Page 35 of 38 FirstFirst ... 253132333435363738 LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 379
  1. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Thomas Smet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,533
    Default
    A lot of this all really depends on the software used. Max Yurev has done extensive comparisons where a top 4 core iMac with FCPX could out perform Adobe Premiere on a 8 core desktop with a 1080 GPU for certain tasks. Different OSs and software use hardware in different ways and it isn’t always a cut and dry answer.

    When comparing the same application then yes the PC with the faster hardware will likely be better but it’s important to factor in what tools a user may use. As amazing as EPYC CPUs are at best the 64 core is about 50% faster than the 28 core Intel. That is a best case scenario and some encoding benchmarks put them neck in neck and some tests had the Intel outperforming the 64 core EPYC. That’s comparing the same applications on the same OS however.

    MacOS tends to do more with less hardware. If a user works with FCPX or LogicX that 28 core system likely does exceptionally well compared to similar tools on the PC side. Resolve also makes great use of hardware and will likely perform better on the PC side but it really depends on how well Metal2 performs. The MP is also about an insane level of GPU power and that’s something Resolve will make great use of. Metal2 is very impressive and has a lot of potential to be a game changer. When FCPX recently switched to Metal2 I saw a playback boost of 30% in FCPX. My GPU percentage use dropped by 30% which is a huge amount for only a software update. That’s like upgrading from the RX580 to the Radeon VII for free. FCPX already had insane real-time playback performance and it’s now even better. About the only thing that doesn’t play in real-time with 4k on my 6 core Mac Mini is Neatvideo noise reduction. I also spend 90% of a project organizing media and cutting that media together. I don’t put as much stock in faster rendering speed because it isn’t really something that impacts each project very much. If I’m spending 80+ hours editing a project, rendering in an hour vs 2 hours isn’t going to have a huge impact.

    I also prefer Pages and Keynote to the bloated Office and Xcode for developing mobile apps. It is the workflow of all those tools that allow me to get a lot more work done on a daily basis even despite my “inferior” hardware. Even if I had a 32 core Threadripper it’s the applications that would be my bottleneck. I get some of you don’t value those sort of things or find you actually prefer those other tools. Nothing wrong with that at all. That’s the beauty of choices. Some of you can choose the PC and be happy with it. Some of us choose the Mac and will be happy with that. That’s all there really is to it.

    I’m not going to tell any of you what computer to use or what camera to shoot with. That is up to each of us. Someday the Apple applications may no longer meet my needs and when that happens I don’t have a problem switching to whatever does fit my needs. I’m not loyal to Apple at all and as a company I think they are arrogant and live in a bubble. I’m loyal to my workflow and until that workflow is broken that will be my priority.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    792
    Default
    At this point, I'd have a really hard time spending Mac Pro money on anything from Apple that runs macOS. We're now two point versions into Catalina and there are still tons of reports of a specific sleep-related crash that happens when you have a Thunderbolt 3 disk connected to a machine with a Vega GPU. Because why would anyone want to plug Thunderbolt 3 storage into their high end (my machine was $5000 sticker price new) Mac?

    Apple's much vaunted software quality dominance just isn't there anymore. Each OS update is buggier than the last and now apparently we need to wait far past the first point release to get the bugs worked out. For the first time in decades I'm thinking seriously about dumping my Macs and switching to Windows.

    If you know anything about software development, this post explains a ton about why Apple's software releases for several years seem to be getting worse and worse.

    https://tidbits.com/2019/10/21/six-r...-are-so-buggy/
    JERBCO, LLC
    jerbco.com

    Web | Video | Aerial


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Thomas Smet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,533
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by jbregar View Post
    At this point, I'd have a really hard time spending Mac Pro money on anything from Apple that runs macOS. We're now two point versions into Catalina and there are still tons of reports of a specific sleep-related crash that happens when you have a Thunderbolt 3 disk connected to a machine with a Vega GPU. Because why would anyone want to plug Thunderbolt 3 storage into their high end (my machine was $5000 sticker price new) Mac?

    Apple's much vaunted software quality dominance just isn't there anymore. Each OS update is buggier than the last and now apparently we need to wait far past the first point release to get the bugs worked out. For the first time in decades I'm thinking seriously about dumping my Macs and switching to Windows.

    If you know anything about software development, this post explains a ton about why Apple's software releases for several years seem to be getting worse and worse.

    https://tidbits.com/2019/10/21/six-r...-are-so-buggy/
    I am suffering from this bug and it does suck but there is ton of stuff MacOS does right for me. For now I just prevent my system from going to sleep. It does suck and I need Apple to fix this ASAP.

    Every system has its faults. Microsoft has pushed its fair share of Windows blunders recently as well. I have to keep boot camp on a year old build of Windows 10 because they pretty much killed eGPU support. The community is still waiting for a fix. No system is perfect and they all release with bugs. If they didn’t then they would never need patch updates.

    I still look at the overall user experience and how few critical bugs I face on a daily basis as why I stick with MacOS. As a user of it I rarely run into issues. EGPU has caused more complications than I would like and I’m kind of regretting not just getting a new Mac with a solid dedicated GPU. When the eGPU works it is awesome but I feel like it breaks with every new MacOS or Windows release.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Senior Member stoneinapond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,373
    Default
    Early adopters?


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    792
    Default
    eGPU is (and will likely be forever) a niche thing. I totally get why that is buggy and stays so. The only reason eGPU is really a thing for professional desktop users is because Apple doesn't see fit to provide a mid-range machine with PCIe slots.

    Thunderbolt external storage is most decidedly not niche. Especially for people running Vega-equipped machines.

    A bug that requires me to UNPLUG my RAID (just ejecting doesn't help) if I want my computer to go to sleep should have never made it past QA testing. It's absolutely astonishing it's now survived TWO POINT RELEASES (10.15.1 and 10.15.2). I should also mention this bug has been around (and reported) back to the public betas. Not allowing my computer to sleep is not a solution unless Apple is going to reimburse me for the 150W or so that my iMac Pro uses to idle if I prevent it from sleeping.

    Oh... I should also mention the bug I had with my previous 27" iMac where if it had an external monitor attached, when waking from sleep it would only wake the external monitors. Internal monitor stayed black. That bug survived from Mavericks all the way to High Sierra where it was finally fixed. That's Mavericks, Yosemite, El Capitan, and Sierra that were all afflicted with a rather annoying bug. Four full versions and who knows how many point versions.

    There's a vast difference between a minor bug that causes a video glitch or even a major bug tied to a niche situation and a major bug (crashing while sleeping) that's caused by a commonplace combination of factors (Tb3 storage + Vega GPU). Apple's software quality is a mess and has been for some time. They've coasted along on their reputation for a while, but things are getting worse. Apparently they're revamping their testing and dev procedures... which is awesome... but this is stuff that should have been done a long time ago. Hopefully macOS 10.16 turns it around.

    All I know is if this crashing while sleeping bug survives another point release, I'll likely start looking at converting my editing box over to a Windows machine. I hate that I'm even considering that. I've been a Mac user since 1995.

    Also, I'm not sure I'd call coming in two months after release "early adopting." That's 1/6th of the life of the OS considering there's a major release every year.
    Last edited by jbregar; 12-17-2019 at 07:31 PM.
    JERBCO, LLC
    jerbco.com

    Web | Video | Aerial


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    4,676
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    A lot of this all really depends on the software used. Max Yurev has done extensive comparisons where a top 4 core iMac with FCPX could out perform Adobe Premiere on a 8 core desktop with a 1080 GPU for certain tasks. Different OSs and software use hardware in different ways and it isnít always a cut and dry answer.

    When comparing the same application then yes the PC with the faster hardware will likely be better but itís important to factor in what tools a user may use. As amazing as EPYC CPUs are at best the 64 core is about 50% faster than the 28 core Intel. That is a best case scenario and some encoding benchmarks put them neck in neck and some tests had the Intel outperforming the 64 core EPYC. Thatís comparing the same applications on the same OS however.
    Kind of. Nuance. You have clockspeed, IPC, core count. Many CPUs with higher core count have lower clockspeed. Single core performance (ie clockspeed) is still VERY important because many apps don't scale well to more cores. Max's test shows this - a 4 core performs better in Premiere is because it has more clockspeed (and/or more IPC). At least in this scenario. Not just for Premiere, this is quite common. This isn't a random "everything is quirky and weird" result, it's a predictable result based on how software is coded. On top of that, different generations and different styles of processor have different IPC (instructions per clock). Understanding the intersection of these three offers much more predictable results.

    Enter Threadripper. It's all the rage because it maintains clock speeds on par with low-core count chips. 3.8ghz BASE with 24 cores. 3.7ghz at 32-cores. Best in class IPC on top of that. So you've got a trifecta here. Epyc isn't the right comparison point because it's the wrong tool for the wrong job as it's server class (high core, low clock). But then, that's what many have pointed out here - so is Xeon! Xeon is a big compromise in clock speed @ 2.5ghz base for 28-cores. So while the 50% Epyc "at best" vs Xeon is actually a massive leap... really... for video/media/content creation, you should never buy an Epyc. Comparing Xeon to Threadripper which is where you see the really devastating results.

    To be clear, this isn't a PC vs Mac thing. Apple just released the most expensive computer known to mankind, which is fine, but they released it with hardware that is literally getting destroyed by CPUs costing a fraction of the price. The Hackintosh tests with Threadripper weren't to show that "you dont' need to buy a Mac", it's more of a... "this is how powerful the Mac Pro could be". But because of Apple's lockdown on hardware seleciton, unfortunately no Mac users will get access to that power and will pay significantly more for less power than is readily available on market today.

    Tangential side bar - Epyc is not 50% faster "at best" - only in the benchmarks you're seeing, there's plenty of IT guys freaking out about the Epyc CPUs for more server oriented tasks where core count scales in a more linear fashion and seeing improvements beyond 200% (as would be expected - it's double the core count). But, to your intended point I believe, not for *us*. Though to my point - this illustrates precisely the unideal situation with being limited to the Xeon chip in the Mac Pro.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    MacOS tends to do more with less hardware.
    Kinda true-ish... but minimally true today and not at all like yesteryear. OS X more power efficient on mobile (laptops) and better RAM usage matters on more confined platforms. On the desktop, especially workstation when you're running 64gb+ of RAM, the native hardware to OS advantages are minimal as to be meaningless. 2gb more OS overhead doesn't mean much at these levels, but it does mean a lot on a macbook air. Beyond this, there are many apps that perform better on Windows than Mac with similar hardware. That's less Apple's fault and more the fact that the programmers are prioritizing a larger install base on Windows.

    What *is* true though is the native Apple apps themselves - Logic Pro X and FCPX among others - are objectively extremely well coded to take full advantage of Apple's hardware. This is where they shine, and for this reason if you are an FCPX or Logic User you're going to get some screaming performance. FCP X actually scales well to multiple cores, so the Xeon chip isn't such a "loss" when you're a FCP X user, this is true!

    Of course, if FCP X was on a 32-core Threadripper it would scale just as well to the additional cores... plus have higher clock speeds and more IPC than Xeon... and be waaaayyy cheaper. But, it's not. Again, that's not really about PC vs Mac (I guess it always naturally goes there a little, since on PC you get to make your own hardware choices), but rather it's about Mac Pro "could-have-been" VS Mac Pro "actually is". (I'm sure you'll say that its plenty of power for you, which is fair enough, but the conversation isn't all about you ;))

    So why is this?

    My speculation some pages back was that Apple has got a smoking deal on these Xeon chips, and because Intel couldn't move them anyway because of AMD Epyc/Threadripper, they haven't slashed the prices on them like they have everything else. I'm speaking on speculation here, but it's not a reach to induce that Apple got a screaming deal on the chips, Intel has agreed to maintain the high MSRP on the chips to maintain a high value point for the Mac Pro, meanwhile they get to clear their stock to Apple who will move more Xeons than Intel could have possibly been able to otherwise. It's a win-win, and from a business POV it makes a ton of sense. Pro users are high maintenance and low volume, Apple needs very high margins if the Mac Pro will really be worth their salt, and it certainly gives it an auro of prestige and halo factor.

    Quote Originally Posted by jbregar View Post
    Apple's much vaunted software quality dominance just isn't there anymore.
    Spot on. It's not just the bugs, either.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Thomas Smet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,533
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by filmguy123 View Post
    Kind of. Nuance. You have clockspeed, IPC, core count. Many CPUs with higher core count have lower clockspeed. Single core performance (ie clockspeed) is still VERY important because many apps don't scale well to more cores. Max's test shows this - a 4 core performs better in Premiere is because it has more clockspeed (and/or more IPC). At least in this scenario. Not just for Premiere, this is quite common. This isn't a random "everything is quirky and weird" result, it's a predictable result based on how software is coded. On top of that, different generations and different styles of processor have different IPC (instructions per clock). Understanding the intersection of these three offers much more predictable results.

    Enter Threadripper. It's all the rage because it maintains clock speeds on par with low-core count chips. 3.8ghz BASE with 24 cores. 3.7ghz at 32-cores. Best in class IPC on top of that. So you've got a trifecta here. Epyc isn't the right comparison point because it's the wrong tool for the wrong job as it's server class (high core, low clock). But then, that's what many have pointed out here - so is Xeon! Xeon is a big compromise in clock speed @ 2.5ghz base for 28-cores. So while the 50% Epyc "at best" vs Xeon is actually a massive leap... really... for video/media/content creation, you should never buy an Epyc. Comparing Xeon to Threadripper which is where you see the really devastating results.

    To be clear, this isn't a PC vs Mac thing. Apple just released the most expensive computer known to mankind, which is fine, but they released it with hardware that is literally getting destroyed by CPUs costing a fraction of the price. The Hackintosh tests with Threadripper weren't to show that "you dont' need to buy a Mac", it's more of a... "this is how powerful the Mac Pro could be". But because of Apple's lockdown on hardware seleciton, unfortunately no Mac users will get access to that power and will pay significantly more for less power than is readily available on market today.

    Tangential side bar - Epyc is not 50% faster "at best" - only in the benchmarks you're seeing, there's plenty of IT guys freaking out about the Epyc CPUs for more server oriented tasks where core count scales in a more linear fashion and seeing improvements beyond 200% (as would be expected - it's double the core count). But, to your intended point I believe, not for *us*. Though to my point - this illustrates precisely the unideal situation with being limited to the Xeon chip in the Mac Pro.



    Kinda true-ish... but minimally true today and not at all like yesteryear. OS X more power efficient on mobile (laptops) and better RAM usage matters on more confined platforms. On the desktop, especially workstation when you're running 64gb+ of RAM, the native hardware to OS advantages are minimal as to be meaningless. 2gb more OS overhead doesn't mean much at these levels, but it does mean a lot on a macbook air. Beyond this, there are many apps that perform better on Windows than Mac with similar hardware. That's less Apple's fault and more the fact that the programmers are prioritizing a larger install base on Windows.

    What *is* true though is the native Apple apps themselves - Logic Pro X and FCPX among others - are objectively extremely well coded to take full advantage of Apple's hardware. This is where they shine, and for this reason if you are an FCPX or Logic User you're going to get some screaming performance. FCP X actually scales well to multiple cores, so the Xeon chip isn't such a "loss" when you're a FCP X user, this is true!

    Of course, if FCP X was on a 32-core Threadripper it would scale just as well to the additional cores... plus have higher clock speeds and more IPC than Xeon... and be waaaayyy cheaper. But, it's not. Again, that's not really about PC vs Mac (I guess it always naturally goes there a little, since on PC you get to make your own hardware choices), but rather it's about Mac Pro "could-have-been" VS Mac Pro "actually is". (I'm sure you'll say that its plenty of power for you, which is fair enough, but the conversation isn't all about you ;))

    So why is this?

    My speculation some pages back was that Apple has got a smoking deal on these Xeon chips, and because Intel couldn't move them anyway because of AMD Epyc/Threadripper, they haven't slashed the prices on them like they have everything else. I'm speaking on speculation here, but it's not a reach to induce that Apple got a screaming deal on the chips, Intel has agreed to maintain the high MSRP on the chips to maintain a high value point for the Mac Pro, meanwhile they get to clear their stock to Apple who will move more Xeons than Intel could have possibly been able to otherwise. It's a win-win, and from a business POV it makes a ton of sense. Pro users are high maintenance and low volume, Apple needs very high margins if the Mac Pro will really be worth their salt, and it certainly gives it an auro of prestige and halo factor.



    Spot on. It's not just the bugs, either.
    The MP is not even close to the most expensive computer ever, you are targeting Apple as flawed for only using Xeon when a lot of high end PC workstations also use Xeon. HP has a workstation that is $80k and I know some new MP users that saved money with the MP vs buying expensive Linux workstations. Why are you not criticizing Dell and HP for also creating expensive Xeon workstations?

    I agree Xeon isn’t really the best choice all the time when building a budget system but why is it so many PC work stations also use Xeon? It isn’t just because they got a deal with Intel. I think you are missing the point of what Xeon can provide in a work station and are looking at it once again from strictly a spec perspective. A lot of pro machines do in fact use Xeon. Have so for many decades on both the PC and Mac side. I have used Xeon systems for years for 3D animation. You need to stop getting hung up that there is a faster desktop CPU out there. No crap there is. Welcome to how computers have worked for decades. Desktop will likely always be faster and Threadripper is one hell of a exciting CPU.

    Once again I don’t really care what Threadripper can do. I get that it’s an exciting CPU for some of you and yes a hackintosh using one would be a rather killer system but it’s not an option for a Mac so I don’t factor it in. I tend to not lose sleep over what a system could be but focus on what I can get today. Of course a desktop CPU is a better value. That has been true for decades. I’m not sure how much more I can say this but I don’t really care about what possibilities there are by building a PC because I don’t want to use a PC. I’m not sure why you have a problem with that. Can’t I use what I want to use or do I need to seek approval from you first?

    Here’s a thought. Instead of all this speculation why don’t we actually wait and see how well these systems do in the real world. So far the people I have read that have a new MP are exceptionally happy with their purchase and do not for one instance feel they were ripped off or the system is not worth every penny.

    Those that buy the MP likely are FCPX users. The same kind of users that bought the older MP or the trash can MP or the iMac Pro. To them FCPX already screams on a 8 core laptop and having the option of a 28 core Mac is pretty darn awesome. Or an option to have four internal graphics cards that all work together in FCPX with no eGPU funny business. To those users the MP is massive value.


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Thomas Smet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,533
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by jbregar View Post
    eGPU is (and will likely be forever) a niche thing. I totally get why that is buggy and stays so. The only reason eGPU is really a thing for professional desktop users is because Apple doesn't see fit to provide a mid-range machine with PCIe slots.

    Thunderbolt external storage is most decidedly not niche. Especially for people running Vega-equipped machines.

    A bug that requires me to UNPLUG my RAID (just ejecting doesn't help) if I want my computer to go to sleep should have never made it past QA testing. It's absolutely astonishing it's now survived TWO POINT RELEASES (10.15.1 and 10.15.2). I should also mention this bug has been around (and reported) back to the public betas. Not allowing my computer to sleep is not a solution unless Apple is going to reimburse me for the 150W or so that my iMac Pro uses to idle if I prevent it from sleeping.

    Oh... I should also mention the bug I had with my previous 27" iMac where if it had an external monitor attached, when waking from sleep it would only wake the external monitors. Internal monitor stayed black. That bug survived from Mavericks all the way to High Sierra where it was finally fixed. That's Mavericks, Yosemite, El Capitan, and Sierra that were all afflicted with a rather annoying bug. Four full versions and who knows how many point versions.

    There's a vast difference between a minor bug that causes a video glitch or even a major bug tied to a niche situation and a major bug (crashing while sleeping) that's caused by a commonplace combination of factors (Tb3 storage + Vega GPU). Apple's software quality is a mess and has been for some time. They've coasted along on their reputation for a while, but things are getting worse. Apparently they're revamping their testing and dev procedures... which is awesome... but this is stuff that should have been done a long time ago. Hopefully macOS 10.16 turns it around.

    All I know is if this crashing while sleeping bug survives another point release, I'll likely start looking at converting my editing box over to a Windows machine. I hate that I'm even considering that. I've been a Mac user since 1995.

    Also, I'm not sure I'd call coming in two months after release "early adopting." That's 1/6th of the life of the OS considering there's a major release every year.
    EGPU is not a thing so Apple doesn’t have to make a real desktop. It’s a thing because for decades only desktop computers could enjoy upgrading a GPU. With eGPU now even laptops can enjoy using better graphics cards in the future. Maybe that doesn’t make as much sense right now that the dedicated GPUs in some Macs are already pretty good but it will in the future when newer graphics cards enjoy a 2x or 3x gain. Plus eGPU is also about adding more than one GPU to a system that would typically be impossible to do so. For example Resolve can use four eGPUs on a MBP with massive performance advantages.

    Despite a few annoying bugs it’s rather mind blowing what we can do with eGPU on a single simple external connection. My Mac Mini with a Vega 56 eGPU absolutely gets killer results. Better than I could have ever hoped for. It is unfortunate that both Apple and Microsoft can’t iron out all the kinks. Apple has come a long way to making eGPU very stable and under Mohave it was almost 100% flawless.

    It is unfortunate that Apple allows these kind of issues to sneak through and I agree they need to improve their process. But they have also done a lot of things right with their software so it’s completely ridiculous to make them seem clueless. Even with their flaws I would still take them over Windows which also has its fair share of flaws. Windows 10 is far from a perfect OS.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    4,676
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    The MP is not even close to the most expensive computer ever, you are targeting Apple as flawed for only using Xeon when a lot of high end PC workstations also use Xeon.
    Thomas, "most expensive computer known to mankind" was playful hyperbolic expression, you know all about that (maybe less the playful part sometimes ;)). And I am not "targeting" anyone, I am merely pointing out facts about nerdy CPU stuff in what I thought was a pretty even-keel way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    HP has a workstation that is $80k and I know some new MP users that saved money with the MP vs buying expensive Linux workstations. Why are you not criticizing Dell and HP for also creating expensive Xeon workstations?
    I am not criticizing Apple, I have actually applauded their business strategy. It makes a lot of sense. But that doesn't mean its good for us or consumers. I don't point that statement at Dell or HP because they offer a myriad of hardware choices in non-all-in-one devices, not only an $80k workstations. I do think it's unfortunate that those who are investing in Apple's pro ecosystem (not just financially, but in terms of perhaps years of project files) can't get more and better choices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    I agree Xeon isn’t really the best choice all the time when building a budget system but why is it so many PC work stations also use Xeon?
    To be fair, not just sometimes, it's almost never the best choice for video/media content creation. Why do so many PC workstations also use workstation chips (such as Xeon or Epyc)? Because they are great workstation chips for the right tasks! They also allow for massive amounts of RAM and ECC memory - things that certain niche scenarios will find great use in, as discussed prior in this thread. Additionally, before this year, higher core counts then HEDT chips (those days, they be done!). Xeon and Epyc chips exist for good reason. However, we aren't that reason. And many of the people who will purchase the Mac Pro aren't that reason, but they will buy it because it is the most powerful Mac that exists today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    It isn’t just because they got a deal with Intel.
    I think it's a very big part of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    I think you are missing the point of what Xeon can provide in a work station and are looking at it once again from strictly a spec perspective. A lot of pro machines do in fact use Xeon. Have so for many decades on both the PC and Mac side. I have used Xeon systems for years for 3D animation. You need to stop getting hung up that there is a faster desktop CPU out there. No crap there is. Welcome to how computers have worked for decades.
    The last three decades have dramatically changed how computers worked, including the definition of things like a "workstation CPU". I think you are getting hung up on the idea that "workstation = professional".

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    Once again I don’t really care what Threadripper can do.
    If you have any interest in computers at all, you really should.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    I get that it’s an exciting CPU for some of you
    It's the most exciting CPU the industry has seen in nearly a decade

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    and yes a hackintosh using one would be a rather killer system but it’s not an option for a Mac so I don’t factor it in. I tend to not lose sleep over what a system could be but focus on what I can get today.
    As previously stated, the hackintosh is the best way to assess what is a hardware advantage VS what is a software-OS X specific advantage. It points out that while FCP X is coded very well, it isn't coded for Xeon, it's coded for multicore and core clock speed, given that it performs better on Threadripper. By no means is that a suggestion to build a hackintosh for professional work, that is a terrible idea. Likewise, it is not a suggestion to switch to PC. It is what it is, an objective assessment of performance, and nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    Of course a desktop CPU is a better value. That has been true for decades.
    It's not a better "value", it's a better CPU in every single metric for the tasks any of us are discussing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    I’m not sure how much more I can say this but I don’t really care about what possibilities there are by building a PC because I don’t want to use a PC. I’m not sure why you have a problem with that. Can’t I use what I want to use or do I need to seek approval from you first?
    I'm not sure how much clearer it could be, but I did not (nor I think did anyone else?) suggest you build a PC or a hackintosh. I don't have a problem with that. I never said anything of that nature. You don't need to seek approval for anything. Where did you get that idea? Let's put that to rest, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    Here’s a thought. Instead of all this speculation why don’t we actually wait and see how well these systems do in the real world.
    The only speculation was my speculation regarding Apple's business strategy. Regarding performance, we are referring to real benchmarks.

    As an aside, you said that before when everyone pointed to benchmarks of the existing Xeon CPUs and what is possibly in terms of "customization" with X86 motherboard architectures and what is not. What was said then matches the real word facts now. This not speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    So far the people I have read that have a new MP are exceptionally happy with their purchase and do not for one instance feel they were ripped off or the system is not worth every penny.
    While that is wonderful, that is a subjective feeling and has nothing to do with benchmarks. I don't think anyone here is hoping people who spend this kind of money on a computer live a life of regrets, I am sure it will serve them well for many years to come.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    Those that buy the MP likely are FCPX users.
    Yes, I would expect as much, and FCP X should perform quite nicely.


    You seem to read into many statements that really have no ill intent and aren't even directed at you... we're just discussing CPU facts... no one here is targeting you, or Apple for that matter. I have an iPhone 11 Pro, Apple Watch Series 5, AppleTV 4k, a 15" Macbook pro I will soon be upgrading to the 16" Retina. Apple still makes the best laptops.

    Thomas, you may FCP X in peace. I don't want you to build a PC or a hackintosh. I really don't think anyone here cares whether you do or not. And you certainly don't need my approval or anyone elses here!

    We all like you. I like you. Peace.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    792
    Default
    They’re not clueless... they just haven’t scaled their development processes to 2019 scale or best practices and it shows.

    Read the Tidbits article I posted. I’ve worked in software development my entire career until recently. After reading that article (written by a long time Apple software engineer) it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that their software is buggy. Their dev process is outdated at best and broken at worst.

    Not exactly the kind of company I’ll just hand $8k+ to for a computer. I’m invested in the Mac ecosystem, but my patience is wearing thin after seeing annoying-to-major bugs sitting around through the full beta testing period AND two point releases. They need to fix their s*%t yesterday. It doesn’t help when their fans defend horribly broken stuff with “I just keep my computer from sleeping.” Hold them accountable.
    JERBCO, LLC
    jerbco.com

    Web | Video | Aerial


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 35 of 38 FirstFirst ... 253132333435363738 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •