1 10 11 12 13 14 Previous Next 461 Replies Latest reply: Mar 31, 2014 3:40 PM by Marsdy Go to original post Branched to a new discussion.
  • 165. Re: The new Mac Pro
    Grant Bennet-Alder Level 8 Level 8 (49,250 points)

    The two-chip 2102 was running at 3.06GHz, and scored a top-line 8.5 percent slower.

    The alleged 2013 is running at 2.7GHz, a slower clock speed than the older one.

     

    I fail to see how these numbers make the case for the two-chip solution being superior.

  • 166. Re: The new Mac Pro
    MacMiniPro Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)

    Grant Bennet-Alder-

    The 8.5% difference was due to the 2013 model's faster RAM. If you follow the reference links I provided in my prior post and again here for you, you will see the CPU scores are actually higher in a majority of the tests. And those are only Apple's OEM offering, 3.33 and 3.46 GHz options are available as upgrades that surpass the 2.7Ghz model in every integer and floating point category.

  • 167. Re: The new Mac Pro
    Grant Bennet-Alder Level 8 Level 8 (49,250 points)

    The old one does not support faster RAM.

    If the newer one supports faster RAM, and tests faster overall because of that, then I will take the new one. It's faster.

     

    How is the new one somehow defective when it tests better at a slower clock speed?

  • 168. Re: The new Mac Pro
    salty777 Level 3 Level 3 (540 points)

    zachi wrote:

     

    yeahyeah...obviously most people here dont know a thing about high end workstations. amateurs fancying the new mac "pro" for extra $$ even if an imac would be absolutely sufficient for them. they will do some private work at home and feel very happy and so very pro with the ashtray.

     

    Wow, I can't believe some of the condescending posts on this thread from some of the "Pro" users.

     

    We don't all sub work for Pixar, you know, and not doing so doesn't mean we have stick with iMacs!

     

    Years ago I paid out the extra for a Pro 1.1, rather than the iMac, not because I was someone with ideas beyond my capability, but because I wanted the machine to last a long time. My thinking was that it would be cheaper to upgrade the guts of a Pro than buy a new iMac every X years to keep up with the latest computing developments.

     

    Unfortunately I didn't realise that the CPU can't be upgraded (ok, I've seen some threads saying it can, but it's a bit pointless as the rest of the architecture will slow it down) but I have upgraded ram, storage and even replaced the video card so that I could rum FCPX (well, the other one blew up anyway!!). I am still stuck with SL as it won't run ML……

     

    So, if I can afford it, I will be buying the new MacPro for the same reasons, even though my lack of pro status means I could make-do with an iMac. However, I have a feeling it will cost me too much!

     

    Finally, I don't so much see this move as Apple abandoning the Pro…. I see it more as Apple opening up cutting edge technology to the masses, like they did with DTP. FCPX is another good example, and look what a hammering that took from some quarters!

  • 169. Re: The new Mac Pro
    MacMiniPro Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)

    Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:

     

    then I will take the new one. It's faster.

    Only in RAM performance. The 09-12 model is capable of higher CPU, GPU and storage IO performance.

     

    How is the new one somehow defective when it tests better at a slower clock speed?

    It is limited by its lack of available CPU processing power considering a 3 year old model from the same company is more powerful. Not to mention lack of internal expansion, unable to secure external devices, lack of rack mounting possibility, etc etc.

  • 170. Re: The new Mac Pro
    MacMiniPro Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)

    salty777 wrote:

    So, if I can afford it, I will be buying the new MacPro for the same reasons, even though my lack of pro status means I could make-do with an iMac. However, I have a feeling it will cost me too much!

    I'm in the same boat. I bought a Mac Pro over an iMac for its reliability, expandability and upgradeability with the intention of it being a 5-10 year computer. The same will happen with the 2013 Mac Pro if Apple offers the 3.5GHz 6 core E5v2. Though like you, as long as it isn't a poor cost value.

    Otherwise I'll ride out the MacMiniPro phase along with my reliable 1,1 and hope Apple comes to their senses like they did with the Cube.

     

    At least the Cube used a standard form GPU card.

  • 171. Re: The new Mac Pro
    Ernie Stamper Level 8 Level 8 (37,475 points)

    I find no reason to jump to any conclusions, yet, and I look forward to new interface choices in the new Mac Pro.

     

    With say Aperture, my top of the line Retina Mac Book Pro can run circles around my 1st gen 8 Core (partly due to being able to run Mt. Lion vs only Lion on the MP).  With the super size RAW files from today's pro DSLR (mine from a Nikon D800) Aperture is a very intense run challenge to any Mac.  With the 1.7 TB library on a T-Bolt 4 TB drive it equals any internal interface in the MP.

     

    Same with running FCPX on the rMBP, again using a dedicated T-Bolt drive.  Equally, if not more responsive than FCP7 on my Mac Pro.  Furthermore, I am more productive with FCPX than FCP7, despite its naysayers.

     

    I do find it best for my workflow to print from a clone of my Aperture Library, mounted in my MP,  or when doing some special graphics edits on images in the Apertrure Library with Photoshop as the external Editor.

     

    Using my rMBP in conjunction with my MP is currently a pain to keep things synced.  I look forward to having the same interfaces on my laptop and primary desktop.

     

    Ernie

  • 172. Re: The new Mac Pro
    zachi Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    The two-chip 2102 was running at 3.06GHz, and scored a top-line 8.5 percent slower.

    The alleged 2013 is running at 2.7GHz, a slower clock speed than the older one.

     

    I fail to see how these numbers make the case for the two-chip solution being superior.

    grant,

    your bloody theory that single cpu systems are superior is only true for simple computer use. but there are pro users which use the full cpu power of a dual system. even an overhead makes a dual cpu system way faster than a single cpu system for them. till 2012 we had a choice to spend anoter $1000-$2000 to almost double the speed. apple has chosen to take away that choice and that a low to mid end workstation is enough for macos users.

     

    regarding your post above... maybe u shouldnt compare a 2010 system with a 2013 system? on windows side there will be dual systems with the same chips as the new mac "pro" has. they will blow away the new mac "pro" for certain applications

     

    if you personally or some users cant really use a dual system, it doesnt make theses systems obsolete. they were invented for a reason. whole industries do use these systems. just not on macs anymore sadly.

  • 173. Re: The new Mac Pro
    Grant Bennet-Alder Level 8 Level 8 (49,250 points)

    At least the Cube used a standard form GPU card.

    Well, it sort of did.

     

    You had to remove the backplate and use a different one to get the graphics card to fit in the enclosure and allow the cable to actually connect. And if you replaced the stock graphics card with a faster one, you often needed to install a large fan on the empty mounts at the bottom of the enclosure.

     

    --------

     

    2013 Mac Pro:

     

    Based on the fleeting glimpses in the animations of the new enclosure, it appears to me that the position of the heatsink mating surfaces and the heatsink-to-card hold-down screws have been standardized in the 2013 Mac Pro. If they can get away with a large heat transfer pad instead of full heatsink compound, that would make replacing that card or the CPU card an advanced amateur procedure, rather than certified technician work.

  • 174. Re: The new Mac Pro
    Grant Bennet-Alder Level 8 Level 8 (49,250 points)

    [dual-chip solutions] were invented for a reason

    Yes, they were. And the reason was that you could not get everything you wanted onto one chip and still cool it.

     

    Now that the feature size [size of transistors, logic gates, memory cells, and wires] on the chip has been shrunk, all 12 processors fit on ONE chip. The one-chip solution provides 12 processors with more processing power and less overhead from having to synchronize them. Far less overhead than 6 processors on each of two chips that have to be synchronized.

     

    The 12 processors on one-chip solution is faster, better and cheaper.

  • 175. Re: The new Mac Pro
    zachi Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    The 12 processors on one-chip solution is faster, better and cheaper.

     

    god, you really think apple invented something great and new.

     

    dream on. the world hasnt changed. dual cpu motherboards exist in 2014 too. the 12core chips are standard intel chips. so there will be dual 12core systems in the pc world. these systems will be freaking faster than the new "pro". till now mac pro systems were "almost" on par with pc systems. by the end of 2013 this is gone.

     

    the new mac pro is absolutely the same like if apple in 2006 instead of having released the mac pro line would have taken the lowest (single cpu) model, put it in a small box with some custom gfx card, and told us some marketing blabla how great it is. ... in truth a nice computer, but not a fast workstation.

  • 176. Re: The new Mac Pro
    The hatter Level 9 Level 9 (58,880 points)

    And some apps (video editing) actually do not scale 1:1 when you add a 2nd processor.

     

    Yes Intel has been working to improve QuickPath, snooping, prediction, and how best to increse memory bandwidth even as and until they get to DDR4. The L3 cache now comes in at much larger cost and capacty to feed each processor and core, with 20MB now.

     

    One guy on eVGA built his optimimum SR-2 (which is dual Xeon Skulltrail as was / is Mac Pro using Nehalem family of processors available in 2009-2010) and went for two single processor instead, was only getting about 70% added performance from the 2nd Xeon. Using Linux and Windows, not Mac which may have more challenges for handling multicore multiprocessor hardware.

     

    It may not be true for every environment and application, but then Intel has been working hard to address how to make their systems better... and Utah data center for govt and other large installations are funding and happy to see massive processors and cores, but there are more complexities and challenges - some of which go into it is only Mac Pro, and there only some users, using dual processor configurations and OS X may not be the best OS for that setup. Most of OS X runs on 2 and 4-core systems.

     

    The most popular configuration for the last 3 yrs I would say was 6-core 3.3GHz - not 8, not more cores at slower speeds.

     

    And 10.9 gave developers a chance to tune the kernel more to scale better and who knows, maybe CS and other apps will begin to use more cores better than they have and have a payoff for 3rd party developers that have lagged.

  • 177. Re: The new Mac Pro
    MacMiniPro Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)

    Ernie Stamper wrote:

    With say Aperture, my top of the line Retina Mac Book Pro can run circles around my 1st gen 8 Core

    ...

    With the 1.7 TB library on a T-Bolt 4 TB drive it equals any internal interface in the MP.

    You are comparing two completely different applications. Thunderbolt works great for laptops because it does exactly what you suggested, high capacity expansion.

    But a desktop shouldn't need that, they should have internal storage. You don't need TB for hard drive storage, even the old SATA-I interface in the old G5 models had overhead transfer rate room that hard drives can't fill. A USB3 4TB drive solution would be just as fast on your MBP.

     

    Grant Bennet-Alder- 

    You had to remove the backplate and use a different one to get the graphics card to fit in the enclosure and allow the cable to actually connect. And if you replaced the stock graphics card with a faster one, you often needed to install a large fan on the empty mounts at the bottom of the enclosure.

    Removing the plate is extremely easy. And you can thank Apple for giving you built-in provision for a fan! At least you didn't have people zip-tying a fan to the bottom or putting a fan on the table under it.

     

    A revision of the Cube would have made FAR more sense! It would have given 4 sides instead of 3, which would allow for two GPUs AND two CPUs with more interior volume for a larger "thermal core" to handle the added heat capacity.

     

    But, again, like they did with the PowerMacs, they should have made this "MacMiniPro" a brother to the Real Mac Pro. For people that don't need internal expansion but want the power or are happy using Thunderbolt expansion. But that would be the fabled xMac, and we all know nobody has been asking for that for the last 13 years.......

    Yes, they were. And the reason was that you could not get everything you wanted onto one chip and still cool it.

    But they still can't! If you look at the benchmark results and read all the related articles examining it, you can see performance trails off later in the testing. Due to TurboBoost being exhausted and the CPU later being clocked down for thermal management. 150 watts is a LOT of power to dissipate on one small die. A 16 core system made of dual 8-cores would be more stable and cool in long-term use.

     

    hatter-

    And some apps (video editing) actually do not scale 1:1 when you add a 2nd processor.

    So? A turbocharged inline-4 car engine has a greater power density and efficiency than a big V8, but a lot of people still want the raw power and torque of a V8. More Power = More Power. Even if there is some efficiency overhead, it is still more powerful.

     

    And 10.9 gave developers a chance to tune the kernel more to scale better and who knows, maybe CS and other apps will begin to use more cores better than they have and have a payoff for 3rd party developers that have lagged.

    How ironic, developers can FINALLY easily tune for multiple cores easily and Apple is artificially limiting the number of available cores to 12 instead of 24.

     

    Imagine how batspit insane Mac fanaitcs and professionals would be if Apple released a 24 core Mac Pro that could put out a geekbench score of 42,000?

    That would put Apple on the first page of their scoreboard and make it one of the fastest consumer desktops availabe in the world. Don't tell me Apple's PR couldn't make a field day of that!!!

  • 178. Re: The new Mac Pro
    Ziatron Level 4 Level 4 (3,265 points)

    That would put Apple on the first page of their scoreboard and make it one of the fastest consumer desktops availabe in the world. Don't tell me Apple's PR couldn't make a field day of that!!!

     

    Are you saying that in late 2013 Dell may say "Twice is fast as the fastest Mac"?

  • 179. Re: The new Mac Pro
    Ziatron Level 4 Level 4 (3,265 points)

    I'd take the 3.5GHz 6 core over the 2.7GHz 12 any day.

     

    Tell us why, please.

1 10 11 12 13 14 Previous Next