Even when they're awake? I haven't had that problem. I have them set to sleep to improve lifespan, but once they're awake, I don't have problems. The problem is that when you do certain tasks, it has to access every volume for some reason and does not do that concurrently with other Finder tasks, so it hangs!
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.
Upcoming 12-Core Xeon CPU Destined for Apple's New Mac Pro Posts Impressive Benchmark Scores
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Even when they're awake? I haven't had that problem. I have them set to sleep to improve lifespan, but once they're awake, I don't have problems. The problem is that when you do certain tasks, it has to access every volume for some reason and does not do that concurrently with other Finder tasks, so it hangs!
I don't understand the issue.
Network HD -> Script -> Load Project AM -> Local HD
Work Work Work Work
Local HD -> Script -> Save Project PM -> Network HD
Rinse, Repeat
I believe you are right - when they are awake its OK - btw I am using WD external drives on FW - the number of times they spin up/down is crazy.
And yes, I did select always power on - somewhere in the settings (also disk-utility I think)
I think the point is that with OpenCL you can get your rendering/compiling/ect. performance from "graphics" card in a more 'bang for your buck/size/thermal/power package.
Anandtech posted a list a few days ago, about $3k a pop it seems.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7214/xeon-e52600-v2-price-list-server-ivy-bridgeep
There are apps available for that. They ensure your drives don't spin down. Google and give 'em a try I'd say.
It's a simple problem. For certain tasks, Finder requires all hard drives to be awake, including external ones. For example, say you right-click something and press "open with" (usually by accident). Finder goes and checks for applications that could open it, and that involves accessing data on an external hard drive. Finder wakes up that external hard drive from sleep. While the hard drive is waking up, which takes around 10 seconds in my case, Finder hangs because it does not do this concurrently. It's even worse when you have more than one external hard drive because it wakes them up one at a time, not at the same time.
As a result, my really fast machine is still a pain to use when I'm in that situation.
----------
Dood, only 2.7GHz, slower than the AMD Athlon 4GHz for $80! (just kidding)
Still, that is insane. Some people must be pleading for a budget i5/i7 Mac Pro. I'm the perfect case, and I ended up getting a used and old model Mac Pro because I want expandability. Basically, I would be a Windows user on a custom PC if I didn't hate Windows.
Now can we have one of these (or better yet two) in a case that can hold expansion cards, and up-gradable aftermarket GPUs instead of coming already fitted in the trashcan,.
Bring on the 4k thuderbolt display!
I hope they also release a consumer handheld 4k camera so people can shoot some home movies for it.
lol at everyone who would say it's pointless because movies and tv shows aren't 4k yet.
Doesn't Moore's law say that this new Mac Pro should be at least 2x as fast as the prior one, given that is coming up on 2 years old?
Moore's law say that the amount of transistors on a die double every 18 months.
I've had the 3930K featured in these benchmarks in my system since March 2012, over a year ago. And I'm not surprised to see it hold its own in Single Thread performance.
The nice thing about these LGA 2011 chips like the new one that will be used in the Mac Pro is I can drop that into my own system and get in on the 12 Core goodness without changing anything else.
Frankly I'm surprised Apple didn't release the Mac Pro last year using Sandy Bridge-E, there were 8 and 10 Core XEON chips they could have used available.
The nice thing about these LGA 2011 chips like the new one that will be used in the Mac Pro is I can drop that into my own system and get in on the 12 Core goodness without changing anything else.
Frankly I'm surprised Apple didn't release the Mac Pro last year using Sandy Bridge-E, there were 8 and 10 Core XEON chips they could have used available.
The big question for me is why doesn't iTunes take advantage of multiple cores better? Using them would make sense, or is this a design flaw in this new chip?
Interesting results. Sometimes more is just more...
Interesting results. Sometimes more is just more...
Which 12 core?
If you're talking about the Ivy Bridge-EP Xeon 2697 V2 it's priced at:
$2949.69
http://wccftech.com/intel-ivy-bridge-ep-impresses-xeon-2697-v2-benchmarks-prices-leaked/
Throw in an additional $3k in Dual GPGPUs and you've got yourself an $8k overall system.
If you're talking about the Ivy Bridge-EP Xeon 2697 V2 it's priced at:
$2949.69
http://wccftech.com/intel-ivy-bridge-ep-impresses-xeon-2697-v2-benchmarks-prices-leaked/
Throw in an additional $3k in Dual GPGPUs and you've got yourself an $8k overall system.
Depending on the price, I might as well stick with my Hackintosh.
Cant wait to see more new details on this new baby.
Cant wait to see more new details on this new baby.
Doubt it- Intel is currently asking in excess of $2900 for E5-2697v2 (and >$2600 for E5-2695v2) chips if you pre-order and Apple has to make a premium mark up on that...
Depends on what you're doing, MD sims will see far better than a 2x rise doubling the core count, and while most MD type apps are heavily reliant on GPUs these days you still need some raw CPU power behind the vector processing to do the rest of the grunt work.
(Now you could make the argument that most people doing that work are running the main sims on big clusters and only small tests on their workstations, which is true, but doesn't change the fact that the speed increase would be *more* than 2x)
Do external hard drives take longer to wake up than internal hard drives?
Or, are you OK with having a hard drive "always awake" but only when it's internal?
You NEVER have even 2x the performance with doubled cores.
In fact, per core you gain in best case about 95% speed.
As more cores you have you have more management.
Beides management overhead, you only have a specific memory bandwidth. As more cores you have, as longer each core has to wait to get the data.
That means in some situations it is even worse having more cores than less cores.