because the bus between two CPUs is always slower than that inside the CPU.
I hope I am not saying something crazy here.
I'm done waiting for a new Mac with multiple PCIe slots. Most likely it won't happen.
Picked up an Alienware Area 51 this past weekend. The migration to part-time Windows has begun.
It's a 62 pound computer with liquid cooling
Unigine Heaven 130FPS at 1920 x 1080 max settings
Picked up an Alienware Area 51 this past weekend. The migration to part-time Windows has begun.
It's a 62 pound computer with liquid cooling
Unigine Heaven 130FPS at 1920 x 1080 max settings
Last edited:
This is an excellent post. When it comes to operating at the very top of the performance scale there is no one size fits all solution. The fastest solution depends on the nature of the task and if someone is playing in this area then it is wise for them to benchmark their particular application(s) on a given configuration.
Maybe they don't have the cash or talent to pull it off...
The question I would ask (in seriousness) is how many people leaving the mac pro will ever touch another Apple product? Has the experience of waiting this long for an update turned everyone off from the brand for good or will you be back for the next iPhone (with its missing audio jack)?
Everyone is ditching the audio jack so why are we still talking about it?
When they did they were monsters, it was a disaster. I'm curious to see what people will say about the others.
When they did they were monsters, it was a disaster. I'm curious to see what people will say about the others.
Outside of a small subset of Apple customers I doubt many care about the Mac Pro. Therefore very few will stop buying other Apple products as a result.Maybe they don't have the cash or talent to pull it off...
The question I would ask (in seriousness) is how many people leaving the mac pro will ever touch another Apple product? Has the experience of waiting this long for an update turned everyone off from the brand for good or will you be back for the next iPhone (with its missing audio jack)?