New Apple Mac Pro: Eight Cores, Support for Eight 30-Inch Cinema Displays

[heiesuke]

I might upgrade to one in May from my Quad 2.66ghz, but really its not necessary since the majority of apps can't take advantage of all that power [cores or RAM] as of yet, since none are optimized for it except a few Apple apps. The majority of people that use Apple workstations such as these are creative professionals like myself, that use Photoshop, Aperture, Logic and apps of that nature; Photoshop being the main. Adobe has yet to optimize PS to take advantage of either the 64 bit architecture of the OS or for multiple cores past 2 [I could be wrong on that one]. But yea I think I'mma sell mine in the summer and upgrade when the RAM is more affordable… I dunno for sure gonna wait for the benchmarks to see if its worth all the extra $$$.

 

[heiesuke]

Not even in 2010, will any software or number of appz will use 32gb of RAM.
Also, why in the hell are they using Xeon chips instead of Core 2 Quad core Extremes? Now you're forced to use ECC RAM, which is great for a server, but not really the best for performance. ECC RAM has to check for errors, thus making it slower for performance systems.
So this is pretty much a server to compete against the likes of SUN. Jobs, you old slick dog, almost had peeps fooled. This is a great server and pimped out, it does measure up to a SUN or IBM blade. Now it makes since, Jobs either you trying to pass this off as a performance system or trying to sneak in the server game.

Even with appz in 64bit code, still won't use 16GB RAM, let alone 32GB RAM, unless you're using it as a server with several networked MACs or PCs drawing from it.

Jobs, make friends with IBM again and get the PowerPC(Cell) chip back inside your highend systems. Get back to what Apple was, cause the dressing up game is boring. Big deal you run Vista on OSX or OSX on Vista, lines are so blurred now its crazy.

PEACE!!!!!

All that is fine and dandy but in reality the jump to Intel is the key reason that Macs are hot shit right now. In a Windows world, interoperability made Macs more alluring to the masses which means more sales and a better stock rating for APPL. If anything I think Apple would go multi chip maker, if they ever went back to IBM who fucked up with bullshit for so long.

 

[Killa KMS]

8 cores is ballin but wdf would i want dd2 on some shit like this thats just wack.

 

[EnSabahNur]

I might upgrade to one in May from my Quad 2.66ghz, but really its not necessary since the majority of apps can't take advantage of all that power [cores or RAM] as of yet, since none are optimized for it except a few Apple apps. The majority of people that use Apple workstations such as these are creative professionals like myself, that use Photoshop, Aperture, Logic and apps of that nature; Photoshop being the main. Adobe has yet to optimize PS to take advantage of either the 64 bit architecture of the OS or for multiple cores past 2 [I could be wrong on that one]. But yea I think I'mma sell mine in the summer and upgrade when the RAM is more affordable… I dunno for sure gonna wait for the benchmarks to see if its worth all the extra $$$.

Hell just overclock your CPU and you will be passed the base model of the new MAC Pro. Also, you're right Adobe is tight lip about using 64-bit instructions. Not even any of the appz will really use more than 2Gbs of RAM, sometimes 3Gbs(when using several hogs). With the exception of AutoCAD & 3Dappz, the 64bit appz tree is very slim. Software developers, just can't keep up with hardware.
Even though I'm a PC fan, I always thought Apple held its own with IBM PowerPC chips. Hell, I remember each time Apple came out with a new MAC, users on this board would boast how fast and great it was. Well, you guys are the users so you all would know what was better for the MAC.

PEACE!!!!!

 

[orkinmanp]

What would this be used for?

Video/photo editing?

I work for TMZ and we use these for Editing on Final Cut Pro. They are super fast and the only time I see the spinning pin wheel is when we log on to other servers (because they can't keep up). The graphics people run After Effects and other high end graphics software with no problems either.

To put it in perspective. I have captured uncompressed HD footage on a Quad and it couldn't handle all the data. On an 8 core I have captured the footage and run Photoshop and After Effects with no problems.

 

[EnSabahNur]

I work for TMZ and we use these for Editing on Final Cut Pro. They are super fast and the only time I see the spinning pin wheel is when we log on to other servers (because they can't keep up). The graphics people run After Effects and other high end graphics software with no problems either.

To put it in perspective. I have captured uncompressed HD footage on a Quad and it couldn't handle all the data. On an 8 core I have captured the footage and run Photoshop and After Effects with no problems.

Not even uncompressed HD content will use all 8 cores. Only AutoCad and 3DStudio Max will even come close to using more than 4 cores on a constant basis. They've been using hardware schemes in PCs for years. Software companies just can't write code for current software to take advantage of all these cores. With the exception of ACad & 3DMax, the only bump in speed you are feeling is from RAM & the faster GPU. Its a server people. Anytime Xeon is mention with ECC RAM, its a server. Apple will do another release in the near future, that is not on the server side. It will be a true Quad-core CPU, not a server CPU. Therefore it will not need the bloated BS, thats needed for it. Maybe then there will be more appz to take advantage of the multicores, as much as ACAD & 3DMax. Whatever new CPU you see in the fastest gaming PC, that is the CPU you want. Damn, Intel is making a killing with this

PEACE!!!!!