-
Theoretical MacPro Replacement
-
An ARM chip in what is supposed to replace a Xeon Workstation. I won’t add anymore to this after this post because it is getting ridiculously silly now.
-
😐
-
[Frank Gothmann] “The rest cannot! Plus compressor isn’t everything.”
Telestream Episode works fine. What makes you think clustering is limited to Apple products?
Any program that supports clustering will support clustering. Certainly Apple’s products will support it and QMaster isn’t specific to Compressor. It supported Shake and it will likely support other Apple apps that need it if Apple goes in this direction.If you’re talking about high end professional, that class of program can certainly be clustered.
-
I do wish people would do a bit more research before calling people crazy.
A 64bit ARM design exists. And it will challenge xeon level processors. And HP has announced plans to use it on its next server grade products. Google Project Moonshot.
Heres a link bud. https://www.engadget.com/2011/11/02/hp-and-calxedas-moonshot-arm-servers-will-bring-all-the-boys-to/.
Quobetah
New=Better -
[Walter Soyka] “A cluster of two half-powered machines is just not a substitute for a single full-powered machine.”
The market for those machines is small. At least based on sales of MacPros. So i’m suggesting an alternate direction which is good for Apple and, given Apple’s tendency to work for ease of use, would seem logical.
We’re NOT talking about “today’s technology” because the demise of the MacPro is nothing more than rumor to begin with. If Apple is looking in an alternate direction to address the needs of the power user niche without building a separate machine, clustering would be the logical direction. That would follow Apple’s development of a practical method to do it.
If we’re starting on rumor and assumption on a non existent product one can certainly speculate that Apple will address the practicality of it, if it’s to be successful in the market place.
-
I said I wouldn’t post anymore on this but I cannot resist to add just this: read the comment and specs in your link and you know where you stand with regards to comparing it to a Xeon chip and an ARM challenging it plus what the purpose of that server is. You have no clue what you are talking about.
-
[Craig Seeman] “The market for those machines is small. At least based on sales of MacPros. So i’m suggesting an alternate direction which is good for Apple and, given Apple’s tendency to work for ease of use, would seem logical.”
I agree that the market for Mac Pros is small, and I certainly understand why Apple may be interested in scrapping it to pursue broader markets. But if Apple’s market for high-performance computers is small, wouldn’t it follow that the market for high-performance clusters is also small?
I’d love to be able to buy a stack of Mac Minis, Thunderbolt them all together, and end up with an fast, powerful, easy render farm. But is this something Apple is interested in doing?
Shake 4 was released in 2005 (never mind that it was EOLed in 2006), but Qmaster’s Shake command today still assumes Shake 3.5. Apple’s Advanced Computation Group hasn’t published a paper since 2009. XGrid, which was based on an old NeXT technology, isn’t featured on the Mac OS X Server page anymore.
The clustering you’re describing would be very cool, but it doesn’t seem very likely.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “wouldn’t it follow that the market for high-performance clusters is also small?”
Which is why a modular box makes sense. It creates a means for Mac users to add more cores without Apple creating niche market hardware. That’s the commodification strategy. They only need to focus on software improvements establish ease of use.
[Walter Soyka] “I’d love to be able to buy a stack of Mac Minis, Thunderbolt them all together, and end up with an fast, powerful, easy render farm. But is this something Apple is interested in doing?”
Because they’d love to sell a stack of Minis. Selling commodified hardware appears to be their model. I think that’ll be Apple’s definition of “loving pros.”
It’s not so much dropping pros for consumer only but commodification. Certainly some Pros may not like it but I think this would be the direction Apple heads in. If they can hit some portion of the Pro market with a commodity product they’ll be able to do it with better margins then they’re doing now.
[Walter Soyka] “The clustering you’re describing would be very cool, but it doesn’t seem very likely.”
Given their “software sells hardware” it’s possible. I can’t speak to likely of course. I’m just thinking of solution given their business model.
Basically I’d say it’s not so much that they’re becoming a “consumer” company but a commodity product manufacturer. Their service to pros will be through a commodity which will have advantages and certainly limitations.
-
A replacement for the MacPro may be the HP Pavilion w/ i7 4 core 3.8 GHz; 16 GB memory; 1TB drive; and a Radeon or NVIDIA card. Price around $1800.
-
[Phil Brockett] “A replacement for the MacPro may be the HP Pavilion w/ i7 4 core 3.8 GHz; 16 GB memory; 1TB drive; and a Radeon or NVIDIA card. Price around $1800.”
This machine may tear through HD editorial, so it may do the job that some are using Mac Pros for, but that does not make it a replacement for the Mac Pro or the Z series per se. For example, it lacks multi-socket support and it supports less RAM.
That doesn’t make it a bad computer — it’s just not a workstation.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up