New Mac Pro • Hacker News Board

Re: New Mac Pro

#451

Post by sgustard » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 11:29 PM UTC

jwr wrote: post #128

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…

For development, I'm actually perfectly fine with 256GB SSD. And I don't care about the video card much at all. Still, I don't see this as a developer machine — I think an iMac Pro is a much better value proposition for developers, and in my case, where I really mostly care about single-threaded performance for interactive development in Clojure and ClojureScript, I'm looking at the iMac.

What's the general split between laptops and desktops for developer use? Certainly I've migrated to 100% laptop which gets regularly used in a variety of locations.

Re: New Mac Pro

#452

Post by chaostheory » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 11:30 PM UTC

mjhagen wrote: post #360

pdpi wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Music, graphic design, video have been the core Apple "Pro" markets since forever. Developers focused on anything other than the Apple ecosystem are a relatively new addition to that lineup, and one that Apple hasn't _really_ ever catered to.

Federighi said on stage that developers are their biggest pro users group.

It feels like empty words similar to Steve Balmer's "Developers, Developers, Developers". Satya Nadella didn't have to say it. You could see it by what Microsoft was doing.

Re: New Mac Pro

#453

Post by liquidify » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 11:30 PM UTC

PascLeRasc wrote: post #50

vbezhenar wrote: post #2

That price is just absurd. I waited for Mac Pro announcement to decide whether I'll stay with Windows or jump to macOS. Macbooks are not for me, but I hoped for a remotely reasonable priced computer, something like $2000 with another $1000 to expand with more memory, etc. But $6000 for 8-core CPU, 256 GB SSD, GPU that is less powerful than my old $200 NVidia 1060? It's just laughable. Otherwise seems like a good mach…

The new Mac Pro, like Mac Pros always have been, is for music/TV studios and design agencies that bill their time starting at $500/hour. It's really not for individuals, and that's ok. Apple made a computer "just for the pros", like HN begs for in every butterfly keyboard thread. I'm thrilled about it even though I know I'll never touch one. It's for people who don't know what a CPU core is but know how to produce a…

This is not "just for the pros". It's just for an elite echelon of pro's that aren't the normal working professional. It is way overpriced for the spec. HN wasn't asking for that.

Re: New Mac Pro

#454

Post by chrisseaton » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 11:31 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #416

chrisseaton wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a product with a price tag and spec sheet anyone can find. Can't really see how they can be any more transparent.

It's not a transparency issue, this dark pattern exists everywhere. You advertise "New X starting at $x" which is low enough to attract customers. But the thing you sell for $x is actually lacking in some small but important capacity making it unattractive for actual use. Then you sell an upgrade for the target price and customers are more willing to pay because it feels like they're paying a small premium for the th…

Where do you think the 'switch' is in that? At what point do they switch something from what was previously offered to something not expected? I don't think there is any switch. The specs are presented as up-front as any hardware spec is.

Re: New Mac Pro

#455

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 11:33 PM UTC

Nexxxeh wrote: post #342

eropple wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not mad that it's 10GBASE-T, but I'd personally rather 10G over SFP+. The sorts of shops that can afford these probably already have some pretty burly networking infrastructure, and 10GBASE-T is both expensive and (IME) less reliable. The encoding/decoding capacity of Ethernet-over-twisted-pair seems to be reaching a point of sharply diminishing returns and the hardware for 10GBASE-T is really expensive for what'…

>but I'd personally rather 10G over SFP+. Is that the wrong way around? I'm struggling to parse otherwise.

Read as s/over/on/

Re: New Mac Pro

#456

Post by liquidify » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 11:34 PM UTC

kllrnohj wrote: post #346

internobody wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3D modelers want NVIDIA cards, not Radeon, as NVIDIA supports CUDA. This has been a longstanding issue with 3D folks; the old trashcan Mac Pro had NVIDIA GPUs even with otherwise-outdated internals. When rumblings came of new Mac Pros a few years ago there was excitement that they could get some fast machines again; alas this appears not to be the case.

Most major 3D modeling programs support OpenCL, as well, not just CUDA. In particularly any of them with MacOS ports are not CUDA-only (since, you know, MacOS hasn't supported CUDA-capable GPUs for many many years now), making the argument for CUDA specifically rather moot. In terms of just GPGPU performance Vega is pretty competitive against Nvidia. It's not nearly as one-sided as the gaming space is. That is, in fa…

The programming model for OpenCL is not near what CUDA is.

Re: New Mac Pro

#457

Post by chaostheory » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 11:35 PM UTC

snuxoll wrote: post #349

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you spec something with similar workstation grade hardware, you'll be in the same ballpark. Gaming PC hardware isn't comparable.

I assume this uses ECC DDR4 which would at a minimum explain some of the price tag. That will set you back $500+ retail for 32GB alone, still don’t understand where the rest is going with a 8-core CPU and a RX580X though.

Maybe the case makes up most of the price?

Re: New Mac Pro

#458

Post by beenBoutIT » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 11:35 PM UTC

chaostheory wrote: post #412

jrochkind1 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as I'm curious what prices really were. don't know exactly what Gr tower line you are talking about, but according to https://www.macstories.net/mac/the-power-mac-g4-line/ , the first reasonable powermac G4 was summer 2000, and > Prices ranged from $1,599 to $3,499, According to one online inflation calculator, $1599 in 2000 dollars is $2,372.95 in 2019 dollars. and $3499 is $5,192.58. So, I guess, yeah.I do rec…

Is the crazy price due mainly to the all aluminum enclosure? I don’t remember the cheese grater models being priced this high accounting for inflation. Accounting for inflation, the old 2012 cheese grater models started at $3150 in 2019 dollars. The older models were $1000 cheaper

Hopefully they've included built-in battery powered GPS because at those prices and with the handy carry handles these are going to be walking away from their owners in record numbers.

Re: New Mac Pro

#459

Post by jjtheblunt » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 11:36 PM UTC

teddyc wrote: post #439

You almost need a dedicated 15-amp circuit to run this or have 20-amp circuits so you have some overhead for the rest of your electronics (or a cubicle neighbor). The power supply draws 1280W. A 15-amp circuit provides 1800W, but you are really supposed to keep steady loads at no more than 80%, which is 1440W. I bet some circuit breakers are going to start tripping when these go live.

Doesn't the power supply draw that at max load, rather than consistently? (Honest question)

Re: New Mac Pro

#460

Post by philjohn » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 11:37 PM UTC

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #8

vbezhenar wrote: post #2

That price is just absurd. I waited for Mac Pro announcement to decide whether I'll stay with Windows or jump to macOS. Macbooks are not for me, but I hoped for a remotely reasonable priced computer, something like $2000 with another $1000 to expand with more memory, etc. But $6000 for 8-core CPU, 256 GB SSD, GPU that is less powerful than my old $200 NVidia 1060? It's just laughable. Otherwise seems like a good mach…

Same here, I'm looking to build a machine to process large data sets. So far nothing can beat Linux on an EPYC or ThreadRipper on price/performance. It would cost half as much for a 1TB NVMe SSD, RTX 2080, at least 16 cores, etc. The only reason I'm even waiting is because Zen 2 is right around the corner. The 256GB SSD is so confusing. The price difference between a 970 EVO 256GB and a 970 EVO 512GB for example is o…

The 256GB SSD is for people who just have the OS and apps on the drive, but the multi terabyte files they're manipulating (e.g. video editing) reside on NAS or LAS, hence 10Gbe and 40Gb TB3.