Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Mac Pro

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 731 posts

Re: New Mac Pro

#191

Post by matthewmacleod »

rkho wrote: post #181
aczerepinski wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that it’s always been this way. I bought a G4 tower when I was in college and it sure as heck wasn’t $6,000 back then. This is the only traditional desktop computer that Apple sells, so it’s disappointing that everybody outside of movie studio employees has to fall back to an iMac or a Windows/Linux machine.

The new Mac Minis are really powerful. What doesn't it have that you're hoping for?

GPU for me. I’d snap one up if it had a GPU in line with that in the MacBook Pro. I don’t particularly want a large external GPU hooked up over Thunderbolt.

Re: New Mac Pro

#192

Post by ljw1001 »

duskwuff wrote: post #51
Shivetya wrote: post #23

I know being expandable is important here but I am stunned by the fact that an iMac Pro actually comes with better SSD and Video Card for less money and you get a screen to boot! 256g SSD is shameful, I don't care what they were thinking. No Nvidia support mentioned so I know a few that just wrote it off for that oversight alone. They will probably hold out just to be sure but that was the hope for them and others. W…

The first step up from 256GB is 2x512GB, and there's configurations up to 2x2TB. My guess is that the 256GB configuration is meant for users that work primarily with data that's kept on network storage.

that just shows that they put the tiny, essentially useless HD in to keep the base price artificially low.

Re: New Mac Pro

#193

Post by skunkworker »

I’m disappointed that the new 6k screen doesn’t support Rec.2020 color space.

I wish it would be more future proof, though it’s possible it does support this color space but doesn’t list it on the tech specs.

Re: New Mac Pro

#194

Post by wayoutthere »

llampx wrote: post #186
duskwuff wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first step up from 256GB is 2x512GB, and there's configurations up to 2x2TB. My guess is that the 256GB configuration is meant for users that work primarily with data that's kept on network storage.

There's no professional that would buy a machine with 256GB of storage. Let's call it what it is - a throwaway configuration meant to hit a price point.

You would if you had a storage appliance on a SAN, as the SAN is almost certainly faster than a single SSD.

This is an extremely common setup for video production, so it’s not out of the target market at all.

Re: New Mac Pro

#195

Post by vbezhenar »

mcphage wrote: post #97
vbezhenar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blizzard released a lot of games for macOS. Also I played Rimworld, Factorio recently and those games seems to have Mac version as well. I'm not very involved gamer, I just play sometimes and it seems that Mac supports almost all games I need.

> Blizzard released a lot of games for macOS. Also I played Rimworld, Factorio recently and those games seems to have Mac version as well. I don't think any of those games are GPU intensive. Blizzard seems to want their games to run on as many machines as possible, and Rimworld and Factorio are both 2D.

That depends on resolution. At ultra settings and 1920x1080 integrated GPU won't be able to run World of Warcraft, for example. Even Nvidia 1060 can't, and I think that it's pretty powerful GPU. And for 4K resolution probably something high-end is required.

Re: New Mac Pro

#196

Post by [deleted] »

mcphage wrote: post #70
Shivetya wrote: post #23

I know being expandable is important here but I am stunned by the fact that an iMac Pro actually comes with better SSD and Video Card for less money and you get a screen to boot! 256g SSD is shameful, I don't care what they were thinking. No Nvidia support mentioned so I know a few that just wrote it off for that oversight alone. They will probably hold out just to be sure but that was the hope for them and others. W…

> 580X is old, 2017 old Is it? This site claims it came out in March 2019 but I definitely can't keep the various graphics card lines separate in my head: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-pro-580x.c3398

[deleted]

Re: New Mac Pro

#197

Post by wayoutthere »

strmpnk wrote: post #183
threeseed wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that Apple can see AMD and Intel's future roadmaps. AMD definitely has a superior offering with Threadripper 3 but we haven't seen what Intel is going to offer in comparison. And switching CPU manufacturers is never trial.

I'm not sure why they'd consider Threadripper for the Mac Pro. This machine fits into Epic's target cases and could possibly live up to the asking price of the whole package at that point. Given how the rest of the mac ecosystem is going, I'd only expect the most stubborn of professional communities pick this up (film editing folks seems to still buy the Apple hype).

I’d consider this a “v1” Apple product. Everyone knows you wait for v2.

Re: New Mac Pro

#198

Post by altmind »

Shivetya wrote: post #23

I know being expandable is important here but I am stunned by the fact that an iMac Pro actually comes with better SSD and Video Card for less money and you get a screen to boot! 256g SSD is shameful, I don't care what they were thinking. No Nvidia support mentioned so I know a few that just wrote it off for that oversight alone. They will probably hold out just to be sure but that was the hope for them and others. W…

$5000 for imac pro(+applecare)? that is bonkers. $6000 is even more crazy. You can get more storage, better gpu, more options for network for much less. And you wont need to deal with apple geniuses to fix the issues.

Re: New Mac Pro

#199

Post by colechristensen »

threeseed wrote: post #180
colechristensen wrote: post #126

The copy about the lattice pattern front being inspired by nature for airflow and rigidity is pretty ridiculous. It looks cool to have little spheres cut in the inside of a metal block but that's it. If you were actually optimizing for airflow or density you would do something entirely different (or you would look at the effects the grill has on airflow and realize the effect is minimal regardless of what you do and…

Not sure what you are talking about. They actually were optimising for airflow. If you look at the picture you couldn't design to allow more air to come through whilst maintaining a rigid structure: https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/design/ As for dust/dirt you could just spray it with compressed air.

If your real goal was airflow with rigidity you could just leave the front completely open and be fine with rigidity or perhaps have a small number of bars crossing the front.

You also would not pick spherical cutouts. the bowl-shapes are going to add drag.

This is only being done to show off manufacturing sophistication, you can say you did something that looks cool without adding nonsense about performance.

Post reply on HN