> I know ATI has some great cards, but unfortunately, not for my needs.
> nVidia cards do CUDA acceleration which is supported by Adobe CS6
> in programs like Premier and After Effects, ATI does not so that won't work for me
No offense but "CUDA" acceleration isn't all that. It helps a bit, but most software developers have gotten away from CUDA, and use a more advanced cross platform GPGPU standard called "OpenCL".
Nobody really uses CUDA anymore (other than NVIDIA). That's nice that Adobe CS6 is supporting CUDA (for now), but OpenCL has become the replacement/standard for what was previously CUDA.
OpenCL allows you to offload work normally only destined for a CPU to the graphics cards GPU, and it allows for heavily parallelized computing (using multiple Radeon HD 7970 or HD 7990 graphics cards).
CUDA is proprietary (much like "PhysX") and although it was a good idea (ages ago), it's an old and outdated technology. OpenCL is far more advanced than CUDA. Bullet is a physics engine that is possibly almost as advanced (or possibly even more advanced) than PhysX.
So both CUDA and PhysX are nothing more than marketing gimmicks, and most software developers stay away from both CUDA and PhysX because they are proprietary technologys (and not open standards) and nobody really develops for them anymore.
Most software developers develop for OPEN STANDARDS such as OpenCL and Bullet Physics.
> (I looked at ATI first knowing Mac prefers them, but there is no info about ATI's latest
> and greatest cards working in Mac, bummer.)
Yes, I do agree that AMD/Radeon/Diamond really needs to step up to the plate, and I blame most of this on Apple for dragging their feet and not working on Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition drivers for OS X 10.8.x Mountain Lion.
It is a real shame, and it's typical of Apple.
> Sorry to hear you have had such a bad experience with Mac (Why do you have so many?
> Is it for your work?)
Yes, for work. Believe it or not, I do like OS X (as an operating system), and I believe it could be a great rival to Microsoft Windows (and possibly even Ubuntu Linux), since OS X is nothing more than FreeBSD (with an "Apple skin" on it). Sure, Apple tries to pretend that they created an operating system, but they didn't.
Apple doesn't create operating systems, nor does Apple create hardware. Apple just uses commercial off the shelf hardware, and just charges an arm and a leg for it.
I do wish that Apple would simply come out with a standardized EATX/ATX brushed aluminum Apple Mac Pro case, and then just use an EVGA SR-X motherboard and call it a 2012 Apple Mac Pro (instead of the silly nonsense that Apple does, of designing craptastic garbage, that is 2-4 years behind everyone else, and costs at least double or quadruple of what a standard COTS motherboard costs).
> Macs may not "technically" support cards that are "New"
So what's the point of owning a Mac? Just to use old and outdated hardware? If we're spending the money on a Mac, we expect to use new/modern hardware, not old and outdated craptastic garbage. No quad-CrossFire support? No quad-SLI support? Can't use four Radeon HD 7970's or four GTX 680's or four GTX 690's?
C'mon Apple, just build a decent machine.
>But I just put a GeForce GTX 570 in my 2009 Mac Pro, and it works great!
> This card was released late 2010 / early 2011.
Yep, and that's great that you can use a 1st or 2nd generation card, but when the 3rd and 4th generation cards have already been out for 3-5 years now, it's quite sad that you can't even use a modern gen card.
Yes, a 680/690 is a modern-day card. As is the Radeon HD 7970GHz Edition, and Radeon HD 7990.
It's quite sad that you don't have seven PCIe 3.0 slots in an Apple Mac Pro (or even ONE PCIe 3.0 slot in a Mac Pro) and it's quite sad that you can't install four Radeon HD 7970GHz Edition graphics cards (each take up two slots, but the slot 1 is a "double width" slot, so with a seven slot motherboard, you can easily run four graphics cards in CrossFire or SLI mode.
Yes, it's sad that Apple Mac Pro's don't support SLI or CrossFire mode. Which is another reason why Apple is extremely overpriced, and extremely poor performance (in relation to non-Apple computers).
If Apple was smart, they would simply just use an EVGA SR-X motherboard, and create a nice brushed aluminium "Mac Pro" case for it, and trick people into thinking that Apple actually "invented" something nice, and suddenly now people could actually have USB 3.0 ports, and have PCIe 3.0 slots, and actually get out of the "dark ages" and actually advance 2-5 years ahead. Instead of using USB 2.0, and PCIe 2.0 slots in a 2012 Mac Pro.
So yes, I'm quite upset that we spent well over $7,000+ for our 2012 Apple Mac Pro's (which are pieces of overpriced garbage) and I'm extremely upset that Apple can't even make a decent computer anymore.
Apple should just create a standard EATX/ATX brushed aluminum case, that will accept two standard ATX power supplies, and has hole drilled for additional fans/cooling, and holes for water cooling.
That way people can purchase an Apple Mac Pro, and actually upgrade/use it, and have a decent computer. Apple should focus it's time more on updating OS X to the latest hardware (instead of trying to design motherboards, which they completely suck at).
I've never seen a good Apple motherboard (since 2008). Look at an EVGA motherboard, and that is a good motherboard. With Apple's purchasing power, they could easily bring the prices down, and build a "killer" Apple Mac Pro (using an EVGA SR-X motherboard, 128GB of RAM, 3D 4K2K Blu-Ray burner, and Radeon HD 7970 3GB DDR5 graphics card, and SSD hard drive for under $1,800).
Instead, we're paying $7,000+ for a machine that is worth about $1,000 (if you factor in Apple's cost and their "purchasing power").
So it seems to just be about making huge record profits, and just delivering really crappy garbage hardware (at extremely high prices) and then not supporting the hardware.
So yes, you buy a 2012 Apple Mac Pro that has a 2-3 year old graphics card in it, and if you want to actually use a 2012 decent graphics card like the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition, you can't because Apple hasn't even written the drivers to support the hardware in their operating system.
(Which in my opinion, really *****... and it's another reason why it's almost better to just go with Linux, or possibly even use that new craptastic Windows 8 crap). As much as I hate Microsoft, and as much as I wish that Apple would just focus primarily on developing their operating system (and releasing it as a competitor to Windows 7/Windows 8), but it seems like that won't happen, and we'll all just have to sit and wait till maybe Google comes out with an "Android OS" (available for free download) that will be nothing more than Linux, but a nice shiny look/feel to it, and possibly faster than Windows 8, and whip the crap out of OS X, and then we'll finally have a decent operating system.
>And I could go up to the 6xx series or above (Just released) but the 570
> had the most CUDA cores which suits my needs.
Our office does a lot of 3D visualization (Military/Battlefield Visualization) so it's extremely high resolution satellite imagery, and it's overlaid onto DTED (data terrain elevation data) and it creates 3D high resolution (steroscopic) imagery that is used for doing "fly throughs".
Using a craptastic card like a 570 won't do much good, other than set the card on fire, and maybe create a some smoke or a small fire in our office, but it's garbage.
The machines that we use (custom built) are using quad-CrossFire Radeon 7970's or quad-CrossFire 7990's (which is 8 Radeon 7970's). Yes, with OpenCL it's some very serious computing power. (No offense, but CUDA *****...)
> "By the time Apple adds hardware drivers support, the hardware
> is already 3-7 years old, and is extremely old and outdated.
> (Very typical of Apple)."
> I don't really understand this sentence because Macs come with hardware
> support / new drivers out of the box... Please explain?
I'm talking new hardware, not 2-5 year old hardware, shoved into a computer, and called a "new computer". The 2012 Apple Mac Pro should have come with the 2012 Radeon HD 7970 as the DEFAULT standard graphics card. Not some craptastic piece of junk graphics card (from 2-5 years ago) that is getting WHIPPED by the embedded chipset on most new generation computers (from 2012 era).
If I want to do 16K16k resolution (multi-monitor) how do u suggest I do that with an Apple Mac Pro? An Apple Mac Pro can't even do 4K2K resolution (at a resonable frame rate).
With four Radeon HD 7970's (in quad Cross-Fire mode), yes we are able to do some serious computing. It makes for a decent workstation, but unfortunately Apple is so far behind in developing products, that they are at least 3-5 years behind, and the 2012 Apple Mac Pro is not much different than the 2008 Apple Mac Pro.
Other than updating the processors to Nehalem, that's about it, and changing the memory from DDR2 to DDR3, but that's about it.
Which is complete crap, since so much has changed over the past 4+ years, and I'm blown away that the 2012 Apple Mac Pro doesn't support PCIe 3.0, or USB 3.0, or Thunderbolt, or even have seven PCIe 3.0 slots (capable of QUAD SLI, and/or QUAD CrossFire).
Yes, people should be able to buy four GTX680's, or four GTX690's, or four Radeon HD 7970's or four Radeon HD 7990's and install them into an Apple Mac Pro and use the computer (if you're paying $7,000 for an Apple Mac Pro, it sure as heck better be able to support four Radeon Cross-Fire cards (Quad-CrossFire) and also support four NVIDIA SLI cards (Quad-SLI) so that users can choose between AMD/ATI Radeon or NVIDIA (whoever comes out with better/less expensive/higher performance graphics cards) so that you can run FOUR of them in series.
Yes, with OpenCL we are able to create programs that utilize the GPGPU's. Both Radeon and NVIDIA graphics cards support OpenCL (as does OS X). So it only makes sense when you write software to use/support OpenCL so that you can provide support to offload work normally destined for the CPU to the graphic card's GPUs'. With that many GPU cores (and four graphics cards in quad-crossfire mode) you can do some serious computing.
Which is great for 3D rendering, battlefield visualization, movie animations, etc.
At the present time, Apple Mac Pro's are terrible and if you want any serious performance, you need to abandon Apple products and just go with a standard PC. Get an EVGA SR-X motherboard, toss it into a case, and just use COTS hardware (SSD drives, etc.) and then throw Windows 7 / Windows 8, or Ubuntu on it, and that's the only way you'll get a decent computer.
Apple Mac Pro's used to be a high performance (serious) workstation, but Apple has lost that vision.
It wouldn't be hard for Apple to just design a brushed aluminum "Apple Mac Pro" case (that will fit a standard EATX/ATX motherboard) and has all the additional holes pre-drilled for extra cooling fans, cooling radiators, and for hoses for liquid cooling). Just throw an EVGA SR-X motherboard into a nice new brushed Aluminum EATX/ATX "Apple Mac Pro" case and Apple could begin selling accessories (such as water cooling, radiators, etc.) as options, and for $7,000 I could have had a nice/serious computer with water cooling, and quad Radeon HD 7970's, and SSD drives, USB 3.0, and PCIe 3.0 slots.
Instead, I got a handful of 2012 Apple Mac Pro's which suck. USB 2.0? C'mon now. PCIe 2.0? C'mon now. No Thunderbolt? Seriously?
Nothing but garbage coming out of Apple right now, and it's sad that even if I buy the graphics cards (decent graphics cards), if I try to install them, I can't even use them in OS X 10.8.2 Mountain Lion, and I'm forced to just boot directly into Windows 8, or Linux.
Apple is just terrible at supporting hardware. It's not like it was a "big surprise" that the Radeon 7970 and Radeon 7990 graphics cards were coming out. Those cards should have been supported (by default) in OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion, and they also should have come as STANDARD graphics cards in the 2012 Apple Mac Pro.
If you're spending that much money on a computer, you sure in the heck better get a decent graphics card, and not some crap junk from 2-3 years ago (that Apple is charging twice as much or even the same price as a modern day Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition).
Apple products have just turned into overpriced garbage. Apple should have been embarrassed, and people should have been throwing eggs when Apple "unveiled" it's 2012 Apple Mac Pro (with USB 2.0, no Thunderbolt, no PCIe 3.0, and no support for 3rd or 4th generation graphics cards, and you have to use a 1st or 2nd generation computer from 2009 era in a new 2012 computer). Makes no sense at all.
Most laptops have more powerful GPU's in them, then what the 2012 Apple Mac Pro came with. Why spend that kind of money, on a crap computer?
> You mean to tell me out of the box all 24 of your Macs did was black screen on you
> and ROAR? I would have returned them.
Of course not. The Apple Mac Pro's simply came extremely overpriced, and were complete pieces of crap (out of the box). We had to gut them out, and replace all of the system components with decent components (SSD drives, top-of-the-line graphics cards, etc.) and we're still stuck with a crappy 2-3 year old motherboard, that doesn't even support PCIe 3.0, or USB 3.0, and doesn't even support Cross-Fire or SLI?
Sure, if you install a decent graphics card, of course the Apple Mac Pro will just make a lot of noise and give you a black screen. Your only option is to boot the machine directly into Windows, because Apple OS X doesn't support much of anything (other than old/garbage crappy outdated hardware).
So yes, we're stuck using most of our Apple Mac Pro's as super-expensive (over glorified) "Windows" machines. As sad as that sounds, it's true. We've had to use most of our machines as "windows" machines for 2-3 years, sometimes 3-4 years, before Apple finally came out with hardware drivers, to support the hardware (that we had been using for 3-4 years in Windows or Linux) and after 3-4 years, we could finally actually boot the machine up as an "OS X" machine, and it only took 4 or 5 generations of OS X upgrades, just to use the hardware that we had purchased 3-4 years ago (modern hardware) which by the time OS X supports it, is no longer "modern" anymore.
So no, Apple Mac Pro's are extremely screwed up machines, and the last good Apple Mac Pro was probably 2008 or 2009 era. Not much has changed since then, other than huge drastic price increases. It was nice that the 2010 supported Nehalem Xeon processors, but the prices are outrageous for what you are getting, and the 2012 Apple Mac Pro still doesn't even support USB 3.0, or PCIe 3.0, or Cross-Fire, or SLI, and doesn't even have 7 PCIe 3.0 slots (to support four graphics cards in Quad-CrossFire or Quad-SLI mode?) and doesn't even have decent cooling options (holes drilled to support radiator/fan/water cooling options).
Just use a simple EVGA SR-X motherboard, and use that as the default 2012 Apple Mac Pro motherboard, design a nice "Apple Mac Pro" brushed aluminum case (that will hold standard EATX/ATX motherboards), and use standard ATX power supplies (that can easily be swapped out, and upgraded), and make sure the case has room to support two power supplies (so that a second power supply could be added, if needed for additional graphics cards, etc.)
> If you have a bunch of 12 CORE machines sitting there,
> aren't they doing sumpthin'... anything?
What are you going to do with a 12-core Apple Mac Pro? Play solitaire? Surf the internet?
Realistically, name one thing you can do with an Apple Mac Pro? If we do CAD work, we're using Autodesk (so yes, we're booting directly into Windows 7 or Windows 8).
If we're doing CAM/CAD work then we are using SolidWorks 2012 or SolidWorks 2013 (and yes, we're again booting directly into Windows 7 or Windows 8).
If we're doing any form of rendering, or visual work, we're using CS6 Suite (or Blender) and yes we're booting directly into Windows 7 (or Windows 8) simply because the performance hit is so drastic (when using OS X) that we're dropping/losing a 20% to 35% performance hit when using OS X versus Windows.
Which makes no sense at all, but it's because OS X does such a crappy job of supporting hardware (such as the lack of support for modern hardware like the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition) and we're forced to use Windows 7 or Windows 8 (which has drivers, and OS X does not). It usually takes 2-4 years, before Apple finally comes out with drivers (and by that time the graphis cards are extremely old, outdated, and there are new graphics cards on the market, and we've already upgraded to something new and more modern, but it will always be at least 3-4 years where Apple is "behind" the market). So what's the point of even owning a Mac or even having OS X if it's not being updated properly, and we can't even use modern hardware?
If I want to run Windows 95 or Windows 98, I can do so on a 20 year old computer, I don't need to buy a 2012 Apple Mac Pro just to run old outdated legacy hardware.
If I buy and pay $7,000 for a new 2012 computer, I expect to be able to use the latest 2012 Graphics cards and yes, the Radeon HD 7970 has been out for almost a year now (developers have had the card for well over a year now). It's been on the market since January for consumers, and you're telling me in over a year that Apple couldn't take the time to developer graphics card drivers for the FOUR latest and most powerful graphics cards? (Radeon HD 7970, Radeon HD 7990, and NVIDIA GTX 680 and GTX 690?)
> I have a 2009 Mac Pro I got from work for free
Yep, you're exactly right. A two or three year old computer, for FREE. They're worthless.
If you got one for free, then I supposed it's not bad, but when you're paying $7,000 for a computer, you expect to be able to do something with it, other than surf the web, and type papers.
> (6 GB of 1033 to 16GB of 1166)
We're talking apples to oranges. Almost all of our desktops have at least 64GB (the older ones) and our newer ones have at least 128GB of RAM.
> So ya, now my computer is "Wicked' Faast Dood!"
Your idea of "wicked fast" and mine are completely different.
Try rendering or doing 3D fly-throughs (with stereoscopic satellite imagery). An Apple Mac Pro (under OS X) is completely useless, and even booted up under Windows 7 / Windows 8, it's barely usable and a simple EVGA SR-X motherboard, with four graphics cards in quad-SLI or quad-crossfire will whip the living **** out of any Apple Mac Pro (for about 1/4 of the the price).
So why am I getting 1/10 of the performance for 4 times the price? When I can get 1000% performance at 1/4 the price? It makes no sense at all.
$7,000 is a lot of money, and I can easily dump $2,000 into decent graphics cards (four Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition's) and get decent performance (and that is what I would call "wicked fast") but no, an Apple Mac Pro is "wicked slow".
It would take 2 months (with a Mac Pro) to render what I can render in under 7 days with an EVGA SR-X motherboard and four Radeon 7970's.
> you can do plenty with an old Mac Pro making it 90% as fast as a PC
Nope. It'll never be 90% as fast as a PC. Maybe a laptop, but not a power workstation. A PC power workstation, will whip the living **** out of any Apple Mac Pro. At least 10 or 12 times faster than any Mac Pro.
First off the hardware is not supported in OS X, so even if you put good hardware (other than a hard drive), but I'm talking primarily graphics cards, and GPGPU's, and OpenCL support.
If you're looking for highly parallelized computer, an Apple Mac Pro is complete garbage. If you're looking for 3D rendering, an Apple Mac Pro is garbage. If you are looking to do serious CAD work, then an Apple Mac Pro is garbage. Everything you want/need to do, you have to boot directly into Windows.
> and avoid running Windows, which IMHO still ***** (Accept for games).
I have to agree with you there. Windows blows. If Apple could pull their heads out of their rectum, and just start focusing more on OS X, and begin releasing OS X as a stand-alone operating system, I believe it would gain far more support, and could possibly put Windows under.
I personally hate Windows 8. I hate the way it looks, and would prefer to use OS X (if I could) but unfortunately OS X is not even usuable (for power users).
What do you think "games" are? That is 3D animation, rendering, and basic CAD. All of which are what we do, and yes it's impossible to do the majority of the stuff that we do under OS X, especially when the hardware that we need can't even work/run under OS X. You just get a nice black screen, and some fast roaring fans. That's about it (just as the other user had posted).
If we want to use the hardware, we have to boot directly into Windows. Which kinda makes the point of owning a Mac fairly useless.
I'm not a Windows fan (I hate Windows) and I'm not a Mac Fan Boy, but I just want a good computer, that is blazing fast, that is easily upgradeable, and that will take all the latest hardware, and can run both OS X and Windows, and will support FOUR graphics cards in either Quad-Cross-Fire or Quad-SLI mode. I want the choice of being able to use ATI/AMD/Radeon graphics cards, or NVIDIA graphics cards (based on whoever has the best card, with the highest performance and at the lowest price)
I expect Apple to support Radeon HD 7970 and HD 7990 graphics cards (out of the box). I'm amazed/shocked that a 2012 Apple Mac Pro won't even accept/use a Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition or Radeon HD 7970 or 7990 graphics card. (Let alone two or three of them in a Cross-fire mode).
Sure, back in 2008, the Apple Mac Pro was wonderful that it came with a Radeon HD 2600XT (and you could install three of them) and it was nice back then, but times have changed, and four years computing power has jumped drastically, and the video cards between 2008 and 2012 are not even in the same ballpark.
So yes, when you are using old graphics cards (old first and second generation) in new hardware (2012 computer) it's a joke, because the benchmark numbers make your computer look like an overpriced hunk of junk, and any Quad-SLI machine, or Quad-CrossFire machine will eat a Mac Pro up for lunch.
An EVGA SR-X motheboard with four GTX 680's or 690's will eat any Mac Pro up for lunch, and make the Mac Pro look like a child's toy.
If I'm paying $7,000 for a computer, I expect performance, not a child's toy... and the 2012 Apple Mac Pro is nothing more than an overpriced child's toy.
If we want performance, we're going to have to kick Apple to the curb, and go back to using Windblows. As much as I hate Windows 8, it looks like in 2013 we'll probably be migrating to all PC computers, and dumping all the Apple products in the toilet.
I think OS X is a great operating system (no better than Linux/Ubuntu) but it's just FreeBSD, and I do like it better than Windows 8. I even like Windows 7 better than Windows 8.
Unfortunately if we can't get decent hardware support, and can't even get a good "bleeding edge" blazing fast machine built by Apple, then we'll be forced to dump Apple, dump OS X, and start purchasing (or possibly even building) custom built PC's, with EVGA SR-X series motherboards (or whatever EVGA comes out with next) that have seven PCIe 3.0 (or seven PCIe 4.0 slots) with twelve DIMM slots of RAM, with USB 3.0, and a mainboard that supports at least FOUR dual-slot graphics cards in Quad-Cross-fire (or quad-SLI) mode.
Why a 2012 Apple Mac Pro wasn't designed to support quad-CrossFire and Quad-SLI is still beyond me.
If you want a serious computer (and not just a child's toy) then you need to build a PC, and I was really expecting more from Apple, and was hoping to see a decent 2012 Apple Mac Pro.
