FORUMS: list search recent posts

Theoretical MacPro Replacement

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Craig Seeman
Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 2:40:38 pm

I'll start with this link posted by David Lawrence as point of reference.
http://www.marco.org/2011/11/02/scaling-down-the-mac-pro

I've posted elsewhere what my theoretical replacement would be but I think it warrants a new thread given the linked article and various comments people have made.

The new box would be:
Rack Mount in size (eg 19") and a few RU in height (depends on cooling logistics).
SSD boot and one additional Hard Drive for internal storage and no further internal drive expansion.
One 16 lane PCIe for GPU and possibly a second 16 lane slot for a 2nd GPU or other demanding PCIe card and no other slots.
No internal optical drive.
Either 3 or 4 Thunderbolt ports.
The box would look like an overside MacMini.

There's been debate over i7 desktop processors vs Xeon for multiple CPUs. This (as well as other things) can impact the power supply and cooling.

I think people are overlooking a key solution as far as ways to expand CPU power.
Clustering
Compressor and QMaster are designed for this.

If Apple designed a box with a lower entry price point in the aforementioned form factor, it would open it to a lot more people who need something more powerful than a Mini and more expandable than the iMac (which maxes at two Thunderbolt ports, a GPU that can't really be replaced and a monitor sans choice). This box would be attractive to many more people than the current MacPro. One could either rack mount them or stack them. If you needed more CPU power you'd buy another box and Cluster them. I'm also mulling the possibility that the Cluster would be connected by Thunderbolt given the greater bandwidth compared to Gigabit Ethernet. The price for each box should probably target the $1800 to $3000 price range depending on the CPU/GPU it comes with.

Granted this may not be the solution for everybody but the above "modular" system would cover a lot of the higher end needs with probably higher sales and margins for Apple.

We can't overlook how Apple has attempted to make built in clustering possible with QMaster. Of course such a setup would allow the boxes to work as separate lowered powered workstation. Imagine two NLEs but clustered when doing encoding or rendering for advanced compositing and graphics works.



Return to posts index

Frank Gothmann
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 3:03:32 pm

Your simply ingoring the fact again that only a handful of encoding options can be clustered. The rest cannot! Plus compressor isn't everything. For a lot of jobs Compressor is unusable and other applications need ONE beefy machine with not clustering options at all.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 3:40:02 pm

Don't speak in generalities. Be specific. QMaster isn't just about Compressor though. It was also designed for use with the now defunct Shake and it may include other functions as Lion expands. Clustering is common with a lot of high end graphics work.



Return to posts index


Frank Gothmann
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 3:51:38 pm

It already does right now. You can use Qmaster to send jobs from After Effects or Nuke to a cluster.
But you need a second license of the Applications and all the plug-ins you are using. Plus you need some sort of shared storage where everything can render to. So if the current Macpros don't sell because of price, your clustered solution would cost three times the amount at least.

MVC encoding cannot be done under OSX at all. Under bootcamp, your cheapest option is 6000 dollars and cannot be clustered, 90 minutes take approx 20 hours to encode. Next stop: Cinevision which allows distributed processing at roughly 40.000 dollars starting point plus additional licenses. Then there's Cinemacraft at 60.000 dollars.
Plus theres the whole 3D realm I cannot really comment on because it is not my field but given the prices of some high-end cuda cards I doubt anybody on that area is looking forward to your vision of future power computing.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 5:05:36 pm

[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.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 3:04:55 pm

Sounds good, now if we could only find someone to make them.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 4:16:19 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Sounds good, now if we could only find someone to make them."

True. I'll admit this all my wishful thinking at the moment. At least I think it makes sense given Apple's business model as well as where I think Thunderbolt itself might be used for.

In fact, as rumors surface about Apple "consolidating their computers" (there have been rumors about an Air like 15" MacBookPro for example and the MBP line may head in the direction) it seems at least possible that the same thinking might result in a large rack mount sized box using the Mini design. I believe common design elements can cut production costs.

I think when people are debating consumer vs pro direction they're not seeing something. It's really more about how they're trying to commodify their production yet maintain margins. That means products would have a broad, rather than niche focus. That doesn't mean forsaking power. It does mean that the product must serve multiple targets and purposes. The modular approach allows for that.

The drawback in all this, especially compared to PCs, is that Apple seems to always be driven towards fewer (not worse) choices. It may well mean having to buy two 6 or 8 core boxes rather than having a single 12 or 16 core box for example. Keep in mind Apple would want to drive down the price of a single box to make this work. More sales and fewer choices drives down the cost of component purchase price for Apple. Ultimately to get to the same power it might cost as much but it allows a small business or facility to start with a single box. That's important in this economy.

One can only hope that Apple is thinking in this direction as opposed to just abandoning high end multi core needs. Clustering a bunch of iMacs is not going to look elegant or practical in many facility environments with a monitor stuck on each. Also the lack of higher end GPU options would be another problem. That's why a new box that can target a variety of needs makes sense.

Cook, Ive are you listening?



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 4:27:11 pm

[Craig Seeman] "The drawback in all this, especially compared to PCs, is that Apple seems to always be driven towards fewer (not worse) choices."

A blessing and a curse. This is alternately one of my favorite things about Apple and one of my least favorite things.


[Craig Seeman] "It may well mean having to buy two 6 or 8 core boxes rather than having a single 12 or 16 core box for example."

Developers have really just caught up to multithreading and multiprocessing in the same box, and we're at the dawn of GPGPU. Clustering trades raw performance for scalability, but adds all kinds of new challenges which I don't think will be overcome overnight.

A cluster of two half-powered machines is just not a substitute for a single full-powered machine.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 5:11:30 pm

[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.



Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 5:41:24 pm

[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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 7:22:03 pm

[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.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 4:04:35 pm

Clustering for any serious work requires significant networking and shared storage infrastructure. Building a cluster of lower-performance, lower-cost nodes to replace a higher-performance, higher-cost workstation may be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

That's not to say that i7 doesn't make a nice and cost-efficient render node. Rather, a render cluster doesn't necessarily remove the need for a high-speed workstation on an artist's desk. There's a lot of time overhead associated with submitting and collecting network renders, so when time is money, saving a couple thousand dollars on the artist's desktop doesn't always pay. A powerful, local workstation for previews and a cluster for bigger test renders and for final renders is ideal.

I like Qmaster quite a bit for its ease in establishing a cluster, but it's far from ideal as a production render manager. Its control for third-party renderers is somewhat naive, lacking any sort of render monitoring or dynamic reassignment. Since Qmaster has been mostly untouched since its initial release, I'm not optimistic that it's very high on Apple's development priority list.

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


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 4:22:51 pm

Walter, I think you're assuming everything is going to remain as is. New design means new development motivation.

[Walter Soyka] "There's a lot of time overhead associated with submitting and collecting network renders, so when time is money, saving a couple thousand dollars on the artist's desktop doesn't always pay"
[Walter Soyka] "Since Qmaster has been mostly untouched since its initial release, I'm not optimistic that it's very high on Apple's development priority list."

These are based on assumptions that Apple won't be addressing them along with the hardware changes. I'd think they would by necessity . . . which won't exist until the design changes happen.

Compressor 4 shows some hints of this just in improved ease of clustering.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 4:44:00 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Walter, I think you're assuming everything is going to remain as is. New design means new development motivation."

You're assuming that nothing will remain as it is, or even on the same trajectory as it is. You're speculating products and technologies which don't yet exist, and suggesting them as reasonable solutions to the potentially imminent demise of the Mac Pro.

I'm pointing out today's real-world challenges inherent in even small-scale cluster computing.

I just don't see Apple focused on this area, especially since they abandoned enterprise computing. Even if they do develop an amazing new technology, it will take time before the rest of the industry can adapt their products to take advantage of it.


[Craig Seeman] "Compressor 4 shows some hints of this just in improved ease of clustering."

Have you tried to integrate Qmaster into any workflow, other than to feed Compressor? It's really quite limited.

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


Return to posts index

Gerald Baria
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 4:29:50 pm

I like the macmini cluster idea, and I think it makes sense to further streamline Apples product line..but wishful thingking-wise...I wish they just bring back the most beautiful computer ever made next to the iMac G4...the G4 Cube.



Theoretically, I say, design their own 64-bit ARM chip, place in some 48-core version on a cube, that will take like 5% of the space inside. The 95% of the space left will be for a 512GB SSD, 2 GPUs,PSU and a fan.

There, the new pro level Mac Pro. The only ports youll see below are 6 thunderbolt ports, 2 of them optical.

Quobetah
New=Better


Return to posts index


Frank Gothmann
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 4:44:39 pm

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.


Return to posts index

Gerald Baria
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 5:10:46 pm

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. http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/02/hp-and-calxedas-moonshot-arm-servers-wil....

Quobetah
New=Better


Return to posts index

Frank Gothmann
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 5:21:04 pm

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.


Return to posts index


Shawn Miller
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 4:56:36 pm

:-|



Return to posts index

Phil Brockett
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 8:53:53 pm

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.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 9:07:15 pm

[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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 9:08:19 pm

[Phil Brockett] "HP Pavilion w/ i7 4 core 3.8 GHz;"

Base model MacPro is 6 core Xeon. You really should be looking at HP Z400 or Z800 IMHO.



Return to posts index

Phil Brockett
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 3, 2011 at 10:36:01 pm

"Base model MacPro is 6 core Xeon. You really should be looking at HP Z400 or Z800 IMHO."

You are correct. The Z800 is certainly a better workstation and surely has a much, much longer mean-time-between-failure rate than the Pavilion. It also is a better comparison to the MacPro in quality. But really, you can run the same software on the Pavilion (or iMac for that matter) as you can with the MacPro. And the software hasn't really caught up to the hardware yet and may not for a long time. Refer to 64bit versions from 32bit (which most products came first on the Windows platforms first). Point being is that if the software can't keep up, what's the point of bigger, better machines?

A apologize for being a little flip in my prior post. My point is that, from a users perspective, the hardware is more interchangeable than the software (e.g., all the posts about FCP7 being replaced by FCPX and trying to find a software package that would have the shortest learning curve to replace 7, which took them years and years to master).

Assuming most people rely on some type of 3D package as well as compositing software and something to tie everything together (FCP7, X, Avid, etc.), it is the 3D that really requires the computing horsepower. Given a budget of $X, and the requirment for those three key software packages, I'd probably (theoretically) lean toward getting the least expensive hardware that will make those three systems go and also getting less expensive (ie slower) computer(s) to act as a render farm for the 3D thereby no need for the background rendering.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 4, 2011 at 1:40:46 pm

[Phil Brockett] "Assuming most people rely on some type of 3D package as well as compositing software and something to tie everything together (FCP7, X, Avid, etc.), it is the 3D that really requires the computing horsepower. Given a budget of $X, and the requirment for those three key software packages, I'd probably (theoretically) lean toward getting the least expensive hardware that will make those three systems go and also getting less expensive (ie slower) computer(s) to act as a render farm for the 3D thereby no need for the background rendering."

I'd still go the other way -- as much power as possible, given the budget, on the artist's desk. Just getting the cheapest machine possible and backing it with a render farm will cost you money every day the system is in use.

With both 3D and compositing, once the artist gets something roughed in, refining it requires iteration. Make a change, do a test render (or partial render), evaluate the result, repeat as necessary. Network renders add a lot of overhead (gather assets, submit render, wait, receive finished render) and may require the artist to step outside of their main app dozens of times a day.

A fast machine on the artist's desk will allow him or her to iterate more rapidly, getting good results faster, or getting better results in comparable time.

Talent is expensive. Computers (even fast ones) are cheap in comparison. I don't think it pays to save a couple thousand dollars on a computer when it will cost you far more in artist time over the life of the machine.

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


Return to posts index

Darren Kelly
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 4, 2011 at 12:22:17 am

Which Apple pro apps were you going to run on this non existent computer?

How much more than a windows 7 machine were you going to pay?

Craig, go sell a video, and start producing something. You have too much time on your hands, or perhaps Apple is paying you to shill for them.

DBK


Return to posts index

Gerald Baria
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 4, 2011 at 1:59:45 am

About the macmini cluster + G4 cube...

[IMG]http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/livingfortoday2/minicube.jpg[/IMG]

You could fit like 4 MacMini 2011 in there..chain them up with thunderbolt and you have a 16-core CPU beast,with 65 GB of RAM. And 8TB of HDD. Just saying it could be done, prettily today.hehehe

Quobetah
New=Better


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 4, 2011 at 1:04:32 pm

While I'd like to see a new MacTower, my growing conviction is that it's over. Less than 30% of all CPU sales are desktop. Jobs said you should be afraid to obsolete yourself and the shrinking revenue from MacPro's all but guarantees that there will not be anything like it.

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/why_the_mac_pro_wont_last/

I hope I'm wrong but I think your idea while interesting is pure fantasy in the minds of Apple engineers.

I wonder if you can use thunderbolt to share CPUs in which case taking 2-3 mini's and putting them in a 1U rack might be a more likely.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 4, 2011 at 2:17:22 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "I wonder if you can use thunderbolt to share CPUs in which case taking 2-3 mini's and putting them in a 1U rack might be a more likely."

The problem with your thinking is that doesn't take into account the GPU. The GPU is more responsible for tasks these days then ever before and this is quite specific to Apple's products whether it be FCPX and especially Motion. So even a commodity box will have to have a GPU and FCPX is all about selling hardware so Apple is pushing GPU performance harder in FCPX and Motion. Apple needs a box with a good GPU sans monitor (they'd like you to buy their $1000 Thunderbolt monitor). Neither the Mini nor the iMac fit the bill. The mini is stackable but sans GPU. The iMac has a decent GPU but isn't stackable. Result is a stackable box with a good GPU and that'll have to be bigger than the Mini by necessity.



Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 4, 2011 at 2:34:03 pm

If you need serious GPU power (same argument for MacPros) then you can add it via an expansion chassis.

I also think some people put to much emphasis on the GPU in an editing system. If you rely solely on GPU to solve editorial and compositing tasks, you've simply moved the problem from the CPU to the GPU. The key is to use both in balance.

Finally, who's to say you can't gang a bunch of 'okay' GPU's together as well? Adobe has been asked for multiple GPU enablement for CUDA since CS5 was released. With PremierePro 5.52 we're taking a first tiny step with Maximus (Quadro + Tesla) for more GPU power.

Again, it's the idea that the market size might not be large enough for a company like Apple to support with a traditional tower. Besides, Steve always said not to be afraid to obsolesce yourself. Reading the book like everyone else and find it fascinating. I think the multiple mini concept would make sense for Apple and for a larger addressable market including some editorial and rendering type jobs.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 4, 2011 at 3:00:05 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "If you need serious GPU power (same argument for MacPros) then you can add it via an expansion chassis. "

Thunderbolt doesn't currently support a 16 lane GPU or do you have something else in mind.

[Dennis Radeke] "who's to say you can't gang a bunch of 'okay' GPU's together as well?"

Are you then saying that ganged 4x is fine? If that's so that might be interesting. Apple, though, has been using the GPU of late to motivate Mac sales as per FCPX/Motion requirements. Apple wants you to buy more boxes (the nature of commodity) so I can't help but think an in built GPU would be best for their economics.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 4, 2011 at 3:05:54 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "I wonder if you can use thunderbolt to share CPUs in which case taking 2-3 mini's and putting them in a 1U rack might be a more likely."

I don't think you could with today's technology. You can't even use multiple i7 CPUs on the same motherboard.

Beyond that, I think Thunderbolt at 10 Gb/s is too slow for sharing CPUs and RAM. DDR3-1333 peaks at 10,667 MB/s.


[Dennis Radeke] "I think the multiple mini concept would make sense for Apple and for a larger addressable market including some editorial and rendering type jobs."

I'd guess the market for scalable server clusters for enterprise applications, web, storage, and databases far outweighs the market for video-oriented clusters, and Apple chose to exit the enterprise market last year.

If Apple were heading back in the cluster direction, I'd think they're be a hint of cluster support in Grand Central Dispatch. Even if they introduce a new cluster technology tomorrow, it will take a long time before this technology could be integrated in apps across the industry.

All that said, I'd love to be wrong on this. I do agree with you both that it would be really cool to connect a few computers with simple cables and instantly multiply your compute power.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 4, 2011 at 7:33:44 pm

External connectivity aside, the numbers are in:

http://www.barefeats.com/macs11_01.html

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Theoretical MacPro Replacement
on Nov 8, 2011 at 1:19:00 pm

Wouldn't a BOXX workstation be a perfect replacement for a MacPro system?

You could then easily build some add on PC based render farm PC's to use via a LAN.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]