Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

New Mac Pro

Blair S. Paulsen said:
Get the D700 GPUs. Get at least 32GB of RAM. CPU cores and flash memory capacity are the place to save if budget is tight.

People in our line of work should avoid the D300s or the D500s. Period.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

I feel like I need to jump in defense of the other configs and say-- it really depends what you are aiming to do. If you want realtime playback of 5K material at 1/2 debayer, and 22-24fps transcoding at 1/2 debayer to 1080p for offline edit, the stock 6 core with D500 works great. I had to pick one up on short notice recently, and have to say I am really impressed with the performance. However, you can get 1/2 res playback on the top of the line iMac too. For what it's worth, I think the top iMac is probably a better value than the 4c MP, but only if you are looking at something at that level.
 
Alex Hirzel said:
I feel like I need to jump in defense of the other configs and say-- it really depends what you are aiming to do. If you want realtime playback of 5K material at 1/2 debayer, and 22-24fps transcoding at 1/2 debayer to 1080p for offline edit, the stock 6 core with D500 works great. I had to pick one up on short notice recently, and have to say I am really impressed with the performance. However, you can get 1/2 res playback on the top of the line iMac too. For what it's worth, I think the top iMac is probably a better value than the 4c MP, but only if you are looking at something at that level.
Click to expand...
I can imagine that the 6 core with the d500 is a sweet system....and available....to me it just makes sense to upgrade that machine with the d700 just for future proofing.....I almost just bought the stock 6 core but ended up finding an 8 core with the d700 which was more then I wanted to spend but since I am stuck with the GPU.....I am happy I am future proof ( for a little bit)....
I would get the iMac over the 4 core anytime....
 
If you know you're capable of doing a CPU swap down the road you can always BTO a 4 Core with D500's. I had one configured like that for a few weeks and didn't mind for lightweight work. HD was a breeze obviously. Here's a handful of machines I went through:

Stock 4 Core - get an iMac if $3K is stretching it for you. You'll better benefit from D500's. Even a 8/10/12 Core swap will be crippled by D300's. The stock 4 core worked great for me doing basic HD, photo work and day to day stuff with a nice TB raid attached and some monitors. If you do PS or web work and like having the option of 6 TB ports but don't want to burn more than $3K get this config. If you do RED stuff, then read ahead unless you have a Rocket. I cut for two weeks on a bone stock 4 core with a rocket no sweat. Not much Davinci work. All 4K and high comp 5K. 5KFF or any 7:1 and less should look for more cores and D500+

6 Core D500 - great for 4K stuff and can handle some 5K as well depending on your apps. A nice bump for $1000 and photo stuff is snappier. Good system for someone looking to settle around 6 cores but willing to upgrade ram and SSD from their D500 savings.

4 Core D700 - great for that CPU swap. I consider this the perfect "Mac Tower" comparison machine when considering price because you can Max it out with a 10 core for $7K or 12 core for $7500 and the apples to apples comparison of the old tower becomes easier vs apple pricing. I see a lot of people saying the "maxed out" trashcan is $9500+. That just isn't true. I've done it to two machines now.

6 Core D700 - I settled here because I like the clock speed for daily stuff and photo and I know a 6 core Xeon has more market value (CPU only) vs the 4 core for resale and the $1500 savings over the 8 core buys me a nice TB chassis, and raid card (or $ towards a raid at least). Look for used rockets to accelerate past 8/10/12 core transcode/playback speeds and know that should you need 6K playback you can swap to a 2690v2 for $1900 (only $400 more than the 8 core).

I think enough has been said about the 8 Core machines which are a great buy if it fits your applications and you don't want to track down upgrades.

I get my Echo III back from Sonnet on Tuesday and hope to do a comprehensive write up just how much value a TB2 rocket adds to the trashcan.

Edit: just want to clarify that these are observations and not exactly scientific. I don't have any hard numbers on these comparisons (yet) so just take that into consideration.
 
Another A/V DevBuild this week and AppleCare seeds are close behind to this one so it looks like a major update is right around the corner to coincide with WWDC and Computex, where 4K display demos are expected. No word on an Apple display but it's likely that might happen with the next DisplayPort revision to incorporate recent improvements like FreeSync, which would be in the next generation of DisplayPort monitors used for CAD/Video.
 
Apple keeps saying to focus on video drivers and related, but they keep making changes to sleep/wake and power nap functionality. This build as well as the prior build both do crazy things with my Pegasus2 RAIDs. They now intermittently wake from sleep for a minute or two and then go back to sleep. Just the RAID. 10.9.2 does this occasionally and often reports a crash on wake. They had this fixed with some of the 10.9.3 builds, but now it's back.

They keep removing and then adding back native 3840x2160 and 4096x2160 display resolutions. It seems in their mind they desperately want these to only be retina display driving resolutions and not full viewing resolutions. However anyone with a big screen 4K monitor, desktop monitor bigger than 30" and especially those of us driving a projector, want the native res support. Gets kinda frustrating. Although Apple has already had a history with this avoidance of native res support on the retina MBP. There one release, gone the next, then back again the next… Not a huge issue on MBPr, but this is different.

They have about a month to get this all ironed out, I think. I'm expecting release to come with WWDC or just before.

Also expecting a 4K+ monitor from Apple at WWDC. Or at least the announcement of one. You're probably right on the FreeSync. Thunderbolt displays are still using DisplayPort signaling and FreeSync should eliminate the current annoying split-screen issues. I'm also wondering if it would help in terms of bandwidth allocation instead of forcing split channels, might allow enough freedom over Thunderbolt 2 to send higher resolution display signals while still leaving enough open for a USB channel. Something the current crop of TB2 monitors from LG and AOC can't do.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Apple keeps saying to focus on video drivers and related, but they keep making changes to sleep/wake and power nap functionality. This build as well as the prior build both do crazy things with my Pegasus2 RAIDs. They now intermittently wake from sleep for a minute or two and then go back to sleep. Just the RAID. 10.9.2 does this occasionally and often reports a crash on wake. They had this fixed with some of the 10.9.3 builds, but now it's back.

They keep removing and then adding back native 3840x2160 and 4096x2160 display resolutions. It seems in their mind they desperately want these to only be retina display driving resolutions and not full viewing resolutions. However anyone with a big screen 4K monitor, desktop monitor bigger than 30" and especially those of us driving a projector, want the native res support. Gets kinda frustrating. Although Apple has already had a history with this avoidance of native res support on the retina MBP. There one release, gone the next, then back again the next… Not a huge issue on MBPr, but this is different.

They have about a month to get this all ironed out, I think. I'm expecting release to come with WWDC or just before.

Also expecting a 4K+ monitor from Apple at WWDC. Or at least the announcement of one. You're probably right on the FreeSync. Thunderbolt displays are still using DisplayPort signaling and FreeSync should eliminate the current annoying split-screen issues. I'm also wondering if it would help in terms of bandwidth allocation instead of forcing split channels, might allow enough freedom over Thunderbolt 2 to send higher resolution display signals while still leaving enough open for a USB channel. Something the current crop of TB2 monitors from LG and AOC can't do.
Click to expand...
this latest dev upgrade is actually the most stable one for me....ii and sleep/wake issues with most of the earlier ones, this one seems fine....no issues with my pegasus but i still have the TB1...

would love to see at least a 4k announcement, just to see what apple is going to come out with....size? i am assuming it will be TB2 with integrated power and USB hubs (like the thunderbolt display)....price and size will be interesting....my only worry is that everybody is talking about 10.10 and iOs 8....and not a sound about display or any other hardware....
i would actually like a 4K imac....run backup and such on the imac while using the display with the mac pro....
 
I'm right there with you, Paul. Would love to see 4K iMac. On a possibly related note, I caught wind of a 27" 4480x2520 panel the other day. It's either an AUO or Sharp or joint product… OTOH, it could be yet another prototype not destined for anywhere, or just a rumor that will vanish like a fart in the wind.

The problem with what everyone is talking about is 99% of people out there only care about new iToys and software updates so they can play the latest versions of their favorite Freemium apps. It's really a sad state of affairs. If at WWDC Apple announces a 4K+ retina cinema display and iMac, 2/3rds of the attending audience will cheer and all the various discussion forums around the globe will be full of, "Whatevs. just want my iOS 8…"

Now there's this whole hoopla over the possible Apple / Beats deal to further muddy the waters and detract from product news. At least the Apple vs. Samsung ordeal has come to a head. Sure Samsung is appealing, again, and this time their defense is "Google made us do it." Ugh...
 
WWDC has been primarily software or their phone market products. Last year being the big exception with the nMP.

But WWDC has almost always been headlined by software, and to expect otherwise would be a little silly.
 
Of course, but Apple has done more WWDC product announcements since they no longer attend MacWorld. For the past 5 years, with the withdrawal from MacWorld, Apple has a track record of introducing new hardware at WWDC. Of course, not all are major, pivotal products like the new Mac Pro. WWDC has seen the announcement of every new iPhone model since the 3GS. It's always been the place where they announce Pro systems and software -- the Mac Pro was announced at WWDC in 2006. The one big exception to this was the FCPX reveal, which was actually done at the FCPUG SuperMeet in Vegas during NAB. But WWDC brought us the announcements of the Macbook Pro 13 in '09, the Macbook Pro Retina in 2012, new Mac Pro in 2013. WWDC always focuses on the developer community. It does have the outward appearance of being primarily software-oriented, but hardware has increased in presence as Apple has introduced the MFI program and has catered to more peripheral makers.

So I wouldn't say to expect hardware at WWDC to be silly. Not when the past two years have brought us new computer products that have been course-changing in the industry.
 
DJ Meyer said:
Not to nitpick but they stopped doing phone announcenments at WWDC after the iPhone 4.
Click to expand...

Bingo, trying to declare a pattern to Apple is a fools errand. See how many news stories have been released about updates to the cinema displays over the past 2 years ("New cinema displays to be released next week if low stock are any indication!")

The iPhone is their cash cow, along with iOS, so them leaning into that with iOS8, and it's integration into OSX is becoming critically important.
 
apple release schedules are like trying to comprehend a schizophrenic person.... I gave up years ago..
 
It sounds logical for Apple to launch a 4K display but it also doesn't make much sense from a business standpoint. Why? Well, the Apple Cinema and Thunderbolt displays were unique offerings for their time. Many monitor companies have begun selling monitors like the Apple Cinema, which means Apple no longer has that bit of kit locked down except by Apple fanatics and those who simply want a matching monitor. Next-gen monitors will be incorporating Thunderbolt/DisplayPort but everyone is going to be launching 4K displays soon so Apple will have a significant amount of competition to deal with. So what is Apple to do when other companies are essentially going the extra mile in their product specs while offering less expensive products that are equivalent to what Apple offers? They either don't compete or they offer something that is above and beyond at an acceptable price. I think that Apple will probably keep the Thunderbolt display for the time being but unveil a new version of it that is somewhat improved but perhaps not 4K. Then in 2016, I think they may launch a 32-39 inch 4K LED display for enthusiasts.
 
With my new MP 8 core, I am just about to click on getting two "Promise Technology 24TB Pegasus2 R8 Thunderbolt 2 Raid Storage Array" , my brain is maxed out on my low budget film and i just need something huge but brainless(i am working on r3d but all the conforms are to 2k). I heard there was some problems with the drives waking up and interacting with sleep modes, but was wondering if that has all been worked out. Also the film sound will be mixed off these (256 track protools hd system ... so just not simple editing), and was wondering how loud they were?
 
The Pegasus2 RAIDs are fairly quiet. Not as quiet as the nMP by any stretch, but they're not going to chase you out of the room.

There are some issues with sleep/wake. Even with the latest 10.9.3 betas, there are still intermittent issues and I think some of that comes back to the units themselves and needs a fix from Promise. But I've had no word from either Promise or Apple as to a fix. It's not a huge issue, as it stands with 10.9.3 beta (which is far and away better than 10.9.2 current release OSX), the RAIDs tend to occasionally just wake up for no reason and then go back to sleep after a minute or so. Currently in 10.9.2, it's a lot more frequent and will occasionally cause a system crash on wake.

The Areca TB2 RAIDs are nice too. They're louder, though. But don't seem to have any sleep/wake issues. Performance between the Areca with 8 x 3TB and the Promise with the Same is about dead even as they both max-out the TB2 port or come real close. You can expect 1300MB/s+ from either one and speeds on the units when freshly set up and empty can exceed 1500MB/s.
 
Curious what kind of sector size, parity level, drives etc you guys have seen these TB2 enclosures squeeze out the best numbers. I have one Areca doing 800-900MB/s R/W with Raid 6, 256K, 3TB Hitachi Deskstars. Currently considering a pair of Pegasus R4's and doing raid 50 next as a cheaper alternative.
 
RAID-6 incurs an additional performance hit. Depending on which 3TB Deskstar drives you have, and the fact they're Deskstars to begin with, is also a factor. Given those two items, your 800+MB/s seems about right.

If you do RAID-50 between two Pegasus R4's, the level 0 will be handled in software since you would run each as a RAID-5 volume and then mirror between the two. Won't be much of a performance penalty there, but it's going to double the I/O requirement and you may need to split the two between TB ports to keep the performance up. Although, the R4's in RAID-5 top out at about 500~600MB/s under the best scenarios.

Realistically, with the Areca or Pegasus2 R8, 1000~1200MB/s is probably a more likely score for real-world use across the entire data volume. With RAID-5. Block size can play a role at times, but I usually go with 128 or 256. Larger starts wasting space if you deal with enough small files and many of us still do. Smaller and you increase transaction requirements for large files to unnecessary levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top