Pumped for the new Mac Pro!! Heres my purchase!

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by top, Feb 5, 2012.

  1. top macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2011
    #1
    So I am waiting for the new mac pro to come about with thunderbolt! Hoping it will be happening soon currently running off of a 2.8ghz i7 27in iMac with 16gb of ram. I have a small media company and we currently have the budget to upgrade our post production setup. We will be using red cameras (4k resolution cameras) in the next 6 months so we need to prepare for it. We use mostly Adobe productions for video edition, 3d motion graphics, graphic design, and audio mastering. Tell what you guys think, what would you do different?

    $3500 Mac Pro (8 core pricing, hoping it will be 12 after refresh)
    2 - Thunderbolt Displays
    120 gb Solid state (Run operating system and applications only)
    16-32 gb Ram for mac pro
    R6 6TB Pegasus Thunderbolt Raid System (backs its self up using raid 5, 10)
    15" Macbook Pro (for on location shoots and additional computer for work)
    3TB Time Capsule (Back up Mac Pros drive and laptops)

    Im just so excited it can't come sooner!
     
  2. itsamacthing macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Location:
    Bangkok
    #2
    Good Luck with that... I don't see a new Mac Pro happening anytime soon. It's really pathetic how long this refresh is taking. And, it's pathetic that the Mac Pro is the last to get thunderbolt. The Mac Pro is really the red headed step child of the Apple Family now. I would think your money is better spent in BTO iMacs with Thunderbolt and 32GB of Ram via macsales.com
     
  3. Blue Sun macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #3
    Blame Intel, Apple can't make a (SB Xeon) CPU magically appear.
     
  4. Amethyst macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
  5. Neodym macrumors 68000

    Neodym

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2002
    #5
    Lame excuse! Apple could have done a lot - including using a multi-core i7 instead of a Xeon in a redesigned single-CPU MP. Though I'm aware that people on this forum don't like to hear that, so feel free to downrate me...
     
  6. JesterJJZ macrumors 68020

    JesterJJZ

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    #6
    I'm in the same boat. I got my Scarlet recently and working on my MP1.1 is like pulling teeth. I get 1/8th realtime but it's pretty tedious. Machine is definitely choking on it. Also getting a Pegasus, 12TB probably. My MBP actually handles RED footage better.
     
  7. jasonvp macrumors 6502a

    jasonvp

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #7
    But then it wouldn't be a Mac Pro. It would be a Mac SomethingElse(tm). Pros are workstation-class machines with workstation-class processors, like it or not. That decision was made quite a while ago, and it's unlikely they'll change it.

    jas
     
  8. blackhand1001 macrumors 68030

    blackhand1001

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    #8
    No it would still be a mac pro and it would be much faster than the current one if they had used sandy bridge in the current mac pro SP and not ancient nehalam. They also could upgrade gpu options and othet stuff like companies like dell do throughout the year. Theres no reason to be still using 5 series cards when ati has already released a 7 series.
     
  9. jasonvp macrumors 6502a

    jasonvp

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #9
    It may be faster at processes which aren't highly threaded, but that's not the point of the Mac Pro. That's perhaps the point of the iMac or Mac Mini. For work that can make use of all the cores (think: 24 virtual cores in a 2x6-core system), no modern i7 will touch it.

    Yet.

    Bitch, piss, and moan all you want about the video cards. Apple isn't going to release an updated product with JUST a video card change. That's not their style and it never has been.

    Like it or not, there's nothing yet available to make it worth Apple's time to release a new Pro. When the multi-processor SB Xeons appear, then we'll have something to talk about. Not til then.

    jas
     
  10. Neodym macrumors 68000

    Neodym

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2002
    #10
    Then why does Apple still offer single-CPU MP's with only 4 cores in a single CPU (entry and server model)? There is more to the MP than just the CPU (max. Ram, easy internal expansion, good cooling system etc.).

    Unfortunately not every application can make proper use of that many cores even by today. No one questions that for applications that scale perfectly with lots of cores the 12-core MP's are unbeatable. But one could already argue about the performance of an octocore Xeon @ 2.4GHz vs a 6-core i7 @ 3.2GHz.
     
  11. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #11
    Faster processing, but less PCI-E lanes, slower memory performance and no realistic upgrade options for CPU performance. Apple would have had to use a new board, new backplane, develop new graphics drivers, work out a solution for thunderbolt through discrete graphics card - which will likely be expensive. All for what? 30% margin on a few thousand $2500 units?
     
  12. xgman macrumors 601

    xgman

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #12
    generalized frustration and impatience is setting in hard . . . It will get worse if Apple drags their feet after Intel releases next month . . . Apple pulls so many tricks out of their hat for their newest i-devices. I wish they had something up their sleeve for the Pro line. It's getting kind of boring/lonely out here . . . .
     
  13. wrinkster22 macrumors 68030

    wrinkster22

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Location:
    Toronto
    #13
    OP: Congrats, waiting must be hard

    I thought I would just chime in....
    Does anyone else think it is sad that apple has not updated there flagship product for 2 years?
    Or get this: The Mac Mini at the Sherway Gardens store had MORE ram then the mac pro!

    I would love to know when apple updates the Pro because this is pathetic.

    I hate to hijack this thread, but is there a reason why one could not daisy chain like 10 mac minis and have a monster machine?
     
  14. xgman macrumors 601

    xgman

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #14
    As it has been stated a million times, it's Intel's schedule, not Apple that has caused this wait. I only hope there becomes a better way in the future to keep pace. Murphy's Law doesn't seem to apply to xeon. As far as daisy chaining Mac Minis, uhh, no thanks.
     
  15. blackhand1001 macrumors 68030

    blackhand1001

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    #15
    No realistic cpu upgrades? Ivy bridge will work on sandy bridge boards and if your compare a nehalem quad core to a sandy bridge quad core, the sandy bridge cpu does significicantly better and is on the newer 32nm process and not the aging 45nm process the quad nehalem's use. In a few months ivy bridge will be on a 22nm process. Also there is sandy bridge e for those who need more cores or pcie lanes, not that there are that many expansion cards for the mac pro anyway. I am not argueing switching for the 12 core and 8 core models, but it makes no sense to use nehalem on the 4 core and 6 core models especially since they are using old processes that are obsolete. This would also make the quad core system more affordable, as it stands now its a pretty bad deal for the performance you get. The graphics card is old and not thrilling for a 2500 dollar machine. You can get a good desktop with a 2600k for about 1000$ with a good graphics card. The problem is apple hasn't offer anything in this realm since the g4 days. Not everyone wants a full size tower or an all in one. Every form factor of desktop they sell adds unnecessary costs that most people don't need. Most people are perfectly happy buying a tower and plugging their own stuff in. Most people wouldn't even need a 2600k. Even the lower core i5 2100, 2200, 2300,2400, 2500k would be more than enough and run circles around the mini and iMac. They are neglecting a large part of the market that both consumers and more importantly enterprises demand. Large businesses buy mid sized towers because they are cheap, fast, upgradeable, and don't take up that much space. Maybe now that Jobs is gone someone in the company will decide to fill this huge gaping hole in their product line.
     
  16. derbothaus, Feb 6, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2012

    derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #16
    Not realistic to the business model Apple has been following thus far.
    6-core is still faster than i7-2600 in the tasks you'd buy a Mac Pro for. The 8-core is actually the slow dog. i5, i7 is consumer NOT Xeon. That was stated above. It would be out of character for Apple to start offering i5 and i7 in Mac Pro that is what the iMac is for. New Xeon's are not out yet. X79 is more pro class than Z68 thanks to the PCI lanes, quad channel memory, etc.
    All these arguments have been heard before and those users need to start thinking about a PC because that is the HW environment they desire.
    Apple users have been wanting a cheaper tower since 1,1 Mac Pro. It has obviously not happened. And you do know that the iMac's offer i5-2400s, i5-2500s, i5-2400 (proper), i7-2600 so running circles around themselves may be difficult. Apple really has never been a competitive GPU house. So if that is what you are after it will most likely never happen.
     
  17. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #17
    Really we're going to start the X mac argument AGAIN? :rolleyes:
     
  18. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #18
    Thunderbolt isn't really a hard requirement for a Mac Pro. The new Mac Pro may have it but it also may not. Mac Pro's have PCI-e slots so they do not need a socket to add basic functionaility they already have. Likewise, discrete graphics cards already had several display connectors on them before the arrival of TB. It doesn't add anything substantially new.


    Trying to put TB on the Mac Pro is like putting a round peg into a square hole ( historically, there has been no embedded graphics on the motherboard). Pounding a round peg into a square hole may mean price increase. The E5 2620 starts out at 6 cores so it should be 12.


    Still waiting on a rational reason to hook one TB docking station (cough, displays) to Mac Pro. Let alone two. There is a fixed length, non removable cord coming out of the display along with a useless power connector. These "tail wags dog" ( have to drive more TB displays sales with Mac Pro ) discussions are extremely puzzling.

    TB has a limit of 6 devices so soaking up 2 "device slots" on displays is rather curious when you easily don't have to.

    Hooking more than one display to a Mac Pro is far more cost effectively done using the current ports on a discrete GPU card. Those ports are extremely likely to still be there on a "TB" Mac Pro.

    Redundant data storage with RAID is only a short term back-up. It allows fast recovery (e.g., pop new drive in while in the field with system and recover to full resilance with zero down time. ). However, long term safety is not met through a single copy inside of a single system. Even more so if this TB system is suppose to perhaps occasionally travel with the MBP TB into the field from time to time. [ "have to have TB on Mac Pro (MP) because MBP and MP must use same drive in the field as used in-house. " ]
     
  19. minifridge1138 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    #19
    What makes you think the Mac Pro is Apple's Flagship?
    It may be the biggest, heaviest, and most expensive, but that doesn't make it their flagship.

    I love my Mac Pro, but that doesn't mean that Apple does. It doesn't mean that they don't.

    With the cash-cow that is iOS and the iSOMETHING, I can't blame them for neglecting the Pro (better than the Server they killed).

    Apple has been making the best computers possible for decades. They've only been the most profitable company on earth for a couple of years. Draw your own conclusions.


    ------------------------------------------

    For the original poster, that's a nice setup.
    I'd recommend getting the ram from a 3rd party. It's a lot cheaper that way.
    I'm not a fan of the Apple Displays SOLELY due to the glossy screen. They're lovely, but I have a lot of glare where I work. If that's not a problem, then go for them.

    I may sound crazy, but depending on how much data you have a 3TB time capsule may not be enough space for a Mac Pro and laptops. Depends on how much data you're working with.

    Good luck and enjoy the machine (whenever you purchase it).
     
  20. ashman70 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    #20
    I would say that once upon a time the Mac Pro was Apple's 'flag ship' computing product, but with recent advances in tech, the difference between the top of the line Mac Pro, in terms of raw processing, and the top of the line quad core i7 iMac, the difference is not as great as it used to be; In the old days Xeon's far outclassed their core duo and core 2 duo siblings. The explosion of iOS in the iPhone and iPad in recent years has pushed Apple from no longer being just a company that makes computers and an operating system, to a market leader in mobile devices. Has Apple neglected the Mac Pro? I would say so, but they sure have a good reason to be distracted; their cash cow, iOS and the devices on which it runs, are experiencing explosive market growth. Think about profit, they probably make far more profit off iTunes, the App store, iPhones and iPads then they ever did off the Mac Pro. Think of the volume, the numbers must be staggering in terms of how many iPhones and iPads they move per quarter. The Mac Pro is a high priced, high end computer that was made so well, many people are still using their three, four, five year old models. Sure we all want to see a new model on the market, but times have changed for Apple and so have priorities.
     
  21. Neodym macrumors 68000

    Neodym

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2002
    #21
    There have been significant changes at Apple with Steve Jobs passing away, so it can be expected that we will see changes in their product portfolio and market strategy as well. Therefore I would consider this discussion an absolutely valid one!

    Nothing would be out of character for Apple. When Steve took over again some 10-12 years ago, he implemented a culture of constantly questioning themselves.

    They introduced affordable consumer computers (iMac) when they were all about the professional users (IIfx, Quadra, Powermac etc.).

    They introduced consumer devices (iPod, iPhone, iPad) with a dedicated OS when they were all about "real" computers running OSX.

    They created a complete ecosphere for music purchases and even risked getting sued for breaching the old contract with Apple Records to never getting active in the music business.

    They even changed the company name to underline those changes!

    Now Tim Cook is at the helm and he has indicated (iirc) that he considers the enterprise market an interesting one. From his time way back at HP he probably is fully aware that the current Apple strategy poses some problems with enterprise customers. Those are "Pro" customers, however in a different way than some people here like to define the term "Pro".

    For one they are much more price sensitive than the average Apple customer, so while a Mac mini may not be sufficient in all cases, an all-in-one like the iMac may not always be desirable as well for various reasons. The only alternative left (MP) has much left to desire in terms of price/performance ratio in usage scenarios where it normally is pure overkill (funny that this is exactly the same problem that quite some "normal" customers have with Apple's current lineup).

    If Apple really wants to expand into the enterprise market, they may decide to do so solely based on iOS devices like the iPad. In that case the Mac Pro may continue to die a slow death.

    But I would assume that they'd rather question themselves again and eventually find they can cater both to "normal" customers and to enterprise-type "Pro" customers better by offering a slightly more diversified selection in their portfolio.

    The Mac Pro is in dire need of an interface for DAS that is significantly faster than the comparably slow (some would probably even say: pathetic!) FW800 and USB2.

    Thunderbolt seems to be a likely candidate, seeing it's speed, potential development and additional use scenarios compared to things like eSata or USB3, which Apple so far has refused to embrace.

    Question is whether Apple would see Thunderbolt being more of a replacement or rather a complement to USB3...
     
  22. highdefw macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    #22
    To handle that footage, you are going to need an internal RAID for scratch, either some fast hdds or (and much more recommended) ssds.
     
  23. akm3 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #23
    Apple updated it's flagship product last year, it was the iPhone 4S. Look at the revenue numbers there is no way the Mac Pro is a flagship product.
     
  24. Tadros86 macrumors 6502

    Tadros86

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #24
    Mac line

    I'd still really like to see a just plain "Mac" tower. Mac Mini, Mac, and Mac Pro, that way everyone has a tower. I would like the ability to switch cards out and do whatever I want with my computer, especially if I am paying so much for it. Right now I have a 17inch MBP, the most I can do to expand is wait for thunderbolt products, or use my express card slot ... :(
     
  25. Neodym macrumors 68000

    Neodym

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2002
    #25
    Maybe we have different understandings about what defines a "flagship product". To me this is not at all the product with the biggest revenue, but instead a product to show off technical competence and what is technically possible. More often than not a flagship product sells in rather low numbers and not seldom it even makes little to no profit directly.

    Instead it is meant to impress a potential customer, who likes what he sees and feels confident to put his money to that company, but in 85% of all cases then goes and buys the entry or standard bread-and-butter model.

    Still every well-known tech company has some flagship model - sometimes not even meant for sale, but solely to show off at shows and expositions...
     

Share This Page