Comment by cromwellian | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cromwellian | Hacker News Reader

The only problem with these comparisons is that the majority of people do not need ECC memory nor "workstation" GPUs which are in fact, inferior to their gaming counterparts on many workloads and mostly exist as expensive dongles for CAD applications.

Really, the Mac Pro sports a set of $3000+ "workstation" class FirePro W9000's, which are egregiously marked up versions of last generation GPUs. For the price of a single D700 in the Mac Pro you could buy 3+ Radeon 290X's.

A PC user building a high end system would not opt for Xeon CPUs, ECC RAM, and workstation GPUs. They'd put in top of the line consumer CPUs with liquid cooling, top-end current generation NVidia or AMD cards, all for a fraction of the cost.

And in an Apples-to-Oranges comparison on major benchmarks, there's be practically zero different in performance, the PC would whup the ass of the "workstation" class system in games, and some DCC apps might perform slightly worse.

To show what a rip off these workstation cards are, there used to be a jumper hack for NVidia cards that would turn a consumer GPU into a "Quadro" workstation GPU, which would allow the workstation class OpenGL drivers to work, and the result was no different in benchmarks.

That is, the "workstation GPU" turns out to be a HW dongle to allow OpenGL drivers tuned for triangle throughput to run.

The exception is if you are perhaps running long running simulations. ECC could be useful there. But for Final Cut Pro? The ECC and workstation GPUs are overkill.

There isn't an Apple tax, there is an "Intel tax" and "workstation tax" on unneeded/overkill HW that delivers marginal returns to performance for enormous extra cost.

I love the Mac Pro's design, I just wish it came in non-Xeon/non-FirePro GPU versions.

'...the majority of people do not need ECC memory nor "workstation" GPUs...'

Yes, and the majority of people do not need or buy Mac Pros. They buy iMacs, minis or laptops.

"Really, the Mac Pro sports a set of $3000+ "workstation" class FirePro W9000's, ... you could buy 3+ Radeon 290X's."

Well, on the Mac Pro, you do get 2 of those $3000 graphics cards for $1000 total, or $500 each. This is an upgrade price from the low end cards, which have been estimated at a combined value of ~ $1000 themselves[1], so the total would actually be $1000 per card, or what you said you can get that sort of card for...

[1] http://architosh.com/2013/10/the-mac-pro-so-whats-a-d300-d50...

They're still last generation GPUs, not AMD R9's.

I had Mac Pro (old 2005) model and over the course of 8 years of continuous use I had maybe a handful of ECC errors detected. I had far more crashes from unreliable software.

There are a class of people who want fast expandable machines with top end GPUs who don't want ECC level reliability. The iMac is not a replacement for the guy who wants a Mac that runs Crossfire AMD GPUs for games or video editing.

Again, the Xeon is a huge unneeded tax that leaves a whole in the market between iMac and Mac Pro, a whole that PCs fill. There are lots and lots of people who build tricked-out PCs that run rings around this Mac Pro as gaming or video editing rigs. The cases and build quality and "design" suck ass, power speed and cost wise they win.

Apple is leaving money on the table I think by leaving such a huge donut whole, and the people comparing Mac Pros to what PC users can build don't understand what PC users want.

I'd argue ECC is far more important in cloud based systems handling mission critical data than say, The Verge.com editing a review video, in which a single bit error is unlikely to be catastrophic or invite a law suit over data loss.

They're still last generation GPUs, not AMD R9's.

Can you elaborate?

There are a class of people who want fast expandable machines with top end GPUs who don't want ECC level reliability.

Sure, but I think we can agree that people who actually expand machines are not a majority. We are also now straying from the article, which asked "is there an Apple tax?" (not really, the machines are good value for money) to "does Apple make the machine I want?". The latter is a valid question, but a different one.

The iMac is not a replacement for the guy who wants a Mac that runs Crossfire AMD GPUs for games...

Again, I'd say that Apple doest not target gamers, and I don't think they'd be very successful if they did. How does this affect the position that the MacPro is good value for the market it serves?

...or video editing.

I don't think I'd take as cavalier an attitude towards RAM errors as you do, especially since computers are digital and therefore have highly non-linear failure modes.

[1] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/dram-error-rates-nightmare....

By which you mean you can upgrade from whatever is in there for $500 each. They’re certainly not “from no video card to W9000” for $500.

Yes, that's what I mean. Which is why I wrote it:

... This is an upgrade price from the low end cards, which have been estimated at a combined value of ~ $1000 themselves[1], so the total would actually be $1000 per card, or what you said you can get that sort of card for...

Upvoted because my reading skills switched off half-way through your comment.

Any serious workstation should have three things:

1) A high quality power supply. Bad PSU guarantees crashes.

2) ECC RAM. It makes the difference between rock solid and crashes/does weird things occasionally.

3) Any kind of storage fault redundancy, like RAID 1.

Everything else is negotiable, but those stand, because they make all the difference in reliability and stability.

A high quality power supply.

I remember data from a while ago that power supplies were the #1 cause of failures, but don't seem to be able find it any more. Anyone have info?

ECC RAM

This has become more and more necessary with the massive increase in DRAM capacities we've seen over the last years.

A google study showed "...a mean of 3,751 correctable errors per DIMM per year."[1]

10 errors per DIMM per day is a lot, and several orders of magnitude more than the conventional wisdom says! And if you don't have ECC, all of those are likely either crashes or silent data corruption.

[1] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/dram-error-rates-nightmare...

This mac doesn't have RAID, if you want it you'll need the external rack they offer. For $1,500 you get 4 x 2TB hard drives, which will handle RAID 0, 1, 5, 50, 6, 10.

Otherwise you'll need to go find someone else who sells Thunderbolt racks.

Yep. A lot of this was true of the old Mac Pro as well. I didn't know a lot of people who had even those, but those who did had absolutely no need for ECC RAM or server Xeons. Or for that matter a case made of steel. The Apple tax on these things isn't so much in the price as in selling you things you don't actually need with no way to customize them to your needs.

Note that I don't disagree that Apple makes probably the best overall laptops on the market. But on the desktop, both low and high end, their products are almost pure gouge.

> absolutely no need for ECC RAM or server Xeons, where it's not so much about performance as longevity and stability

ECC RAM has nothing to do with performance, it is in fact for stability. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECC_memory

That is what I was saying. Removed it to avoid being unclear, though.

Apple doesn't enter markets where it can't make money. There is at least some money to be made selling proper workstations with Xeon CPUs, ECC RAM, and workstation-class graphics cards with application certifications, etc. There are customers that are going to be looking for those requirements, and aren't going to purchase consumer-grade equipment. The new Mac Pro offers a lot of value per dollar for these customers. The customers who are happy to run workstation apps on a home-built consumer system probably have no interest in Apple anyway, except at a price point that makes no sense for Apple to sell a product at.

Isn't it possible that the Pros are a ... dividend ... for faithful Apple fans? I mean, does the Pro line even have to be a money maker? (I agree with others that the people who need this kind of machine are rare these days, but why not support them?)

No. Apple is about margins, deep down in its DNA. It is a fundamental principal. They just -- as always -- are brilliant at marketing.

They hid all that delicious markup in Xeon and FirePro brands. They know that FirePros are just (1 or 2 generation old) consumer grade with maybe some custom binning and pinout tweaks. They pushed on Intel and AMD to price those parts very well -- in exchange for volume (and not just the MacPro volume, future "Apple" volume), and now every new MacPro owner thinks they got a really good deal.

It is transparent, but also clever as hell.

The "workstation" video cards are not only an ID change.

They have different workloads than regular cards. A games video card is more glitch tolerant as well.

See the specs here and compare with a 'games' video card http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/WORKSTATION/GRAPHICS/ATI-FIRE...

(Still, I agree, it's marked up a lot)

And of course a games video card is faster, they give up correctness for speed. Including there some specific tuneups for certain games.

Cromwellian made the point that the difference between a Quadro and a Geforce, at one time, was just a jumper change. It was exactly the same hardware -- and changing that jumper activated the card's ability to give you better wireframe performance and whatever supposed advantages Quadro had.

And for a long time, the workstation class cards were all that Autodesk would certify their software against. Several years ago, we users finally convinced them to start certifying against Geforce cards so that we could use consumer class cards for their software and take the "hit" in wireframe performance.

"that the difference between a Quadro and a Geforce, at one time, was just a jumper change. It was exactly the same hardware"

Are you sure it was the same hardware?

Sure, changing the jumper makes it identify itself as a Quadro. But:

Were the GPUs binned the same? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning

Were the thermal solutions the same?

Were the memories the same? And by 'the same',same speed characteristics?

Did the cards have the same power circuitry (damping capacitors, shielding, load capacity, etc)

But yes, I am in favour of using consumer class cards for 3D Apps, I would leave the 'pros' for the top end or specialist apps (like the Quadros that have multiple monitor outputs)

Consumer cards have multiple monitor outputs too. Frankly, the rest of the stuff is scaremongering. Consumer class GPUs run gaming loads which stress the thermal envelope far more than say, Autodesk or SolidWorks. It's all FUD to sell someone a piece of hardware at 300% margin, and cognitive dissonance from those people who consider themselves "Pros" to have paid for a placebo.

With the exception of NVidia cards with GPGPU tuned architecture (e.g. double precision FP at lower penalty) there is precious little advantage a workstation class GPU has.

It's the same mentality of "no one ever get fired for buying IBM" as if buying the "Pro" version nets you any real advantage.

"Consumer cards have multiple monitor outputs too"

I mean something like this: http://www.nvidia.com/object/nvs-compare-product-specs.html

"Oh but you can add another video card", not always, this is needed in some cases (a niche case, true)

For the other aspects, your guess is as good as mine. Sure, games stress the card more than Autocad, but maybe things like Maya put more (or different) stresses on it

I don't disagree with you, I would use a regular video card first to see if it meets my needs.

Now, for CUDA or other calculation apps, I would go for the Pro video cards, specifically because I would have someone to complain if it didn't work the way it should. And that's usually why things cost more sometimes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com