Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down

Author Topic: New Mac Pro?  (Read 3490 times)

D Fuller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
    • AirStream Pictures
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #100 on: June 10, 2019, 10:40:59 pm »

Can the video cards in the 2013 Mac Pro be upgraded to work with the new 6K Mac Pro Display XDR? I gather that the Mac Mini will not support a 6K display. Or, is the new Mac Pro the only Apple computer that will drive the new Mac Pro Display XDR?

The video cards in the 2013 Mac Pro can't be upgraded because there's nothing to upgrade them to. (Well, that's assuming you already have the Firepro D700s in the machine.) They can support several 4K displays at the cost of much of the available Thunderbolt 2 bandwidth, and they can support multi-cable displays like the HP Z27q 5K display. That might mean that an interface to the new 6K display is possible.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2019, 10:53:03 pm by D Fuller »
Logged
business website: www.airstream.pictures
blog: thirtynineframes.com/blog

Benny Profane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 212
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #101 on: June 11, 2019, 11:48:13 am »

Can I hook up my Eizo to an iMac Pro? I work with two monitors, and trust my Eizo more than anything Apple can produce. I'll use the iMac screen for tools.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2019, 11:55:34 am by Benny Profane »
Logged

Benny Profane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 212
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #102 on: June 11, 2019, 12:34:49 pm »

So, here's my question.

Well, first, my situation. I'm a semi retired retoucher/photographer, have been using Macs since they were affordable and powerful enough for companies to replace high end Scitex and Crosfield stations in the early nineties. Always had the luxury to work with the latest stuff that the lease terms or bean counters allowed, which is a lot, and never had to think about what to buy, they just plopped it on my desk one day and hooked it up. Cool, new Mac. When I left work, I thought I was going to have to buy a trashcan in '13 for about 6-7000, but was mercifully steered towards a modified 2010 tower from Other World Computing (3.46 6 core, 32 GB memory, 500 gig SSD) for much much less by a board member here (thank you, forgot your name), and have been happy since. I spent most of the budget on an EIZO CG277, which I thought, and still do, is a more important component. All flows to an Epson P800, which I could just kiss, it's so good and reliable. I only use this thing for Photoshop/Lightroom, and it works just fine, for me, although I just learned that I can't progress further than Sierra 10.12 and on to Mojave because of some sort of hardware glitch or something, tried everything, but, end of the line for OS progression in this thing, it seems. Still works great, I can do whatever I want to do, maybe a bit slow working with 1 gig plus files, but, what's the rush? But, I do know that, eventually, I will have to upgrade to keep up with the OS and Adobe train of "improvements". That's why I am thinking of a new computer.

So, can I just get by with an OWC trashcan and external storage array of some sort? This new cheese grater is way overkill, right? It's not as though Photoshop and Lightroom are becoming that much more complex - seems to me that they have hit a wall of sorts, which is fine by me. At least slowed down tremendously in requiring a lot of expensive hardware to run. I could care less about video, which seems to be the market for Mac Pros since the mid aughts. Haven't even played a video game since the original Atari. So, what I need is a solid computer that is maybe a bit quicker that what I have now, is affordable, and I can depend on for at least five years, maybe ten. As someone said earlier in this thread, this introduction may very well tank the value of the trashcan, so, hey, here I am with my card to take advantage.
Logged

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 815
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #103 on: June 11, 2019, 12:59:50 pm »

So, what I need is a solid computer that is maybe a bit quicker that what I have now, is affordable, and I can depend on for at least five years, maybe ten.

Mac mini.

6 core, i7, 512GB SSD, 32GB RAM (very cheap if you can face installing it yourself).
Logged

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 799
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #104 on: June 11, 2019, 04:35:16 pm »

So, can I just get by with an OWC trashcan and external storage array of some sort?  This new cheese grater is way overkill, right?

The new Mac Pro appears to be designed primarily for commercial video and compute-intensive scientific applications—and, of course, price-insensitive hardware aficionados who just have to have the most powerful machine they can get their hands on.

I'm currently using a 2013 Mac Pro (six-core 3.5GHz Intel E5, 64 GB memory, 2 TB SSD) as my primary platform for photography, and for running Lightroom and Photoshop its performance is excellent.  Some other apps that demand a lot of GPU compute cycles—e.g., Topaz Gigapixel—are quite sluggish, but I suspect you would need very beefy graphics hardware to appreciably speed them up.

What are your file storage requirements?  If 2TB is enough primary filestore, I'd skip the storage array, attach an inexpensive external drive with a spinning disc, and store an updated clone of the internal SSD on the external drive every night as a back-up.  (Or, better yet, add a second inexpensive external drive to provide either a redundant clone or a repository for Time Machine snapshots.)

Benny Profane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 212
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #105 on: June 11, 2019, 07:34:25 pm »

Yeah, storage is no whoop, it's so cheap these days, just hook up a few redundant 2T drives, or probably 6T drives, although it's a race to my grave to fill up 6T at this point, and clone them once a day. That's the easy part.

I think we have maxed out hardware for photography some time ago, unless one is creating incredibly large files from triple digit MP cameras, which I'm not, yet. I don't do billboards.
Logged

D Fuller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
    • AirStream Pictures
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #106 on: June 12, 2019, 03:18:35 pm »

The new Mac Pro, like all ultra-high end workstations, is a terrible deal in its base configuration, because so much of the base cost goes to support upgrades. The case and cooling system on that monster are probably $1000 on their own and the 1.4 KW power supply is at least another $500. A high-end Corsair 1.4 KW power supply for gaming systems is $500, and it wouldn't surprise me if Apple's using something a step above that. The motherboard has more expansion and features than a $1600 Asus Dominus Extreme that uses the same socket. There's half the cost of the base model with no CPU, GPU, RAM or SSD.

Every one of those "infrastructure" components is enormous overkill for the base 8-core system with 32 GB of RAM, one modest GPU and a 256 GB SSD. A $3000 iMac supports those specs just fine, and it comes with a nice display. What Apple's done with the base configuration is picked components that work for use cases that stress other parts of the system.

A high-end music production system might need a 28-core CPU and half a terabyte of RAM (the Mac Pro will swallow both easily), but the $200 GPU is just fine - it just needs to put the controls on the screen, and a Radeon 580X is fine for that even at high resolution.

Conversely, a 3D modeling system might do all the work on the GPUs - the CPU really just runs macOS and displays the interface. An 8-core CPU can handle that just fine, and twin Vega II Duo GPUs are what's doing the work.

There are even some applications that don't need much RAM (small, fast scientific or financial models that run largely in the processor cache). They want high-cache multicore processors and sometimes powerful GPUs as well, but not RAM - SSD requirements vary.

For Hollywood-level editing, a 28-core system with half a terabyte of RAM and quad GPUs makes sense - but the lead actors make more than the cost of a lead editor's workstation in a day of shooting.

The one configuration that doesn't make sense is the base configuration - it's a $6000 computer that performs like a $3000 computer, because it contains $3000 worth of "plumbing" to support upgrades. HP's Z8 comes in an even more absurd base configuration - they'll sell you a $3000 computer that performs like a $500 computer. It has a slow quad-core processor, 8 GB of RAM, some GPU even slower than Apple uses and a 1 TB hard drive. Any desktop Core i3 box is faster - but the Core i3 can't take all the upgrades.

This is about the best understanding of how a machine like this fits into its ecosystem that I've ever seen. Well thought out, Dan!
Logged
business website: www.airstream.pictures
blog: thirtynineframes.com/blog

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12352
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #107 on: June 13, 2019, 08:01:38 am »

This is about the best understanding of how a machine like this fits into its ecosystem that I've ever seen. Well thought out, Dan!

Indeed.

What this means is that the new Mac Pro basically doesn't make sense below 15,000~20,000 US$ configurations.

The same applies to highend workstations from HP, Dell, Lenovo, Titan,...

Cheers,
Bernard

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2153
    • Pieter Kers
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #108 on: June 13, 2019, 08:22:44 am »

I would like to see some realworld tests with photoshop, LR C1 etc between the maxed out iMac 2019 and the new Macpro say a with 14 core version with dual GPU and 192Gb Ram...
My guess is the macpro will be faster but only economical significant for very few people/companies that develop thousands of raw images a day. The 8 core imac 2019 is already very fast and can be upgraded with 128 GB RAM.

What is still missing in the current lineup is a kind of mac pro 2012 based on the hardware of the imac 2019. I dislike a glossy screen and 1600x 2560 pixels is my favourite for photo development.
(4K and larger for presenting photos)


Logged

D Fuller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
    • AirStream Pictures
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #109 on: June 13, 2019, 09:01:58 am »

Indeed.

What this means is that the new Mac Pro basically doesn't make sense below 15,000~20,000 US$ configurations.

The same applies to highend workstations from HP, Dell, Lenovo, Titan,...

Cheers,
Bernard

I suspect there will be a $10,000ish configuration that will make a lot of sense to a great many video editors, but we’ll have to wait and see how pricing shakes out.
Logged
business website: www.airstream.pictures
blog: thirtynineframes.com/blog

D Fuller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
    • AirStream Pictures
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #110 on: June 13, 2019, 09:22:50 am »

I would like to see some realworld tests with photoshop, LR C1 etc between the maxed out iMac 2019 and the new Macpro say a with 14 core version with dual GPU and 192Gb Ram...
My guess is the macpro will be faster but only economical significant for very few people/companies that develop thousands of raw images a day. The 8 core imac 2019 is already very fast and can be upgraded with 128 GB RAM.

What is still missing in the current lineup is a kind of mac pro 2012 based on the hardware of the imac 2019. I dislike a glossy screen and 1600x 2560 pixels is my favourite for photo development.
(4K and larger for presenting photos)

An update of the Trash Can Mac Pro would suit this beautifully. I think the 2013 model is a great fit for still photographers who don’t like Apple’s glossy monitors. The problem is that the iMacs are such a good value for that use that most are willing to accept the glossy screen.

I think there are very, very few still photographers for whom the new Mac Pro will make financial sense. In the video world, though, anyone shooting on Red or Arriraw or working in Resolve will see real productivity benefits from the right configuration of this machine.
Logged
business website: www.airstream.pictures
blog: thirtynineframes.com/blog

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2153
    • Pieter Kers
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #111 on: June 13, 2019, 09:50:35 am »

An update of the Trash Can Mac Pro would suit this beautifully. I think the 2013 model is a great fit for still photographers who don’t like Apple’s glossy monitors. The problem is that the iMacs are such a good value for that use that most are willing to accept the glossy screen....

There was a thermal problem with the Macpro 2013- Maybe for that reason the expendability stopped (for instance with new GPU's that needed even more cooling)
Also it has no Thunderbolt 3 but 2. IF i am correct you need TB3 for speed and the uses of an eGPU.

Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7697
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #112 on: June 13, 2019, 12:09:06 pm »

Can I hook up my Eizo to an iMac Pro? I work with two monitors, and trust my Eizo more than anything Apple can produce. I'll use the iMac screen for tools.

The iMac Pro can certainly drive at least one external monitor. I have a Dell - I forget the model number, but the resolution is 2560 x 1440. I use it as a second screen, though, as the iMac screen is pretty good.

Jeremy
Logged

Benny Profane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 212
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #113 on: June 13, 2019, 08:19:04 pm »

That cheesy 27 inch monitor is such a waste of desk real estate.
Logged

D Fuller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
    • AirStream Pictures
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #114 on: June 13, 2019, 09:54:26 pm »

There was a thermal problem with the Macpro 2013- Maybe for that reason the expendability stopped (for instance with new GPU's that needed even more cooling)
Also it has no Thunderbolt 3 but 2. IF i am correct you need TB3 for speed and the uses of an eGPU.

 Believe me, I know all that very well, that’s why I said “an update”.

The thermal problems are a real issue for video renders, but I’ve never run into that in any still photography work, even working on composite files well over a Gigabyte.
Logged
business website: www.airstream.pictures
blog: thirtynineframes.com/blog

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6397
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #115 on: June 14, 2019, 04:43:00 am »

The new, much improved Mac Mini can use an eGPU via TB3; how does that rate as a more affordable still photographer’s editing tool?
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2153
    • Pieter Kers
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #116 on: June 14, 2019, 07:49:36 am »

The new, much improved Mac Mini can use an eGPU via TB3; how does that rate as a more affordable still photographer’s editing tool?
I read on MPG site ( may 2019) that there are issues with adobes enhanced detail in combination with egpu and mojave...
Not sure if that is already old news...
https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2019/20190506_1240-eGPU-EnhanceDetails-update.html
Logged

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 935
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #117 on: June 14, 2019, 11:53:54 am »

The best photographers' machines almost always end up being iMacs and MBPs, because they are the only ways of getting reasonable CPUs along with a GPU without spending $10,000 for a reasonable configuration.

Apple does this on purpose - they love the iMac, so they make it hard to avoid. Some of their strategies are positive, such as extremely reasonable pricing - if you look at all you get with one (including the expensive monitor), it is a great value. Of course, if you don't want the monitor, much less so. They also use negative strategies - you can't get a Mini with a GPU because it would make it easier to avoid the iMac, or they make the Mac Pro extremely high end so it can't be used to avoid the iMac.

Apple's desktop strategy for 20 years since the very first iMac has been "the iMac is our desktop for most people, and we're going to structure our desktop line around it". Expandable machines have always been positioned well above any iMac, while Minis have always lacked features available on iMacs. As the iMac has gotten more powerful, the Mac Pro has retreated further into exotic realms. When the iMac used laptop chips, there were reasonably priced towers around - still above any iMac, but that wasn't as high a bar as it is when ordinary iMacs have Core i9-9900Ks and iMac Pros have 18-core Xeons.

The good news is that I suspect the iMac Pro is getting a new display - and we're probably going to like it. Although I don't have real evidence, I wouldn't be surprised to see the new XDR display (or a version of it with a somewhat less exotic backlight) show up on the next iMac Pro, and (in keeping with Apple's pricing strategy), it might not be fantastically expensive.

The $5000 XDR display probably carries a 50% margin - Apple will set margins that high on some limited-production hardware where they think they can get away with it. They need $500 or so for the case, power supply, Thunderbolt controller, etc., so they're likely to be spending $2000 or so on the panel itself.

They can actually get a $2000 panel into a $6000 iMac Pro - here's how... First of all, they'll take a low or zero margin on the display panel itself in an iMac when they want to make a splash. They did this with the first 27" iMac - panels like that were found only in $1500 monitors at the time, and they somehow managed to put one in a $1800 computer. They did it again with the 5K Retina iMac (the 4K 21.5" was less exotic) - the only 5K monitors available at the time were more expensive than the iMac... They make it up over time - their volume helps lower the cost of the panels, and they eventually become normal-margin items (even the 5K Retina display probably makes them a good margin by now), but they don't start out that way.

Assuming they'll take a zero on the $2000 panel, they then have $4000 for the rest of the computer. 40% of that is margin, so they can buy $2400 worth of parts at their wholesale pricing, which is enough for a very nice base configuration. In fact, they even have a bit more wiggle room than that. One of the disadvantages (to customers) of the iMac Pro is that you buy your RAM and storage from Apple at inflated prices.

Assuming the average iMac Pro has $1500 in RAM and storage upgrades at purchase, and that Apple averages a greedy 60% margin on those items, they grab $300 in "extra" margin on the upgrades, which they can apply to the base configuration while maintaining a 40% margin on everything except the display. They can now use $2700 in parts in addition to the display...

Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2153
    • Pieter Kers
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #118 on: June 19, 2019, 05:42:08 am »

I just read that the new macPro can store SATA harddisks.
Pegasus makes the internal housing.
https://www.promise.com/us/Promotion/PegasusStorage


Logged

Joe Towner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1049
Re: New Mac Pro?
« Reply #119 on: June 19, 2019, 11:52:56 am »

Why are people excited about the Promise 'adapters'?  Why would you put a bicycle tire on a Ferrari?!?

Putting spinning rust in the new Mac Pro is a waste of space & power. Plug it in via USB, or better, put a few in an external enclosure - it'll be cheaper & more efficient.  Yes, hard drives are large, cost effective storage, and things like data recovery can be done much more efficiently than on a SSD drive, but this machine is not designed for slow.

Want to design something useful - put 8-12 2.5" bays or 2280 slots that'll take SATA SSD's which are 20% the speed of the NVMe drives but scale much better (doesn't require PCIe lanes per drive).

NVMe SSD - 2,800MBps
SATA SSD - 560MBps
SATA HDD - 90MBps

HDD's speeds are for sequential reads/writes only - fragmentation all over the place throws these speeds in the toilet.  Hard drives are spinning platters of rust that just can't be fast - physics doesn't allow for it.  Yes, I do lots of NAS systems with HDDs but I usually also have SSD caching.  Also do a lot of backups to HDD's, but it's not my primary working medium.

-Joe
Logged
t: @PNWMF
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up