New mac pro 2013 review

I still wouldn't recommend that the average person replace the GPU himself, but then again, the Mac Pro isn't exactly for the average consumer in the first place. Speaking of thermal performance -- this is the thermal core, after all -- Apple designed a cooling system whereby air is sucked in at the base of the machine, and gets pushed out of that large hole in the top. Rather than use multiple fans, Apple went with just one, tweaking the size, shape, speed and spacing of the blades. In the end, the company's engineering team settled on backward-curved impeller blades, which spin at fewer revolutions per minute than on the last-gen Mac Pro.

The idea, of course, is for the blades to effectively cool the system, but also to make less noise in the process. According to Apple, the new Pro reaches 15 decibels while under load, versus 30dB on the last edition. And when the machine is idle, it simmers down to just 12dB -- very similar to the lower-powered Mac mini. As I'll discuss later in the review, the machine is indeed as quiet as advertised, though that may or may not come at the expense of some warm operating temperatures.

With the newest version of Final Cut Pro X, which has been specifically optimized to take advantage of the Mac Pro's dual GPUs, I saw the machine play back 16 picture-in-picture 4K streams simultaneously. Editing is a seamless affair too -- you can apply a filter to a video and see it go into effect immediately. Zero rendering time here. Ditto for previews: You can instantly see how an effect will look without having to wait for the machine to catch up. Last example: Retiming a four-and-a-half-minute clip to just a few seconds was also instantaneous -- I could immediately play back a much shorter version of that same footage.

I'm no videographer, as you all know, but if I were, it would be nice not to have to wait while I had a director or client looking over my shoulder, asking me to make changes. Because in my fantasy life as a videographer, I'm always on location.

Even on the more modestly specced machine, I was able to preview and apply effects and transitions with zero waiting time. As on the higher-end model, I could play back multiple 4K streams at once. Additionally, I was able to add effects to clips while playing back my project, and could immediately jump to that clip to see the effect in action. At one point, I went a little overboard and added 15 filters and the footage still ran flawlessly.

There's an option in settings that causes playback to stop as soon as a frame drops, but that never happened during my testing. Not once. Truth be told, I probably could have applied even more than 15 effects, but by that time, I had conceded defeat, and was starting to feel bored with my little game. Other stats: Importing a 9. MOV files from the desktop took less than two seconds -- I had barely pressed the start button on my stopwatch and the import was already over.

When it came time to export, exporting that 9. As a side note, when I timed the export, I made sure I wasn't doing anything else in Final Cut Pro, since the program is designed to slow background processes if there's something going on in the foreground. That said, I found that I could play other 4K clips while exporting a project, though at one point I hit a clip that included a 4K picture-in-picture overlay, which caused a brief slowdown.

I won't dwell too much on benchmark scores here, for the simple reason that most tests have not yet been optimized to take advantage of dual GPUs. As you can see in the above table, for instance, the numbers are on par with a recent iMac, even though the real-world performance here is far superior, especially in apps like Final Cut Pro X, which have been designed to leverage both graphics cards.

Meanwhile, our test system ran the Cinebench R15 Open GL test at 74 frames per second -- that, too, is a good showing, but still not as fast as you'd expect of a dual-GPU machine. It's a similar story with gaming: I ran Batman: With resolution set to 2, x 1,, details on high and anti-aliasing at its highest setting 8x , the Mac Pro managed an average of 56 frames per second, with frame rates running the gamut from 28 to 83 fps. It wasn't until I dropped the anti-aliasing and detail levels to medium that I saw rates climb to 60 frames per second, with a peak of 88 fps.

Apple Mac Pro review | TechRadar

Even then, that was only a modest improvement. In the Mac Pro's defense, though, gameplay is smooth, especially if you disable V Sync, which caps frame rates. The performance just isn't quite as robust as you'd expect on a machine this powerful. Without belaboring the point, this brings me to one of my few concerns about the Mac Pro, which is that right now, at least, most programs won't fully harness its graphics capabilities. One of the reasons I spent so much time in Final Cut Pro is that it's one of the few programs designed specifically to run well on a new Mac Pro.

It reminds me a bit of how Retina display MacBook Pros were initially short on compatible software. If that analogy holds true, we should see more apps retooled to play nice with the Mac Pro's dual-GPU setup.

Just be prepared for some slim pickings if you buy one this week. As for tasks that aren't GPU-intensive, start-up consistently took around 46 seconds -- a moot point if you're one of those people who never shuts down before leaving the office. If you do shut down regularly, you might find the boot-up sequence slightly tedious, though you'll of course make up for it in rendering time. Copying a nearly 10GB file from the downloads folder to the desktop was basically instantaneous. Apple told Macworld that the earliest orders were actually shipped out later that day, but by breakfast time here on the West Coast, shoppers were seeing shipping estimates of February When we review a new Mac, we prefer to review the base model s , and then we purchase one or more CTO models for benchmarking purposes.

We published our first benchmarks of our review model , and the results were in some ways surprising: The eight-core Mac Pro was only 8 percent faster in our Speedmark 9 benchmark suite than a CTO iMac maxed out with a quad-core 3. Results are scores. Higher results are better. Best score in bold. Reference models in italics.

Google Keep puts notes on your Apple Watch

An Apple demonstration to Macworld staff was likewise striking, as it involved Final Cut Pro X displaying 16 different angles of 4K Multicam video simultaneously, while live-rendering 4K video with multiple, complex effects applied. Similarly, the user-run Final Cut Pro X site fcp. In one test, the site put a Red Raw 4K clip in a 4K project and added 18 effects; the clip rendered and played in real time without dropping frames.

The disparate results of our individual tests reflect my real-world experiences with the new Mac Pro. But when I started playing with filters on high-res video in Final Cut Pro X, and transcoding video using HandBrake, the new Mac Pro showed just how much more powerful it really is. For example, it took just over 12 minutes for HandBrake to convert a two-hour movie from a ripped. On my 2. The utility showed write speeds of Behind this circuit board is the Mac Pro's processor, pressed tightly against the computer's thermal core a central heat sink and ventilation system.

When it comes to apps and tasks that can take advantage of multiple processor cores, GHz matters, but multi-core matters just as much—or more. Thus, a 3. However, Turbo Boost is limited: The processor can ramp up its performance only as long as the CPU stays below particular temperature, power-consumption, and current-consumption limits. Combine these capabilities, and the Mac Pro can boost its processor cores for much longer periods.

The result should be significantly better sustained maximum performance for the Mac Pro, even if, say, a 3. It's also very quiet, with minimal fan noise, which Apple compares to the sound level of a Mac Mini desktop.

A pro with serious workstation needs reviews Apple’s 2013 Mac Pro

A fan sends warm air upward, and if you hover a hand over the top of the system, you can feel a faint flow of warm air. Can you buy a Mac Pro for home use as your personal PC? Yes, but it may not be the most economical use of your money and for home users, it's also worth a mention that despite being a desktop computer, the Mac Pro lacks an internal optical drive, even as its cylindrical shape seems perfectly suited for one.

Still, many will doubtless do just that, mesmerized by the design and high-end configuration options.

Most Popular Stories

Our review bridges this gap, interpreting the Mac Pro as a consumer extravagance, while also looking into its ability to handle professional tasks, especially as it relates to the growing field of 4K video. An important note: In our consumer-level benchmark testing, the system excelled, but with a giant asterisk. That mitigating factor is that the review sample loaned to us by Apple is a very high-end configuration.

This is not the first time Apple has done something radically different with a desktop computer. The G4 Cube was a famously minimal gleaming box meant to represent the future of PCs. While the Cube was a cult favorite more than a commercial success, the new Mac Pro feels like the logical next evolution in maximizing power while minimizing space. And the Mac Pro line was certainly ready for an update. The existing tower design is one of the oldest in the Apple catalog, changing little from when it was called the Power Mac G5.

• how to eject disk from mac when stuck?
• wondershare video editor for mac keygen;
• adobe photoshop elements 10 serial number mac?
• download bejeweled 3 full version free mac.
• A pro with serious workstation needs reviews Apple’s Mac Pro | Ars Technica.
• With a unique design and tremendous power, this is the workstation to beat.
• mac mini server case study?

New components under the hood make for a faster iMac. Looks run in the family now, but the edition of the Envy Curved All-in-One 34 has With 10 speakers and a terrific display, this all-in-one offers a lot to appeal to the With super-premium parts, this is both the fastest, and most expensive, VR-ready PC we've The small form factor Mac Mini costs less than ever, but isn't as flexible as other Macs.

Be respectful, keep it civil and stay on topic. We delete comments that violate our policy , which we encourage you to read.

The Mac Pro Review (Late 2013)

Discussion threads can be closed at any time at our discretion. Don't show this again. Apple Mac Pro review: Apple Mac Pro Part: