Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Dec 2013 20:47 UTC

Apple today announced the all-new Mac Pro will be available to order starting Thursday, December 19. Redesigned from the inside out, the all-new Mac Pro features the latest Intel Xeon processors, dual workstation-class GPUs, PCIe-based flash storage and ultra-fast ECC memory.

This thing is so damn awesome. I don't need it, but I still want one.

Permalink for comment 579165
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Oooh look
by deathshadow on Fri 20th Dec 2013 05:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Oooh look"
Member since:

Really? Want to publish benchmark numbers on your system?

To compare to what exactly?!? That's the type of statement I'd expect from someone who knows nothing about hardware... though that's evident from:

The Mac Pro has 60GB/s memory bandwidth.

DDR3 1866 is DDR3 1866... and if you're "impressed" by that in 2013 you haven't been paying attention for half a decade.

Much less the 12 gig configuration is 3 sticks, so Dual Channel would be disabled... Yeah, have fun with that!

Lemme queue you in to my system specs:

i7 4770K -- I'd point out this is the fastest quad core Intel makes! (yes, that includes against quad Xeons)
ASRock Fatal1ty Z87 Motherboard (3x SLI capable)
16 gigs G'Skill Ares DDR3 2400
Gigabyte Windforce GTX 780 OC 3 gig
256 gig SandDisk Ultra Plus SSD
2x 4tb Seagate 7200RPM SATA III
Thermaltake TR2 950 Watt "gold" rated PSU
Phanteks PH-TC14PE CPU cooler

Not counting some of the older hardware I added to it (like the pair of 2tb Hibachi's, the EMU Morpheus, Audigy 2 ZS Platinum, and the GTS 250 used to drive my secondary displays, the blu-ray burner) that rig ran in the ballpark of $1800 by the time I was done with it... a little over half what that base model Mac Pro costs and it would run circles around it!

The CPU stats they are listing leave me scratching my head... Are they SURE they don't mean e3 Xeon? According to everything I've ever heard or been able to research (as supported by the ARK), Intel doesn't MAKE quad core E5's at 3.7 or hexacore at 3.5... Only thing that even comes close is the 2643 Sandy, which is an unreliable overpriced steaming pile. Of course I've always loved how Apple gets processors you can't get in the retail channel JUST to say "haha, you can't even compare to what you buy elsewhere".

Of course I've still been unable to get a clear answer on WHICH e5's they are... Sandy? Ivy? Haswell? The lack of actual model numbers does not build trust.

It's got up to 7 teraflops of GPU performance.

The d300 in the base model (which I was using to compare with my statement) is for all intents and purposes a 7850 -- a card that in SLI is outperformed in most tasks by my SINGLE GTX 780 OC or something like the AMD HD 7990. Why would you waste time putting two mid-range cards in a machine that are less powerful than a single better card?!? Sure, if you started out with the low end card and used it to expand later it makes sense... but in a base model configuration? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

Call me when I can plug a trio of Titans into it! Lord knows if I was gonna spend for what their allegedly 'pro' hardware costs I'd expect that at minimum!

The Mac Pro produces less that 20dBA noise under full load. How loud is your system?

Around that so long as the video card fans don't kick in... But I'm in a Thermaltake Element G case where the smallest fan is 140mm. That Phanteks cooler really impressed me on how quiet it is and how ridiculously cool it keeps that Haswell... to the tune of 30C at idle and 48C after running Prime95 for 30 minutes.

Numbers I very much doubt Apple's artsy form factor could match -- but then I remember Apple's track record with i7's relying almost entirely on thermal throttling to continue functioning in their designs; almost as bad as the old G3 iBooks that used an underclocked 500mhz rated CPU at 266, so they could use insulating foam instead of cooling -- resulting in burning a hole clear through the dialup adapters... Or the g4 cube that heated up enough for RAM to start falling off the video cards from the solder melting...

I would prefer noise with performance and reliability to artsy-fartsy form factor that likely limits such things.

It can support three 4K monitors at once. How many can your system support?

As is right now? Three. CAN it support? If I'm willing to populate the other two x16 slots I can go to nine.... no goofy new waste of technology ports needed.

The Thunderbolt 2 external interface will move data at 20Gb/s to an external device and you can daisy-chain up to 36 drives.

... and what would I run at that speed exactly? SATAIII exceeds even flash capacity by 30%. The only reason to have that much throughput is to, as you said, make a giant mess of daisy chained cables all over the blasted place.

And you have what that competes with that? USB 3.0 (LOL!)?

Well internally I've got two unused SATA ... there's the pair of eSATA on the back... not as fast overall but it doesn't have to because I'd be single connecting instead of daisy chaining (and dealing with contention issues just like SCSI used to and USB on hubs does).

I'd say that a terabyte SSD that runs at well over double the speed of SATA SSDs counts as mass storage.

Whereas I'm not DUMB ENOUGH to try and use a SSD as the only drive in a system. Hello BRICK! Lord knows the stack of dead ones I've pulled out of other people's machines speaks volumes to their 'reliability'!

... and this is 2013 not 2003. Which is the last time I had LESS than a TB of storage in my desktop.

Case in point, I'm using my SSD as a WORM for booting, and the pair of 4tb drives for things like browser cache, user data, and all the other stuff that's high write volume -- the PROPER way of using SSD's in a desktop.

Hell, my 3ds Max files ALONE exceed the storage capacity of the base model Mac Pro's SSD.

Of course,

How fast is your primary drive?

7200 RPM SATA III... if you mean storage. I'm BOOTING from a SSD just as fast as theirs, probably faster!

The Mac Pro isn't for people doing low-level, scut work like web development.

I think you failed to comprehend what I was saying. I've got a bit of a reputation for saying "The only thing about Dreamweaver that can be considered professional grade tools are the people promoting it's use" -- I was paraphrasing myself, using the same saying to describe Apple. I was NOT using web design as an example of the Mac's target audience. Hence the whole "usually I say this about Adobe products like Dreamweaver" -- Not to go medievil Samuel L. Jackson style, but Englisc, modor wyrter! Gedon eow cweþan hit!?!

If I was to talk about the target audience, I'd have mentioned something like Ikea or Saab. Effite elitist willing to throw money away over anything with their favorite pet company's logo on it.

AS evidenced by the $100 price difference to go from 12 gigs to 16... more than the cost of 16 gigs of DDR3 1866 these days... or the ridiculous 500 bucks for 4x8, which is real world around $300... or the grand for 4x16, which is typically $700 at retail. But as a friend of mine always said, with Apple buy the lowest base RAM you can and buy third party... throw away the cheap-ass drives and go third party... ignore the out of date video and go third party... at which point you're buying apple WHY exactly?!?

Much less the sleazeball practice of every config being fully populated -- while my machine has 2x8 and two open slots. Lands sakes if they're gonna have x8's and x16's available, shouldn't the 16 be 2x8 and the 32 be 2x16 so you don't have to throw away RAM when/if you want more? (and I'm still laughing at the dual channel disabling 3x4 config)

No, wait, that would mean people might be encouraged to work on them themselves and buy parts from someone else. Vendor lock-in, the pinnacle of sleazeball IT practices. Microshaft pulled these types of stunts and price gouging you'd hear it poo-poo'd from the rafters by people who LIKE their products.

OF course when you actually go to add more drives they sell you this ugly second box where they nail you $1500 to $4500 for $300 to $1000 in hard drives, a case that probably didn't cost more than $20 to manufacture and what's most likely a 200W or less PSU. OOH, I'm impressed - NOT!

Reply Parent Score: 4