AnandTech hardware and Ars Technica's software (especially OS X) reviews are works of art by themselves. The level of details that goes into these pieces is nothing short of amazing. They are examples of tech journaling done right.
For me the disappointing takeaway is that good high-res monitor support isn't implemented. Like the reviewer, I had assumed the same types of scaling options that the high-res MacBook Pros have.<p>However, according to this review, the new Mac Pro doesn't work with the new Dell 4K monitors (I don't consider 30Hz refresh as 'working'), and even with the 4K display that Apple sells, it only works at its native 3840 x 2160 at 60Hz. When choosing a 'Scaled' resolution, it renders blurry junk.<p>That is pretty disappointing (although I imagine it will be fixed at some point).<p><a href="http://anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/11" rel="nofollow">http://anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/11</a>
What I found interesting is that the system used for all the benchmarks is significantly more expensive than the systems listed on the first page - 12 cores, 32gb Ram, and a 512gb SSD prices out at $7699, nearly double the cost of the more expensive of the two configurations listed on the first page, and it's still 10% more expensive than the "Most Expensive Configuration Upgrade Path" on page two - which means your wallet will be $700 bucks lighter.<p>And that's probably generous - from the GPU analysis appears that the tested unit has D700's which bumps the price to $8299 - a configuration that isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. About the only thing left to upgrade on the test unit is the RAM to 64gb.<p>Since the article calls itself a review, it would be better if the review unit was accurately described. It seems to me there's a bit of bait and switch because the performance numbers presented are not for the $3000 or $4000 presented in the article's lead.
Wow. For me, the big takeaway from this review are the benchmarks showing the iMac and MBPs beating out the Mac Pro. That shows that this machine is really for niche markets like professional video editing. Makes you wonder why Apple even bothers.
I'm glad they mention the HP Z420. The killer for me on the Z420:<p><i>three-year Mon-Fri 8-5 next business day, parts, labor and 24x7 phone support,</i><p>They come to me.<p>Edit: to all the naysayers: I'm in the UK. HP here is pretty good. We have over 200 machines on next day and we've had only two (!) problems and they were relating to part supply resulting in a quick purchase on Misco that arrived next day.
Do a lot of folks here generally like Mac desktops? I've grown to like Macbooks because I do like working on a portable UNIX-y platform, and have had generally bad luck with Linux laptops in the past.<p>On desktops though, I'm willing to put more effort into settling software update issues/device conflicts, since I probably have to do that anyway to write performance-optimized code (depends on the exact purpose of the desktop though, but I do a lot of scientific computing). So a Linux/Windows split boot on a generic PC usually wins out. I used to do a lot of PC gaming, but that's really less of a factor now.
A 1 year warranty is such a joke for this much money. I think this and the new mbp where should anything break you need a full replacement basically, need to have some serious warranty coverage changes. 3 years minimum in my mind. Just another way to nickle and dime you on something like an almost required extended warranty.<p>Apple, your stuff is mostly nice. Fix your product warranty and maybe I'll open my wallet.
Interesting they compared the new Mac to a workstation.<p>Older workstations these days are a lot more affordable and can easily be upgraded. Most MACS you're stuck with what you get.<p>Case in point, I just purchased an HP 8400 workstation for a friend. $320 for a dual proc 2.6GHz quad core Xeon, 16GB RAM, Two 320GB SAS drives in RAID config and ATI Fire V7350 1GB video card. Sure its a pig and isn't the quietest PC in the room, but it completely shreds anything I could find in a retail setting.
It is a well written review.<p>Note that the D700 specs match closely with the R9 280, 280X, or 290, cards which sell retail for $349 to $449 or so each (the Mac Pro has 2 of these in the 2x D700 config). See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Radeon_Rx_200_Series" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Radeon_Rx_200_Series</a> . The 2048 shaders would match with the 2048 number for the 280X, I think (if I am reading the chart right).<p>The W7000 is the much more expensive "pro" version which has ECC RAM on the card and much less volume in terms of sales.<p>It's funny though, I remember as a kid, thinking how cool it was that you could have a backpack-able computer (the original Macintosh could be ordered with a padded backpack). Now at 11 lbs and not very large, you could almost do the same again!
I thought this post by the developer of Cheetah3D for Mac was interesting: <a href="http://www.cheetah3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=79977&postcount=6" rel="nofollow">http://www.cheetah3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=79977&postcoun...</a><p>He's basically dumbfounded by the current situation :-)
Does anybody know how much work is required to run Linux on this thing? I read some documents but found them complicated enough that I don't want to deal with on my daily computer. Also there seems to be driver problem related to thermal issues. So I ended up with virtual machines every time considering installing Linux on Mac.<p>Anybody running Linux on Macbooks or Mac Pro? Does it work well?
1. People hate Apple for whatever they do.
2. Those who said Mac Pro makes no sense have absolutely zero understanding in GFX market.
3. People who cries about Money Vs what you get to buy and build have absolutely zero understanding about engineering trade off. ( Which I expect HNers to have even from a software engineering perspective )
I wonder if there's a future for unified thermal cores in non-Mac systems? It seems like a pretty big win, but it looks hard coordinate around a design if you're not Apple doing everything in house.
Configuration is kind of joke. 16GB RAM and zero free slots on high end desktop?<p>My PC had the same price three years ago, but it has 5GHz CPU, 32GB RAM, 1TB on SSDs and 5 TB on spin HDDs.
The one strange assumption that most Mac Pro reviews start with is a baseline of two compute cards -- that the Mac Pro is competitive when compared with other machines with two high-end compute cards.<p>But I don't want two high-end compute cards, and I suspect that many who are trying to convince themselves that they'll benefit from it will gain no value from it.<p>For many, many workloads, modern compute still represents an iffy proposition (at the price levels being talked about, the Xeon Phi would almost certainly represent a better proposition). With unified memory things might get more workable, but as is it remains a relatively fringe benefit, and it seems odd that the entire value proposition of the machine relies upon it.