Originally Posted by un1b4ll
It blows my mind that people can actually believe that this machine won't work.
Few people say that.
I personally think the MacPro will be an impressively fast machine. Just not impressive if you are the REAL FRIKKIN USER, with experience in something better/newer than the old Mac Pro.
Have you ever been surprised before? Have you ever been wrong? Ever been impressed by engineering?
Yes. Yes. Yes.
But this is not a ground up new product that can impress me in this way, outside its looks.
We could build this kind of CPU and/pr GPU performance, for less money (cause you don't need W9000 to do it), or much much more than that performance if money is not an issue using a ATX platform.
Do you know literally EVERY angle on the subject? It's amusing to see the armchair warriors beating their chest on the internet. There's a lot of value in not believing everything you read, but was I the only person who watched the 26 minute video of this machine rendering 4k video with EIGHTEEN effects in real time with 0 dropped frames? Whatever sound it made was completely inaudible, too.
If there's one thing that I believe about this, it's that a motivated and equipped team of seasoned engineers with literally billions of dollars behind them can probably blow your flippin' mind. Nasa? Boston Dynamics? Some people are hilarious.
No, I don't know every aspect of the thing.
I just know the programs in the CG/Video industry a tad better than all those "armchair warriors" that are in "favor of the amazing speed thoes D300 will add"...only, newsbreak, the features that are supported through GPGPU are limited and/or problematic in many or most of those programs. The transition is not seamless and/or impossible for certain workflows (and no, you cannot demand them to "change" cause "Apple says so"). CPU performance is still VERY important, more power efficient and much better implemented.
Apple chose specific programs to illustrate what this little thing is capable of.
Yes, impressive for its size, but take the size factor out which is a self-fulfilling prophecy that nobody really asked for, and it seizes being impressive, as there are faster offerings out there every day, and twice on Sundays. There are multiple other software suites, really mainstream in the industry today, that won't magically offload things to the GPUs, and when they do, they could do it even better with more then 2x of them.
GPGPU has been around for a few years. All those that Apple was still force feeding the old, vastly under-powered Mac Pro to their clients.
CG/Video industry knows that very very well, and when you are really making money from your tower being faster / doing stuff in real time vs. not, you don't just read the brochure as an Evangelion and cite total performance numbers when in reality this doesn't really add-up.
Also, as far as TDP and cards etc go, I am almost sure that the thing uses undervolted GPUs, just to be safe.
In reality, Apple knows better than its fanboys that this machine won't be used with both D700s and the CPU @ 100% load (cause of the above. Unless you are folding with all processors or running CPU + GPU stress tests at the same time, at least one of the 3 is not doing that much work), so they've sized their PSU and heatsink accordingly.
Hilarious also is the fact that people are so fond of the tubular design thinking it as "the perfect shape" that magically negates physics...
Cause a company put billions behind it...(right, the Mac Pro R&D was BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS!).