WWDC: 2013

Seems like a pretty interesting system under the hood. Lots of random crap being discussed now that I don't really care for, but efficiency wise it seems like a good system. Hope they drop the new Mac Pro soon
 
Mac Pro

f1370887127.jpg


11:02 am Is only 1/8th the volume of the old generation Mac Pro.

11:02 am Mac unlike any we've ever made. Delivers so much more performance and capabilities.

11:01 am Final Cut Pro X will support performance and graphics capabilities of the new machine.

11:01 am Supports 4K displays. Multiple streams. 3 4K displays on built-in dual workstation graphics.

11:01 am 7 teraflops over OpenCL.

11:01 am 528GBps total bandwidth.

11:01 am Graphics: First Mac ever to include dual workstation GPUs. AMD FirePro Graphics.

11:00 am All expansion is external. Uses Thunderbolt 2, 20Gbps throughput, 6 devices per port, backwards compatible. 2x of industry leading Thunderbolt 1.

11:00 am Flash internal storage. New Flash PCIe-based. 1.25GBps read, 1.0GBps write. 10x faster than any hard drive put in a Mac Pro.

10:59 am Double the CPU performance of the previous generation. 1766MHz DDR3, 60GBps bandwidth memory.

10:59 am Processor, graphics and memory are inside. New generation Intel Xeon.

10:59 am This is a machine unlike anything we've ever made both inside and out.
 
Epic stats - > cost $6k -> same windows desktop would be 1/2 the price. suck it apple
 
-> don't have to spend half your time tinkering with a shitty Windows OS to make it functional

but seriously fuck Apple
 
But does your computer do 40 gb/s data transfer? Nope.

New mac pro is beast, now to go sell some more bikes so i can buy one (;
 
Who the fuck ever needs to move data at 40gb/s and what hard drive do you think would ever have a write speed that fast? Im pretty happy with 6gbps usb 3 and thunderbolt (which you can get on windows now) is 10gb/s. the 40gb/s transfer is a number to make nerds get wet, in practice is absolutely worthless. This new mac pro is gonna push $6k no doubt, why would i pay 4500 more for a computer that transfers data faster?
 
This is what I'm debating right now. On the one hand: fuck Apple, but I really don't want to switch operating systems...
 
Do you really think it uses a fucking hard drive? Get your head out of your ass, it's using a next generation PCI-E based flash memory that is 10x faster then a 7200 rpm hard drive. 6 thunderbolt ports, 4 usb 3, support for 4k video, very compact compared to a huge pc tower, new cooling design, etc.
 
Which all costs how fucking much?

I dont care if prices eludes you but whatever that costs in real life, times it by 10 and you have an apple mac pro thats so fast for whatever reason.

I know its just like how the internet was 1mbps 7 years ago and everyone was like "why would you want it any faster? it works well now" and 50mbps is becoming the standard so ya, maybe in 10 years from now ill be buying a computer that does 7 teraflops.

But for now, with given tech and prices, im not spending $6k (probably more, 10k) on something that is insanely unnecessary at this time. Not sure how you're mind works, but i bought a fucked up good computer for 1/4 the price of a macpro with similar stats, i know you can at least appreciate that?
 
What does your computer have to do with anything?

This thread, and any Apple release discussion for that matter, is about new releases from Apple. No shit you can custom build a PC for a reasonable price with similar specs and spend half your time maintaining it. Apple offers streamlined hardware/software out of the box for a premium price. Not everyone (in fact the majority of the target demographic for this computer) is making pennies doing sports videography (sorry if that sounds harsh; it includes me too), so spending $8k or whatever for a computer with top specs that is ready to go out of the box with relatively little maintenance is not remotely farfetched.

I'm not defending Apple, I am just saying that these "build a PC for cheaper" retorts are completely irrelevant because you fail to see the larger economic picture.
 
I was using my computer as a comparison. Why would anyone NEED 40gb/s transfer? 7 teraflops? whats the fucking point?

It seems the older I get the more sour about apple products I become. As I've said, I own a MBP and love it and would probably never buy a windows laptop because theyre fucking garbage. But when it comes to desktops, the mac pro is the most over rated and over prices computer. These new stats theyre coming out with are so fucking pointless in real life and anyone who busy this computer is a rich asshat or some big company with a fat budget to spend on shiny computers. Any sensible person wouldnt buy a mac pro when you can build a computer for 1/4 the price that performs the same if not better.

Mac OSX isn't exactly anything to write home about either.
 
im assuming they have these insane specs because they probably wont majorly update the mac pro for a while like they did with the previous mac pro, nontheless, ill probably get this as i plan to major in computer and software engineering and i can prob get it at a good price rather than paying full price on the launch week
 
You just answered your own question. I thought this was obvious...

And yeah, OSX has its fair share of problems. But to me Windows is in a whole other league in shittyness.

Not that I care either way. As I'm sure you know, I couldn't care less about keeping up with technology. I think spending that much on a computer is stupid unless you are of the aformentioned demographic; but who am I to judge?
 
you should start using a typewriter to write everything and just mail me responses haha

but really, windows 7 is a very solid OS, i dont mind it at all it works just as well as my osx ML
 
Uses for a fucked up fast computer, because nobody will mention them:

1) Animation - This computer is going to fucking slay, end of discussion. What it says it has will be a dream come true to anyone doing work in that field

2) 4k Video - It may not be a "standard" yet, and it may not pertain to you specifically, but there are a LOT of people using 4k res video out there.

3) RAW Video - It's a hugely popular thing now but requires a boatload of power. My computer can barely play back RAW CinemaDNG files at full res, and I have a decent spec'd machine. Add this to 4K resolution and you need a shit ton of machine to handle it without flinching. People want it, people will buy it, people wont care what it costs to give them it. Plain and simple

I just listed the three biggest ones that most of you would appreciate, and that will probably be the big industries this computer is targeted towards. Servers, Rendering of any kind, Audio production, etc will all have a use for a beast this powerful as well. There is a need, and people will pay a premium for it.
 
Most of those things will be covered under the "rich asshat or companies with big budgets" category for sure. I suppose i just dont see the point getting so stoked about something ill never actually own myself for any fucking reason haha
 
The Mac Pro wasn't over-priced it was over-specced and never really intended for the home users when it was still regularly updated.

Not that anecdotal evidence says much but I've worked as a freelancer a couple of times with a big marketing firm. The only department with Apple's was the graphics department and the IT guys loved the Mac Pro's because according to them they never broke down in comparison to the other workstations.

And downtime because a computer wasn't working could mean a considerable sum of money for a company. Again it is anecdotal evidence, ahwell.

Also back in 08 it wasn't actually that expensive for a dual socket workstation comparably priced to dell and HP offerings.

The single core was overpriced do, probably because Apple didn't want it too compete with the iMac.
 
You bring up a good point. People are too focused on whether or not Apple's professional workstations are sensible when really Apple's tendency to cannibalize it's own computer market plays a huge role.

Make powerful workstation -> make consumer unibody that is 80% as fast -> "workstation is pointless because specs are all that matter derp"
 
Guys I've been curious, I'll be lucky if a laptop lasts 4 years, usually craps out after 3(current one the touchpad broke, microphone broke, battery is dead, charger broke, and webcam broke, but I can make do, because it still works for most things.

I've heard that a lot of people say apple laptops are more expensive also because they're a lot more durable, is this the case? Either way I wouldn't be getting one, I couldn't justify it, but I'm just curious.
 
An apple laptop will last you 6+ years if you treat it well. The laptop i bought before college (sold after 3 years) i believe is still being used by the buyer, my laptop after that I sold to my buddy (its about 3 years old now) and it runs like a champ still and mine currently is about a year and a half old and it runs like new. They last a long time, they are build very well.
 
I have dropped my macbook on a concrete floor, stepped on it, spilt coffee on it, and its still running as well as when I got it, aside from the fact that my battery life is way less. And I got it in like 2008.
 
just read their iOS 7 press release

"iPhones are used to take more photos around the world every day than any other camera, and with iOS 7 the new Camera app features filters so you can add real-time photo effects. The Camera app now includes a square camera option, and you can quickly and easily switch between your four cameras—video, photo, square and panorama—with just a swipe."

 
Yeah I get that, I just break a lot of shit through wear, but not tear unfortunately.
 
Well on that note I never had a problem with any of my components... I wiped the hard drive a few times, set up boot camp partitions, did a lot of audio production stuff on it, and it was fine.

Also, you are about to hit 5k.
 
Well, when you say data transfer, you mean the point-to-point transfer of physical data, right? e.g. to a hard drive.

40gb/s is a purely theoretical - it's the maximum bit rate the bus can handle before it's saturated.

So while PCI-e 3.0 theoretically has a bandwidth of 40Gb/s, you're still limited by your I/O. Thunderbolt 2 may have two 20Gb/s channels, but it still runs on a x4 PCI-e 2.0 controller. So the maximum transfer rate you're going to see probably be around 1500MB/s.
 
There are some big issues I see with the new Mac Pro. Firstly why the hell has it got two fire pro cards. I'm presuming its so it can do 4k but 1 quadro k5000 card can do that. Other then the 4k there is currently no real use for 2 cards as no software other then games and a very few select real time render engines can use them. It was said above this thing would slay for animation but maya the industry leader in animation can not use 2 cards. It would be much better off with 1 quadro and if they really wanted too use 2 cards a quadro maximus setup. Now that really would have been something.

The next problem is its almost old before it comes out tech wise. It uses ECC DDR3 ram. DDR4 is just around te corner so why put DDR3 in it when they prob wont upgrade the thing for a further ten years. The fact it still uses ECC ram is buzzare too and is just another example of apple getting every penny out of you they can. EEC is great in a true server but for a workstation non EEC is much more cost efficient.

And why only a single processor. That was one thing the old Mac Pro had going for it that you could make a beast of a dual CPU setup. Sure 12 cores with 24 threads is good but why not wait for the e7 CPU which can have up to 30 threads on one CPU. I can almost guarantee you that for the cost apple will want you will be able to build A dual e5 windows setup for the same cost. So you get the choice of 24 threads or 48 I know what I would go for.

Overall I think it's a really bizarre release and not really that professional. Not compared to what real top end computers are now adays. I would not expect it to top out any benchmarks but I expect it to top out every price chart.
 
At work I'm using Windows 7, Windows 8, Mac OSX and Ubuntu all the time. Mac OSX and Ubuntu are solid OSes. Windows 8 is a joke it is ridiculous how bad it is. Windows 7 is borderline useable.

It is ridiculous how much time I waste with Windows because nothing works all the time.

However nothing prevents you from building your own kick ass hackintosh, or just biting the bullet on Ubuntu if you can tolerate open source solutions.

Then again if your time is worth > $200 an hour then the Mac Pro might be a cheaper alternative to you. Some people just want a ready made system and none of that Windows nonsense. And many design companies (art, architecture, graphic design, etc..) just need the image that a Mac Pro portrays to their customers.
 
^ what issues do you find with windows. I see the statement a lot but have never really suffered with it. I'm a 3d animator so all our front end work is done on windows and always has been in my industry. We use Linux for the work such as rendering an development, but all artist work is windows. I currently use windows 7 at home and work and have found no real issues what so ever.

And yes I have used macs but never really found any advantages for what I do, more often its an issue as plugins get developed for windows first so you end up waiting it having to develop your own if your on a mac.

Like I say that's my experience in animation, but I'm interested to know what industry's windows does not work so well for
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top