New Mac Pro

[L. Langer]

Maxxed out would look something like this:
- 2.7GHz 12-Core Intel Xeon E5 processor with 30MB L3 Cache
- 64GB 1866MHz DDR3 ECC memory
- Dual AMD FirePro D700 with 6GB GDDR5 VRAM each
- 1TB PCIe-based flash storage

It would be swell if Jeff (or someone) could review which of these items above are REALLY worth upgrading from the base model specs here:

- 3.7GHz 4-Core Intel Xeon E5 processor with 10MB L3 Cache
- 12GB 1866MHz DDR3 ECC memory
- Dual AMD FirePro D300 with 2GB GDDR5 VRAM each
- 256GB PCIe-based flash storage

And a general question: why do processor Ghz go down as the quantity of cores goes up?

All the internals except for the storage - which you may or may not want to upgrade depending on your desired system software package - are essential for processing RED footage. The new OSX build has unified memory - meaning system and GPU are together in the memory pool - so you don't want to skimp on the CPU/GPU/RAM as they work unified, especially with heavy workloads. Thunderbolt storage will obviously be used for editing and whatnot and it will only work at it's peak - on paper anyway - if you max out those internals which will be shuffling around the data. Of course it's too early to tell just what exactly the performance will be like with those top choice configs but I'm sure we'll hear about it in great detail next year as things stabilize with the new MacPro and the new OpenCL improvements Apple has put into their OS.

To answer your question, it's a matter of thermals. More cores = Higher temps under high workload = More cooling for higher speeds!

 

[Bob Gundu]

In case you missed it, Here is a quote from the Apple site:

Final Cut Pro X. Now optimized for Mac Pro.
The new version of Final Cut Pro X (coming in December) has been engineered to take advantage of the 4K capabilities of the Mac Pro. The dual workstation-class GPUs in Mac Pro accelerate effects, optical flow analysis, video export — and virtually everything else you do in Final Cut Pro. Ultrafast PCIe-based flash storage means fast project loading and multi-stream 4K playback. And Final Cut Pro X has been so perfectly tuned to take advantage of the new Mac Pro, you can work in 4K — in real time — without rendering. (Take a minute to let that slowly sink in.)


​

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Until we know the pricing on the various upgrades its hard to determine which ones are worth it.

IMO if the max BTO is under $7K then sign me up, if its much more than that I agree with L. Langer that less flash storage is an obvious place to cut cost.

Cutting back to the 8 core CPU would be next, though the idea of paying even close to $7K for an single 8 core CPU based system - even with 64GB of RAM and the two 6GB FirePro D700's is hard to swallow.

Many MacPro users could roll with mid-level GPUs just fine, but I can't imagine that's a good plan for people who do what we do.

Based on past Apple pricing, cutting RAM to 32 from 64 will probably save a grand or more. I still put it last, because if I understand the internal data processing pipeline correctly, it strikes me as the last thing you want to scrimp on. Moreover, lack of sufficient RAM typically increases the risk of crashing with large frames. Perhaps that will prove to be a non-issue with the new architecture, but until that's proven its not a risk I am comfortable with - I have scars ;-)

Cheers - #19

 

[Andy Roberts]

To answer your question, it's a matter of thermals. More cores = Higher temps under high workload = More cooling for higher speeds!

Thanks L. Langer.

So I assume 12 cores, even at a slower clock speed, is better than 6 cores at a faster clock speed, but only if the software is taking advantage of multi-core processors... correct?

I see, based on Bob's note, that FCPX will take full advantage of the new MacPro.
Is RCX-Pro multi-core capable?
Premiere Pro and After Effects?
Davinci Resolve 10?

 

[Frank Weeks]

Until we know the pricing on the various upgrades its hard to determine which ones are worth it.

It's a little confusing that Apple does not tell us the price of upgrades. It makes it difficult to plan.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

In case you missed it, Here is a quote from the Apple site:

Final Cut Pro X. Now optimized for Mac Pro.
The new version of Final Cut Pro X (coming in December) has been engineered to take advantage of the 4K capabilities of the Mac Pro. The dual workstation-class GPUs in Mac Pro accelerate effects, optical flow analysis, video export — and virtually everything else you do in Final Cut Pro. Ultrafast PCIe-based flash storage means fast project loading and multi-stream 4K playback. And Final Cut Pro X has been so perfectly tuned to take advantage of the new Mac Pro, you can work in 4K — in real time — without rendering. (Take a minute to let that slowly sink in.)


​

I can do all that on a single-track timeline that literally gives the finger to the any experienced editor and how he/she thinks and fine-tunes an edit. Yippeee!!!

 

[Eric Bowen]

Red ie R3D performs better with 12 cores ie 24 threads at 2.7 versus 6 cores ie 12 threads at 4.5 GHz with Premiere and AE so I would expect the same for RCX and definitely Davinci.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

A current Mac Pro 12 Core with lots of RAM and a Titan I think will be just as fast, maybe faster. I feel zero need to upgrade if this is true.

 

[Kwan Khan]

probably around 6K for the 12 core?

Expect the upgraded price to 12 Core for no less than 5500$.

 

[Elliott Balsley]

And Final Cut Pro X has been so perfectly tuned to take advantage of the new Mac Pro, you can work in 4K — in real time — without rendering. (Take a minute to let that slowly sink in.)​

​

There's a big difference between "4K" and "4K R3D" in terms of processing requirements. That statement could be referring to 4K ProRes, we don't really know. And by the way, I can already work with 4K R3D in realtime without rendering as long as I use 1/4 debayer.

 

[Andrew Gentle]

[/INDENT]
There's a big difference between "4K" and "4K R3D" in terms of processing requirements. That statement could be referring to 4K ProRes, we don't really know. And by the way, I can already work with 4K R3D in realtime without rendering as long as I use 1/4 debayer.

Isn't 1/4 debayered 4K more like working in 2K in realtime?

 

[Elliott Balsley]

Yeah you could say that. My point is that "realtime 4K" is kind of meaningless without more specifics.

 

[Michael Dalton]

In case you missed it, Here is a quote from the Apple site:

Final Cut Pro X. Now optimized for Mac Pro.
The new version of Final Cut Pro X (coming in December) has been engineered to take advantage of the 4K capabilities of the Mac Pro. The dual workstation-class GPUs in Mac Pro accelerate effects, optical flow analysis, video export — and virtually everything else you do in Final Cut Pro. Ultrafast PCIe-based flash storage means fast project loading and multi-stream 4K playback. And Final Cut Pro X has been so perfectly tuned to take advantage of the new Mac Pro, you can work in 4K — in real time — without rendering. (Take a minute to let that slowly sink in.)


​

But Bob, are we not shooting in 5k? Wonder how Red 5k footage will work. Please tell me Avid is thinking something big about 4k, I really don't want to move a massive project back to FCP.

 

[Sergio Perez]

With the new GPU accelerated SDK from Red and with it using open CL, i can see the Macpro being able to really do what it claims. Even with R3D's. I would say however that the top of the line at least will cope with that without a rocket...

 

[Nick Morrison]

I know this is a dumb question, but how much faster will the MAC PRO be than a MAC BOOK PRO? I have a Sonnet Express III with a RED ROCKET. Will I see major jump in performance with the tower (say the 6 core one)??

 

[PatrickFaith]

I was thinking of getting the 12 core one until i noticed it's only 2.7 ghz. That means the 12 core one is only 50% faster then the 6 core, while the 8 core is only 14% faster then the 6 core. I will probably just get the 6 core one, and use if for protools and adobe premiere 2k editing(which are my lighter work loads).

I don't think the 4 core is that much faster then my current macbook pro, so that doesn't make sense for me.

 

[Eric Z]

I believe a good configuration for this new Mac Pro would be:

- Xeon E5 6-core 3.5GHz (Turbo to 3.9GHz). The other ones offer more cores and more cache, but at reduced clocks.
- 32GB RAM 1866MHz ECC (4x 8GB)
- 1TB PCIe SSD (960GB formatted)
- 2x AMD FirePro D700

I estimate the price would be ~$6000.
It's steep, yes...but compared to HP Z820:
- Cheaper with about same config.
- It's quieter and cooler, and consumes much less energy.
- Smaller and lighter.
- Runs OSX 10.9 with many useful apps already on-board (Up against Windows 8.1, it sure looks unbeatable...and this is coming from a lifetime Windows user).
Windows 7 SP1 is probably the best one Microsoft made. After that, it's all down-hill.
- Connectivity galore. 'Nuff said.

New Mac Pro - The bad:
- Configuration is limited to what Apple is offering.
- After-market parts will be few (if any) and rather expensive. I'm referring to parts that go inside the cylinder.
- You can't stack these things one on top of each other to save space (well, they would require at least 4" clearance in between).
- Would have been nice if they bumped the HDMI spec to v2.0 (HDMI v2.0 offers up to 18Gbps, which enables real 4K@60fps).
- No NVIDIA GPUs offered here. In the future? Chances are slim.

But all in all - I like the innovation and ingenuity that Apple is offering here. Gotta give credit when credit is due.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The E5-2600 V2 Ivy Bridge Xeons supply 40 lanes of PCIe v3, as pointed out. The GPUs in the Mac Pro each reside on a PCIe v3 X8 interface, plenty fast enough for any GPU available on the market right now or for the foreseeable future. By the time faster GPUs are available that can saturate more than 8 lanes of PCIe v3, PCIe v4 will be out and so will new Mac Pro systems...

There are enough lanes and there is enough bandwidth to supply the PCIe attached Flash storage, the GPUs, USB3.0, etc.. Or at least as far as those host interfaces will allow. There are some bottlenecks to be aware of. Each Falcon Ridge Thunderbolt controller provides two ports. Each port is capable of operating at the full 20Gbps bi-directional bandwidth. *HOWEVER*, each Falcon Ridge controller doesn't quite have enough bandwidth via PCIe to supply both ports at full load simultaneously.

I find it interesting that Apple keeps referencing 4K monitors, but they're not specifying any and there's a lack of such monitors out there with DisplayPort connectivity (the Sharp/Asus one is the primary one on the market). I'm expecting them to drop a new display of their own with 4K+ resolution at the actual launch of the Mac Pro.

I'm not going to get into pricing estimates at this stage. Apple seems to be doing alright with the pricing so far. Higher than many would like, but when you start pricing out the new Xeon CPUs and dual FirePro GPUs, prices add up quick. Several other design elements come into play here. They obviously didn't set out to build the "budget" workstation by any means. The Xeon E5-2697 CPU is $2600 on its own right now -- that's the 12-core 2.7GHz model, for those not keeping up with the model numbers. I would hazard a guess that an upgrade to the 12-core over the 6-core config will be $1000~1200, that's as far as I will go with price guessing. I hope I'm wrong and it will be a bit cheaper...

I'm hoping Apple will make the system HDMI 2.0 compliant and we'll be able to update via firmware early next year. I kinda doubt they will, but Sony is managing to do it with TV's, so we can hope...

Other than that, my thoughts on the new Mac Pro have not changed. I look forward to playing with one when they arrive. It's going to be a very nice system, but there are some tasks where a PC with more CPUs/ cores or different GPU selections will still be be the better tool for the job.

 

[John Bellari]

I find it interesting that Apple keeps referencing 4K monitors, but they're not specifying any ...

I'm hoping Apple will make the system HDMI 2.0 compliant and we'll be able to update via firmware early next year. I kinda doubt they will, but Sony is managing to do it with TV's, so we can hope...

EXACTLY! Apple is saying 4K is coming, 4K is coming... but no 4K display or 4K Apple TV... simply bizarre.

Also, spending $2500 on a Macbook Pro or starting Mac Pro $3000 is a lot to guess with on HDMI 2.0 compatability, enough for me to delay purchasing even the new Macbook Pro as I don't want a non-HDMI 2.0 compliant device this late in the game.

I expect Apple refreshes by next April/May with updated HDMI 2.0 ports, but this really put a kink in my plans on getting a new Macbook pro...

Apple, with all their resources, really disappointed me with their announcements of simple updates to existing product.

No new consumer devices after all this time? Not even a hint of one?

Stagnation in the rate of creativity is the death of Apple in gaining market share, and a very bad sign
long term.

I also hope Red releases new format 8K resolution+ cameras next Spring that bring these Mac Pros to their knees by next NAB,
so our investments in the PC platform pay off long-term where 4K will not even be enough.

I'd love to see a Red HP 820Z with quad UHD output displaying 8K Red footage...

Maybe Red can make this happen sooner than later?

 

[Jake Bastian]

EXACTLY! Apple is saying 4K is coming, 4K is coming... but no 4K display or 4K Apple TV... simply bizarre.

Also, spending $2500 on a Macbook Pro or starting Mac Pro $3000 is a lot to guess with on HDMI 2.0 compatability, enough for me to delay purchasing even the new Macbook Pro as I don't want a non-HDMI 2.0 compliant device this late in the game.

I expect Apple refreshes by next April/May with updated HDMI 2.0 ports, but this really put a kink in my plans on getting a new Macbook pro...

Apple, with all their resources, really disappointed me with their announcements of simple updates to existing product.

No new consumer devices after all this time? Not even a hint of one?

Stagnation in the rate of creativity is the death of Apple in gaining market share, and a very bad sign
long term.

I also hope Red releases new format 8K resolution+ cameras next Spring that bring these Mac Pros to their knees by next NAB,
so our investments in the PC platform pay off long-term where 4K will not even be enough.

I'd love to see a Red HP 820Z with quad UHD output displaying 8K Red footage...

Maybe Red can make this happen sooner than later?

Considering RED can't even get their projector out the door, I wouldn't hold my breath on them getting a display out.

Everyone's saying it's weird how long it is taking, but no one seems to take into account that 4K is hard even for the company that pioneered 4K!