Jump to content
62 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

COST ?

 

apple has a history of over charging for their higher end boxes

 

will it be 2x 3 x or 4x the price of a user built hack of the same power/speed

 

I would guess it would be somewhere around $10k mark, the PCIe SSD alone cost $2-3k for 2TB depending on the manufacturer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you probably meant was "a server OS would be better than a desktop OS", because as we all know OS X is a flavor of UNIX.

Actually, what I meant was "As for servers and VMs, other UNIX systems would be a much better solution".

 

OS X is UNIX and there's a server version too, but it's tied to Apple-labeled hardware (EULA).

For home and SOHO server needs, Mac Mini does the job. But if one requires a larger capacity server, my guess is one would opt for a rack-mount system for scalability, and since the Xserve line is discontinued there's no suitable Apple hardware (meaning no OS X) option for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know know the biggest issue that I have had with this machine - its powering the original DeathStar's tractor beam!!

 

macpro-deathstarpower.jpg

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So knowing the cost of the SSD PCIe one would have to guess this new Mac Pro to be well over 5K?   I'd be better off buying the current MacPro just before the new one arrives, if pricing drops even more for the 2x6 cores or will maybe even an option for a hackint0sh build with a single xeon processor 12 core equivalent with a non SSD harddrive for way less??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

It's here; or better, will be in next december.

 

The first wave of the new MacPro computers came sort of an underwhelming way: I think Apple decided not to scare people with the inevitable huge prices of such beasts (probably within a range that could be burdening even for high-end professionals) thus the base MacPro will not be as impressive as it could. By the way, i never heard about this FirePro Dx00 series - is it Volcanic Island based?

 

All the best!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S.: reading the customization options offered, i had to rectify what i said. Instead, even the base model can be upgraded to the fullest power - so you can have a quad core Xeon paired with a dual 6GB (!!!) FirePro D700 (of which, of course, i've never heard about, but sounds huge). Or the other way around: a beast of a 12-core CPU paired with measly 12GB of RAM and two FirePro D300 with 1GB each. Insightful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This might be of interest if it hasn't been posted already... Geekbench estimates based on current PC hardware for the new mac pro configurations.

 

http://www.macrumors.com/2013/11/06/a-closer-look-at-processor-options-and-performance-for-apples-new-mac-pro/

 

My opinion: Considering these estimates are based of Geekbench 3, the scores seem kinda... low. The $4000 6-core model is pulling less than a lot of ~$2000-2500 hacks already do. What they lack in CPU they might make up for with GPU... but even still. The baseline 4-core model's performance actually looks similar to a current fully specked iMac with less storage and more GPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

All proprietary parts so no off-the-shelf upgrades or repairs except for the RAM and CPUs.  Apple has a very bad habit of making their video/gpu unupgradeable then, a few years later, orphans the Macs that use that video/gpu by not providing drivers.  The new Mac Pro has proprietary video cards which will be superseded by faster and more efficient video/gpu but the current Mac Pro will be stuck with what it has or, if Apple brings out an upgrade expect to pay a hefty premium for it compared to its off-the-shelf PC equivalent.  The proprietary parts will make it very expensive to fix too.  I would rather build an equivalent or better PC Hacintosh that can be upgraded and repaired more easily and at a lower cost.  If the fan goes in the Mac Pro, it's out of commission until Apple fixes it, you can't go out and buy a new fan but you can with a PC and a for a lot less money and it's a DIY repair. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not convinced. I can make a better efficient comparable PC at half the cost and plus AMD sucks, lol.

 

I doubt it. Prove your statement. But be aware that throwing an I7-anything in your cheaper-and-better-than-the-new-Mac-Pro automatically nullifies your clam: you have to show a Xeon-based workstation class Windows machine that costs less and delivers more.

 

Oh, and AMD rocks, specially on the GPU side. :)

 

All the best!

I would rather build an equivalent or better PC Hacintosh that can be upgraded and repaired more easily and at a lower cost. 

 

The challenge I made to Moolah also stands for you, if you dare: post you workstation-class hackintosh that's equivalent or better than the new Mac Pro at a lower cost, taking in notice that if you list consumer/enthusiast parts for this hypothetical build, you fail to prove your bold statement. I'm really curious about what parts would you suggest. Good luck!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theconnactic,

 

First, according to  the CPU Benchmarks at PassMark Software, the "workstation" Xeon E5-1620 v2 @ 3.7GHz in the Mac Pro is slower than the i7-377k, i7-4770, i7-3930k and it is more expensive except for the i7-3930k.

 

I'll post more later.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Grim, 'connahater' is on tirade and has a distaste for i7's, lol. Just b/c I'll use a i7 instead of Xeons doesn't nullify anything.

 

Conceding defeat already, Moolah? By the way I have an I7 myself, but not at expense of the grip on reality, hehehe.

 

 

Theconnactic,

 

First, according to  the CPU Benchmarks at PassMark Software, the "workstation" Xeon E5-1620 v2 @ 3.7GHz in the Mac Pro is slower than the i7-377k, i7-4770, i7-3930k and it is more expensive except for the i7-3930k.

 

I'll post more later.

 

So what? It's still a workstation-grade CPU, that happens to be slower than some hi-end consumer parts on a single synthetic benchmark. C'mon, Reaper! You'll have to do better to support your (in fact, Moolah's) statement.

 

I have to say what you're both implying - that expensive Xeons are the kool-aid every professional in the world is drinking, and consumer hardware could get the work done as well at the same level of performance, reliability etc. - is outright laughable,  and typical gamer's gibberish. No harm intended, truly. If your judgement/understanding of hardware performance comes from being a hardcore gamer (and i'm not asserting that, but rather speculating), you're simply not qualified for the current discussion.

 

I'm still waiting for comparable or better performance (that is, workstation-class parts) and lower cost with Windows PCs.

 

All the best!

Yeah, the high end i7's do bench higher than their Xeon counterparts. Xeon is only worth it if going 8 cores and above IMO.

 

Benchmark comparisons, out of context, simply don't apply here, Cat: it's just apples and oranges, no pun intended. Put your high-end i7 at 100% load continuously for some 6-7 hours and see how it fares, then you understand the need for workstation grade hardware. Gaming performance is not professional workflow performance, just like being a Counter-Strike champ doesn't qualify someone to US special forces.

 

All the best!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not being a gamer, my motivating factor to get such a CPU (i7-3930K) was for work - rendering jobs in 3ds Max. Rendering basically takes over a PC, using 100% of the CPU resources available until it completes. Admittedly it's been a while since I needed to do 7 hour render, mostly because of how fast the damn thing is, but also due to software and workflow advances made over the last 5 years or so. (I used to do 24-hour ones on my little old dual core AMD!) Performance is certainly not an issue with the i7. In essence my PC is a workstation/ gaming hybrid - but I always refer to it as a workstation because of what it's used for. Gamer ram and what are arguably a gamer CPU/ mobo, with a workstation graphics card a professional looking case. But even with a modest OC, the i7 is great. On air-cooling, when going at 100% for hours at a time, it's very stable.
 

Not saying i wouldn't love a 24-core dual Xeon setup! But for the 'I can't spend more than about $600 on a CPU' people, the i7 was the best choice because of the performance edge over the comparable Xeon - which costs exactly the same.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying i wouldn't love a 24-core dual Xeon setup! But for the 'I can't spend more than about $600 on a CPU' people, the i7 was the best choice because of the performance edge over the comparable Xeon - which costs exactly the same.

 

Well said, I think we can agree on this.

 

All the best!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...