|
SRQ posted:Don't buy a mac pro for games the processor and GPU is designed for workstation application. Dude, he's not saying he wants to buy one just for gaming, he's asking if it will run games well on the side. You make it sound as if workstation CPUs and GPUs are actually anti-optimized for games. They're not. It's almost always the exact same silicon sold to gamers. It's expensive to create truly individualized chips for different markets, so it's common to design one and sell it at different price points with different feature sets enabled. There's actually a lot of CPU/GPU overlap between high end gaming and midrange workstation because both demand a lot of compute power and it's natural to design chips which cross over. The type of Intel Xeon Apple's going to be using in the new Mac Pro is a great example. It's the same chip design that Intel is also going to be selling as the biggest baddest "Extreme" i7 CPU. The Xeon version will have up to 12 cores and some workstation/server-only features enabled, the "enthusiast" version will have up to 6 cores and overclocking enabled. Same physical chips, different fuses blown at the factory to activate different features, none of which are actually relevant to "can run game code quickly". On the GPU side, there's two pieces. One is hardware performance. Games basically don't use double precision floating point in the GPU, so it's common to fuse off (disable) most of the DP FP hardware in the gamer version of a GPU. The other is actually the drivers. Many CAD applications have crusty old rendering code which makes heavy use of certain archaic OpenGL features that no longer align with how GPU hardware actually works. On the PC side, both ATI and NVidia tie high quality driver emulation of these old GL features to the workstation hardware. Also, they often don't bother optimizing the workstation builds of their drivers for gaming, which is probably where the "workstation HW bad for games" idea comes from. But... this driver issue doesn't apply to OS X. It uses one unified driver for all GPUs of one generation, covering both workstation and consumer variants. This is probably a consequence of the lack of a thriving ecosystem of aftermarket GPUs for Macs. No low end market equals no incentive to waste time doing two separate driver builds to defend the high end market. Also, not much software on OS X uses those old crusty GL features anyways. OS X isn't very strong in CAD, which is where most of the offending programs live. So: the new Mac Pro may be a little dubious for gaming if you have to reboot to Windows to run it, but anything which runs under OS X will probably do just fine.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
geera posted:Google tells me that this isn't supported for Time Machine backups -- at least not officially or reliably. Protocol7 posted:It's, uh, in the manual for the newest model of AirPort Extreme. Apple's own tech database has three articles that specifically say Time Machine is not to be used with USB drives hooked up to Airport Extremes. http://support.apple.com/kb/PH11171 (modified 8/8/13) http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2038 (modified 6/11/13) http://support.apple.com/kb/PH4327 (modified 6/12/12) Apple posted:Additional Information It may be that Apple has decided to support Time Machine backups to only the Airport Extreme 802.11ac. All the other Xth generation Airport Extremes may still be still out in the cold. It's also strange that the AE 802.11ac still only has USB 2 support when the Broadcom SOC chip has a USB 3.0 controller on it? Eh, maybe they wanted to reserve the CPU power for maintaining 802.11ac bandwidth instead of USB 3.. Binary Badger fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Aug 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Dude, he's not saying he wants to buy one just for gaming, he's asking if it will run games well on the side. This hit the nail on the head thanks. The only game I'd imagine would actually start be taxing on the hardware would be Planetside 2 (When it is eventually released on the Mac). Just as a qualifier, in terms of professional applications I use Maya, Autocad and Logic Pro pretty extensively. I take an automotive design course on the side at Uni and having the hardware to render detail much faster would be greatly beneficial to my workflow anyway. So my question isn't really 'Should I get a mac pro for gaming', its more 'would a mac pro suffice for gaming or would I need a different rig?'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:This hit the nail on the head thanks. The only game I'd imagine would actually start be taxing on the hardware would be Planetside 2 (When it is eventually released on the Mac). It will, with the understanding that *most* "mac games" are a windows binary wrapped in cider, and therefore are going to both be buggier and slower than expected when played. Generally you're fine, if you're not expecting 1400p and 16x AA and max settings - but there's a still a very noticeable performance hit with all the wrapped games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
I found on MacRumors that Apple is starting a repair program for any of the Mid-2011 27" iMacs that have AMD Radeon HD 6970M graphics cards that have failed. This will last for 3 years from the date of purchase. Look at your serial number to see if you are affected. Serials ending in DHJQ, DHJW, DL8Q, DNGH, DNJ9, DMW8, DPM1, DPM2, DPNV, DNY0, DRVP, DY6F, or F610 can set up a genius bar appointment to get it repaired.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
A bit of a tangent, but is Apple required by law to extend these warranties when the parts are disfunctional? I never see any other tech company issuing these kinds of extended warranties. The only other industry where you hear about massive recalls is the auto industry. Maybe other computer companies do it but you only hear about apple because they're so high profile...
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
chupacabraTERROR posted:I never see any other tech company issuing these kinds of extended warranties. The only other industry where you hear about massive recalls is the auto industry. Maybe other computer companies do it but you only hear about apple because they're so high profile...
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
chupacabraTERROR posted:A bit of a tangent, but is Apple required by law to extend these warranties when the parts are disfunctional? I never see any other tech company issuing these kinds of extended warranties. The only other industry where you hear about massive recalls is the auto industry. Maybe other computer companies do it but you only hear about apple because they're so high profile... Well things such as class action suits are what drive extended warranties for part related failures. For example the battery bulge problem led to a free battery replacement program.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
chupacabraTERROR posted:A bit of a tangent, but is Apple required by law to extend these warranties when the parts are disfunctional? I never see any other tech company issuing these kinds of extended warranties. The only other industry where you hear about massive recalls is the auto industry. Maybe other computer companies do it but you only hear about apple because they're so high profile... You usually don't see them because service alerts are issued to the service and repair centers, not the customers. They want the techs to be on the lookout for any possible known issues but don't want to prompt customers to bring in otherwise working products for pre-emotive replacements. Only in really huge issues where safety is an issue or a class action ends up being filed is where you hear of most of these problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:Apple's own tech database has three articles that specifically say Time Machine is not to be used with USB drives hooked up to Airport Extremes. I've used Time Machine with external disks on my 4th and 5th generation Airport Extreme Base Stations and it did work (I've been able to restore files from it). There used to be a recurring occasional error to the effect of "that disk is already in use", but it was easily addressed by re-selecting the disk and they fixed it in a patch 2 years ago or so. So while it's unsupported, it's certainly doable. Also, that first support article flat out states that Time Machine can't back up to an external Airport Extreme disk, which is directly contradicted by the manual of the 802.11ac Airport Extreme. This is weird because the article was supposedly updated on the 8th of this month, when Apple should have been well aware of this. All that considered, the reason why I still got me a Time Capsule for the occasion of 802.11ac coming out was that the price difference for the 2TB model isn't that much more than what a hard disk would cost, plus the disk is supported by Apple and I can still add another external disk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
I have an iMac9,1 (24" early 2009) that I am trying to hook up to a new Late 2012 27" iMac in Target Display Mode. What cable do I need to be using? As far as I understand, Mini DisplayPort -> Mini DisplayPort should work to get the old 2009 iMac in TDP with the new 2012 iMac. When I plug in the cables, both computers are on, I press CMD+F2 on the old iMac and nothing happens- according to most instructions, the monitor should be joined to the newer iMac with that command. Does anyone have any idea what I'm doing wrong or how to get this drat old iMac to work as a second monitor with the newer machine?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
dox posted:I have an iMac9,1 (24" early 2009) that I am trying to hook up to a new Late 2012 27" iMac in Target Display Mode. What cable do I need to be using? As far as I understand, Mini DisplayPort -> Mini DisplayPort should work to get the old 2009 iMac in TDP with the new 2012 iMac. When I plug in the cables, both computers are on, I press CMD+F2 on the old iMac and nothing happens- according to most instructions, the monitor should be joined to the newer iMac with that command. Does anyone have any idea what I'm doing wrong or how to get this drat old iMac to work as a second monitor with the newer machine? And not that it matters, but I think the cmd-F2 is done on the newer iMac. Unless you're trying it the other way around but I don't remember if the 24" worked as a display, I think that was introduced with the 27" models. japtor fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Aug 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Does "CAS latency" and timing matter when upgrading RAM? What about "matched pairs"? What's the difference between CL9 and CL11? Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Aug 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Does "CAS latency" and timing matter when upgrading RAM? 2) Matched pairs can offer faster data rate; I don't know how picky Macs are in particular. 3) This seems like a good discussion, short answer is no http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/314892-30-cl11-what-difference
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
You should always match pairs, it's just easier that way (also un-matched will run at the slower speed).
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Does "CAS latency" and timing matter when upgrading RAM? Adding to what's been said, to try to give you a better idea of what these numbers mean, CAS latency refers to the number of memory clock cycles between the computer asking the RAM to read data from an open page, and the RAM actually beginning to clock out data. Smaller numbers are faster. Although CAS latency is given in cycles, when operating RAM at a different frequency it's possible to adjust the CL setting to keep the true delay roughly constant. For example, if you install 1600 MHz CL12 memory in a computer which only supports 1333 MHz memory clocks, it can run at CL10 without exceeding its specifications since both configurations work out to a CL of 7.5 nanoseconds. The computer's firmware often makes this kind of adjustment for you (and in Macs, you have no choice but to rely on it doing so). If you're worried about performance, match the memory speed to what your computer supports, choose better than bottom tier CAS latency, and install matched pairs. The returns for spending more money diminish rapidly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Adding to what's been said, to try to give you a better idea of what these numbers mean, CAS latency refers to the number of memory clock cycles between the computer asking the RAM to read data from an open page, and the RAM actually beginning to clock out data. Smaller numbers are faster. My local stores are charging different prices for them, so I figured I'd get the cheapest. I'm just worried about compatibility mainly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
dox posted:I have an iMac9,1 (24" early 2009) that I am trying to hook up to a new Late 2012 27" iMac in Target Display Mode. What cable do I need to be using? As far as I understand, Mini DisplayPort -> Mini DisplayPort should work to get the old 2009 iMac in TDP with the new 2012 iMac. When I plug in the cables, both computers are on, I press CMD+F2 on the old iMac and nothing happens- according to most instructions, the monitor should be joined to the newer iMac with that command. Does anyone have any idea what I'm doing wrong or how to get this drat old iMac to work as a second monitor with the newer machine? The 24" does not work as a target display. The new 27" will, but only with a Thunderbolt source device. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3924
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:My local stores are charging different prices for them, so I figured I'd get the cheapest. I'm just worried about compatibility mainly. Ah, OK. You don't have much to worry about then, any CAS latency rating should work fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
Why the gently caress would you advertise the new Mac Pro before movies? No seriously why would you do that. There's no way they can sell it for a price a normal person would buy it for unless they're planning to sell them at a massive loss.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Why the gently caress would you advertise the new Mac Pro before movies? They aren't going to sell them to the people in the movie theaters, but they can still use it to associate all Apple's products with that kind of high-concept technology and engineering. http://hypercritical.co/2013/03/08/the-case-for-a-true-mac-pro-successor quote:One reason is prestige. Though few people can afford to buy a Viper, its mere existence makes the affordable cars from the same manufacturer that have even the mildest bit of sporting pretension slightly more attractive to buyers. Yes, this makes little logical sense, but it’s a very real phenomenon. (There’s a reason the term “halo effect” reportedly dates back to at least 1938.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Why the gently caress would you advertise the new Mac Pro before movies? I dunno, it costs about $45 to go to the movies (with a date) which lasts about 90 minutes so if you've got that kind of coin you can probably plunk down $1999 on a Mac Pro. That's like 45 movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
The new Mac Pro is totally going to be at least 5 grand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
SRQ posted:The new Mac Pro is totally going to be at least 5 grand. 5 grand is probably pushing it. I predict starting price of $2999.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:5 grand is probably pushing it. I predict starting price of $2999. Yea, not every machine is going to ship with the 12-core which is probably going to be a $1500 option over say, the base 8 core chip. $1000 for the base Xeon, then throw in the GPU's at $300 each, $300 worth of flash storage, 16GB of DDR3 and that's all you'll really have into it. They better not ship them with the stupid silver keyboards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Why the gently caress would you advertise the new Mac Pro before movies? Well you have Nintendo not even advertising their new things and look how bad that is. Lets be honest - Apple knows more than us about marketing - they're kings at it. Must be a good reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Why the gently caress would you advertise the new Mac Pro before movies?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
At this point I honestly wonder if Apple marketing actually makes any difference. Other then "New Apple Thing is coming" ads on TV, but even then word of mouth basically has them covered. News stations often cover the whole "LONG APPLE LINE UP" stories so they get free advertising there too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Well, considering how much it costs to go to see a movie now, I'm sure the market that'd pay $3000 for a computer and the market that sees movies in theaters overlaps quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
SRQ posted:The new Mac Pro is totally going to be at least 5 grand. So many people said the exact same thing about the rMBP last year. We won't know until it launches, but Apple's been on a roll of defying expectations with low prices on new products since the iPad v.1 (remember all of the "No way an Apple tablet will cost less than $999" talk?) and I highly doubt Cook would want to fly in the face of that. Part of me thinks that the Thunderbolt-hub design of the new Mac Pro is for cost cutting. It'll likely cost more to outfit with the same amount of storage as the old internal bays, but I bet the standalone machine's cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:Part of me thinks that the Thunderbolt-hub design of the new Mac Pro is for cost cutting. It'll likely cost more to outfit with the same amount of storage as the old internal bays, but I bet the standalone machine's cheaper. This is part of the reason I love this thing. It just does compute. I don't store anything on my computer anymore, everything is in the cloud (music) or on my NAS (wdtvlive hub).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Yea, not every machine is going to ship with the 12-core which is probably going to be a $1500 option over say, the base 8 core chip. $1000 for the base Xeon, then throw in the GPU's at $300 each, $300 worth of flash storage, 16GB of DDR3 and that's all you'll really have into it. The base IVB-E Xeon should actually be 4 cores and about $200 for a low clock speed or $300 for a decent clock speed: http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/2013080801_More_details_on_Intel_Xeon_E5-2600_v2_lineup.html This is fairly credible information as it looks like what you'd expect from an update of the Sandy Bridge-E/EP line: http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/33170/Sandy-Bridge-EP?q=Sandy%20Bridge-EP Personally I'm hoping they'll offer the IVB-E updates to the E5-1620, E5-1650, and E5-1660 in the Mac Pro. The key difference from E5-26xx models is that they support only a single CPU socket (in the 4-digit number, the first digit tells you how many sockets it supports). Not a problem in the new single socket Mac Pro, obviously. And since Intel charges a hefty premium for each tier of enabling more CPU sockets, they're a much cheaper choice for low core counts with high clock speeds than 26xx 2-socket CPUs. Lots of pro users actually would be better off with four to six very fast cores rather than 12 medium speed cores. Electric Bugaloo posted:Part of me thinks that the Thunderbolt-hub design of the new Mac Pro is for cost cutting. It'll likely cost more to outfit with the same amount of storage as the old internal bays, but I bet the standalone machine's cheaper. Nah. The internal bays cost very little as all the SATA ports came for "free" in Intel's Xeon support chipsets. Apple's cost per bay was a bit of bent-up sheetmetal for the tray, four screws, and the backplane connector and cabling. Not free, but also not expensive. Every pair of Thunderbolt ports on the new machine requires a relatively expensive Thunderbolt controller IC, plus they may need a DisplayPort crossbar switch chip to route video from the GPUs to TB controllers in a flexible way. This is definitely not a cost cutter for Apple.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:So many people said the exact same thing about the rMBP last year. Yeah the tendency has certainly not been to be more expensive than previous models. Seeing as the current low end Mac Pro is $2499, I wouldn't put it past them to have a similar price level for the new model on the entry level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Nah. The internal bays cost very little as all the SATA ports came for "free" in Intel's Xeon support chipsets. Apple's cost per bay was a bit of bent-up sheetmetal for the tray, four screws, and the backplane connector and cabling. Not free, but also not expensive. Every pair of Thunderbolt ports on the new machine requires a relatively expensive Thunderbolt controller IC, plus they may need a DisplayPort crossbar switch chip to route video from the GPUs to TB controllers in a flexible way. This is definitely not a cost cutter for Apple.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
flavor posted:Yeah the tendency has certainly not been to be more expensive than previous models. Seeing as the current low end Mac Pro is $2499, I wouldn't put it past them to have a similar price level for the new model on the entry level. I disagree, the cost of a Mac tower has risen steadily over the last decade. No reason to assume that Mr. Fusion will buck this trend. Custom PCI-E SSDs and TB controller chips are expensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
I have a Macbook Pro 2011 and a Thunderbolt display. What's the cheapest way to add a DVI monitor? How about adding 2 DVI monitors? USB-to-DVI external video card? A Thunderbolt peripheral?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 05:28
|
|
Jam2 posted:I have a Macbook Pro 2011 and a Thunderbolt display. What's the cheapest way to add a DVI monitor? How about adding 2 DVI monitors? One of these guys perhaps? http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=101&cp_id=10114&cs_id=1011409&p_id=8118&seq=1&format=2
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:One of these guys perhaps? This is subpar because it treats the two connected monitors as one logical display. It cannot be daisy-chained to the Thunderbolt either (because it's a Mini DisplayPort device).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
USB "video cards" aren't too bad if you just want them for coding/spreadsheets/web browsing etc. There's no Thunderbolt equivalent unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
~Coxy posted:USB "video cards" aren't too bad if you just want them for coding/spreadsheets/web browsing etc. I guess I might as well just go with the USB video card option. It's $50. Seems like the cheapest way to get the extra real estate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 05:54
|
|