Apple's Mac Pro Gets Mocked in Taiwanese Animation

[freedom4556]

... Now tell me, what is it about this new Mac Pro you find so ridiculous?
Think it looks silly? Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that the cylindrical design nearly eliminates airflow/heat issues that have always plagued the boxy PC case? ... allows for improved cooling and a seriously-shrunken form factor? I CHALLENGE you to try to fit 2 video cards and this much processing power/storage into a PC with smaller dimensions and better cooling...

I don't really have a problem with how it looks, but the shared triangular cooler made from extruded anodized aluminium is just asinine. They are attempting to dissipate 450+ watts of thermal heat with a 4" x 8" triangle with extremely low fin density using a small low-RPM radial fan and a ducted design assisted by convection. Using aluminum as the heatsink material, and not copper. Only the cheapest junk coolers in the PC space are made from aluminum. The thing will idle in the 70's C and the fan's duty cycle will have to be 60% or more all the time just to keep the thing from melting. It is literally a hair dryer. I'll be surprised if you can't get a second degree burn by holding your hand over it whilst 'rendering' or whatever these professionals are supposedly doing all day that requires a Mac Pro. All your storage must be either cloud or large, loud and hot external enclosures with thunderbolt. That really diminishes the size benefits. You're seriously only allowed a single 512GiB SSD? Besides, even if it really is as cool and as quiet as they say, then they are using laptop-grade GPUs which makes it's usefulness as a workstation laughable. The G5 Mac Pro was LIQUID COOLED. That was a serious computer. This is a toy more for style and show than for anything else.

 

[woodscrews]

no pomf jokes?

 

[Ilia Luk]

hey all, Iv'e been reading the comments below and first I have to say from a designer POW that this product looks enthusiastic nothing less the original and mind blowing, but leave that apart, since It's not relevant to the performance discussion, not until some one can actually test it and compare it to the other workstation class pc's, that said, to actually compare it with the data we have we need to divide some fields, firstly you cant compare a workstation class mac to a normal pc or for that matter any workstation to a normal pc, it's totally different hardware and it's built for different purposes, it may sound obvious to most of you but by the comment below i felt I have to mention it , farther in our division tree we have to set apart the operating systems, osx and windows, and lastly we have to connect the two discussions with our production niche and see if it'll serve our purposes, now lets start: windows based WS that commonly used are the dell precision and the hp-z, which cost's about the same as the apple product above, they'r main advantage is they'r upgradability, since all you need to do is buy the hardware you want and plug it, by the apple presentation thing might get complicated in that area, much like the macPro-retina, the main advantage is supposed to be in the performance side, since the parts are custom made and quality tested to work with each other at the most optimal level with less connections and bridges which can slow down operations, same can be said about the precision and z WS regarding quality testing, but the use of top of the line technologies and innovation in the WS class niche is something quite radical, those kind of pc's are usually take the orthodox approach and rarely utilise top of the line technologies in the built-in form and not as an upgradable 3rd party deck or card, which at the overall approach you can actually save some money with this product depends on you'r field of production, again only time and tests will tell if that's true or profitable. now regarding our second discussion, osx vs windows OS, The most relavant part in any WS is the stability of operations, WS class pc's built to excel at this field mainly, therefor they cost that much, so the differences in OS's might not be that noticeable, although from the technical perspective OSX based on unix which much more stable then any windows machine and utilise resources in a whole different level, combine that with the custom built hardware which was picked to work best with OSX and all by the same company which developed both and have access to the operating system sourceCode and can optimise it too to fit best with the dedicated hardware and here you have something that other WS makers will have hard time to comete against, again, regarding the stability and performance of the machine in some fields, though most of us will use 3rd party apps anyways which makes that advantage less relevant aside the basic fileHandling and overall system use/multiTasking operations. now for the last part, our production niche: both OS and machines can and will work with all 3rd party apps, aside finalCut and few other not that popular production apps, though apple OS by it self have lots of built in functionalities which can save you lots of time for automated proceeders which for window OS you'll have to download dedicated app for each task, that's just one example among many time saving and customisable tools you have built-in with OSX, and as you know in the production environment, time is everything, so at the bottom line, everything you can do in mac u can do with windows and via versa, hack u can even install windows on mac (not the other way around), though I dont see any good reason to do that, lastly said, it all concludes at the 3rd party app you work with and which OS it supports better and in which machine it gets higher benchmarks score, everything else is just irrelevant, pro's and cons you'll find in both machines, so, let me declare this discussion as pointless, the benchmarks of the app u work with vs costEfficient long run is the way to look at things when you pick one of those machines, now KEEP CALM and UPVOTE THIS COMMENT - it's my first one ))

 

[Ilia Luk]

hey all, Iv'e been reading the comments below and first I have to say from a designer POW that this product looks enthusiastic nothing less the original and mind blowing, but leave that apart, since It's not relevant to the performance discussion, not until some one can actually test it and compare it to the other workstation class pc's, that said, to actually compare it with the data we have we need to divide some fields, firstly you cant compare a workstation class mac to a normal pc or for that matter any workstation to a normal pc, it's totally different hardware and it's built for different purposes, it may sound obvious to most of you but by the comment below i felt I have to mention it , farther in our division tree we have to set apart the operating systems, osx and windows, and lastly we have to connect the two discussions with our production niche and see if it'll serve our purposes, now lets start: windows based WS that commonly used are the dell precision and the hp-z, which cost's about the same as the apple product above, they'r main advantage is they'r upgradability, since all you need to do is buy the hardware you want and plug it, by the apple presentation thing might get complicated in that area, much like the macPro-retina, the main advantage is supposed to be in the performance side, since the parts are custom made and quality tested to work with each other at the most optimal level with less connections and bridges which can slow down operations, same can be said about the precision and z WS regarding quality testing, but the use of top of the line technologies and innovation in the WS class niche is something quite radical, those kind of pc's are usually take the orthodox approach and rarely utilise top of the line technologies in the built-in form and not as an upgradable 3rd party deck or card, which at the overall approach you can actually save some money with this product depends on you'r field of production, again only time and tests will tell if that's true or profitable. now regarding our second discussion, osx vs windows OS, The most relavant part in any WS is the stability of operations, WS class pc's built to excel at this field mainly, therefor they cost that much, so the differences in OS's might not be that noticeable, although from the technical perspective OSX based on unix which much more stable then any windows machine and utilise resources in a whole different level, combine that with the custom built hardware which was picked to work best with OSX and all by the same company which developed both and have access to the operating system sourceCode and can optimise it too to fit best with the dedicated hardware and here you have something that other WS makers will have hard time to comete against, again, regarding the stability and performance of the machine in some fields, though most of us will use 3rd party apps anyways which makes that advantage less relevant aside the basic fileHandling and overall system use/multiTasking operations. now for the last part, our production niche: both OS and machines can and will work with all 3rd party apps, aside finalCut and few other not that popular production apps, though apple OS by it self have lots of built in functionalities which can save you lots of time for automated proceeders which for window OS you'll have to download dedicated app for each task, that's just one example among many time saving and customisable tools you have built-in with OSX, and as you know in the production environment, time is everything, so at the bottom line, everything you can do in mac u can do with windows and via versa, hack u can even install windows on mac (not the other way around), though I dont see any good reason to do that, lastly said, it all concludes at the 3rd party app you work with and which OS it supports better and in which machine it gets higher benchmarks score, everything else is just irrelevant, pro's and cons you'll find in both machines, so, let me declare this discussion as pointless, the benchmarks of the app u work with vs costEfficient long run is the way to look at things when you pick one of those machines, now KEEP CALM and UPVOTE THIS COMMENT - it's my first one ))

 

[Ilia Luk]

hey all, Iv'e been reading the comments below and first I have to say from a designer POW that this product looks enthusiastic nothing less the original and mind blowing, but leave that apart, since It's not relevant to the performance discussion, not until some one can actually test it and compare it to the other workstation class pc's, that said, to actually compare it with the data we have we need to divide some fields, firstly you cant compare a workstation class mac to a normal pc or for that matter any workstation to a normal pc, it's totally different hardware and it's built for different purposes, it may sound obvious to most of you but by the comment below i felt I have to mention it , farther in our division tree we have to set apart the operating systems, osx and windows, and lastly we have to connect the two discussions with our production niche and see if it'll serve our purposes, now lets start: windows based WS that commonly used are the dell precision and the hp-z, which cost's about the same as the apple product above, they'r main advantage is they'r upgradability, since all you need to do is buy the hardware you want and plug it, by the apple presentation thing might get complicated in that area, much like the macPro-retina, the main advantage is supposed to be in the performance side, since the parts are custom made and quality tested to work with each other at the most optimal level with less connections and bridges which can slow down operations, same can be said about the precision and z WS regarding quality testing, but the use of top of the line technologies and innovation in the WS class niche is something quite radical, those kind of pc's are usually take the orthodox approach and rarely utilise top of the line technologies in the built-in form and not as an upgradable 3rd party deck or card, which at the overall approach you can actually save some money with this product depends on you'r field of production, again only time and tests will tell if that's true or profitable. now regarding our second discussion, osx vs windows OS, The most relavant part in any WS is the stability of operations, WS class pc's built to excel at this field mainly, therefor they cost that much, so the differences in OS's might not be that noticeable, although from the technical perspective OSX based on unix which much more stable then any windows machine and utilise resources in a whole different level, combine that with the custom built hardware which was picked to work best with OSX and all by the same company which developed both and have access to the operating system sourceCode and can optimise it too to fit best with the dedicated hardware and here you have something that other WS makers will have hard time to comete against, again, regarding the stability and performance of the machine in some fields, though most of us will use 3rd party apps anyways which makes that advantage less relevant aside the basic fileHandling and overall system use/multiTasking operations. now for the last part, our production niche: both OS and machines can and will work with all 3rd party apps, aside finalCut and few other not that popular production apps, though apple OS by it self have lots of built in functionalities which can save you lots of time for automated proceeders which for window OS you'll have to download dedicated app for each task, that's just one example among many time saving and customisable tools you have built-in with OSX, and as you know in the production environment, time is everything, so at the bottom line, everything you can do in mac u can do with windows and via versa, hack u can even install windows on mac (not the other way around), though I dont see any good reason to do that, lastly said, it all concludes at the 3rd party app you work with and which OS it supports better and in which machine it gets higher benchmarks score, everything else is just irrelevant, pro's and cons you'll find in both machines, so, let me declare this discussion as pointless, the benchmarks of the app u work with vs costEfficient long run is the way to look at things when you pick one of those machines, now KEEP CALM and UPVOTE THIS COMMENT - it's my first one ))

 

[Draven35]

you triple posted 😀

But anyway, as for the claim that you can't put Apple's workstation-class machines against a standard PC... that's because until you drop in that second CPU, the PC can beat the PANTS off the Mac for the same money.

Once you throw that second CPU in, you can afford to buy a workstation-class PC that will, once again, beat the pants off of it.

And I guess all the 'Macs r used fur creeativ wurk' guys don't think that the visual effects and animation field is very creative.