Architosh publishes Mac professional workstation survey results

Introduction

The Architosh Professional Workstation Survey study commenced in the fall of 2014, collecting survey data until the end of the year and conducting specific interviews with survey participants. This report is detailed and can be read in various ways. Readers may want to skip to our conclusions on the final page and then work back into the details. The charts and data on page 4 are “comparative” among industries and are most interesting (our favorite part of the report). Use this table of contents as a guide:

• Intro + Survey Results: Key Summary Data
• Gauging the Ideal Mac pro desktop
• Looking at iMac versus Mac Pro for pro desktop workflows
• Looking at Variances in Data by Industry
• Participant Feedback and Architosh Conclusions

The goals of the survey center on understanding how well Apple’s Mac desktop computers (principally the iMac and Mac Pros) meet the needs of pro users in various CAD and 3D industries, from Architecture to Science and Medicine. From our collected data, interviews and research, this study makes five key conclusions.

The following pages walk the reader through the survey data, issues and insights. A page is entirely devoted to sharing survey participant feedback, from both the comment box and from conducted interviews. Further information as to follow-up reports and related future features is provided.

Survey Results: Key Summary Data

Question 1: What professional industry do you work in?

The Architosh run Mac Professional Workstation survey was, not surprisingly, dominated by Architecture professionals, given the demographic at Architosh, which is nearly 50 percent architects. Nearly 65 percent of the more than 315 professionals who took the survey were architects. The next dominant group was 3D/Visualization and Film professionals at slightly over 13 percent. With such a lopsided participant turn-out, and with questionable minimal numbers in some industries, we provide key caveats in the course of the report herein. (see image 01: What professional industry do you work in?) 

Question 2: How many employees are at your organization? 

In terms of organizational size, slightly more than 46 percent were 1-2 people sized organizations, meaning there were a lot of single practitioners. The second biggest group was small organizations of 3-19 individuals at just over 32 percent or nearly 1/3 of all survey takers. The remaining 21.16 percent were in organizations from 20-1000+ (see image 02: How many employees are at your organization?)

Question 3: Which types of apps do you currently have on your desktop computer?

The types of applications used roughly reflected the industry field breakdown from image 01 above. BIM applications led the group, followed by CAD and then 3D design applications. We used the term CAID (computer-aided industrial design) and it seems that many readers don’t understand or use that term in their product design field. As a result, it was the lowest catagory despite clear solid turn-out by product and industrial designers.

As a result, CAID industry professionals put their answer for apps into the 3D Design choice, MCAD & PLM choice and CAD choice. In the future we will group CAID with MCAD and PLM. (see image 03: Which types of apps do you currently have on your desktop computer? )

Getting Into Specifics

In this next section we dial in a bit more detail.

Question 4: Do any of your applications utilize GPU (graphics processing unit) hardware acceleration using OpenCL or Nvidia’s CUDA?

Remarkably, nearly 70 percent of participants said their tools benefit from either GPU hardware acceleration. However, in digging into this further, we have realized that many of Apple’s pro customers, perhaps more than one third, do not fully understand what GPU acceleration is via OpenCL or CUDA. (see image 04: Do any of your applications utilize GPU hardware acceleration using OpenCL or Nvidia’s CUDA? )

This especially seems to be the case in its Architecture market, based on our discussions with participants. We will analyze these results in a bit more detail later in the report. (see: Looking at Variances in Data by Industry, pg 3)

Question 5: How important are the use of 4K displays to your work? 

As much as Apple talks up 4K and 5K displays, the importance of such displays is a bit low from our survey results. However, this percent would likely be much higher if dedicated film industry professionals took our survey in greater numbers. We did find several 3D professionals had pipelines that somewhat ended with precise 4K display needs. (see image 05: How important are the use of 4K displays to your work? )

Question 6: How many monitors (displays) do you use in your current workflow?

This was one of the most interesting questions and we were stunned with the results. Nearly 60 percent of all participants used two displays or more. Again, if film professionals had participated more in this survey the results would be even higher. For a survey which was dominated by architects, it was quite interesting to see so many participants using two displays. (see image 06: How many monitors (displays) do you use in your current workflow? )

The issue affects hardware makers and in particular the GPU makers, whether Apple integrates GPUs onto motherboards or uses discreet cards. We will dig deep into this issue later in the report.

Question 7: How long do you typically keep your pro hardware (cycle length) before you upgrade?

This is the question and issue that most interest the hardware makers—specifically Apple in this case. But not just Apple. Software vendors too realize that when professionals take on new hardware they often do so as a complete upgrade cycle with software included. Often, the adoption of new hardware drives operating system issues that both warrant and respond to software application upgrades.

In looking at the results globally, and being mindful of the strong turn-out by architects taking this survey, we can see that users keep their hardware, on average, longer than 3 years. (see image 07: How long do you keep your pro hardware before you upgrade? )

next page: Gauging the Ideal Mac Pro Desktop

Gauging the Ideal Mac pro Desktop

In this next section of the Architosh Workstation Survey study we asked questions that were aimed at gauging what workstation pros desire in their future Mac. In particular we wanted to know the following:

1. How many GPUs should Apple ideally target for pro users? (range?)
2. What kind of product mix should Apple provide in GPU offerings?
3. How many CPU cores should Apple ideally target for pro users?
4. How important is the ability to upgrade a GPU card?
5. What IO ports are most important to pro users?

While we provide a detailed summary of recommendations at the end of this report (page 5), we will provide a general analysis for these next questions here below.

Question 8: What is your ideal preference for GPU configuration in your pro desktop?

In short, on the GPU matter, Apple’s pro customers are scattered across the board in terms of what type and number of GPUs they desire for their next ideal Mac pro desktop. Take a look at (image 08) and you will see a wide diversity. If anything, it shows that Apple really has responded well to the real needs of the Mac professional user with their latest new Mac Pro (nMP) in particular. (see image 08: What is your ideal preference for GPU configuration in your pro desktop?)

Dual GPU systems slightly out-paced single GPU systems, with dual high-end GPUs desired the most at just under 26 percent of all participants (1 in 4). The next highest favored choice was a single high-end GPU based system, at 17.56 percent. Not surprising, nobody really wants low end GPU systems in any configuration and folks don’t want ultra high-end GPUs in single configurations either.

This means when Apple offers Nvidia’s high-end Quadra boards, users who are interested in such ultra high-end cards tend to want more than one. In fact, slightly more than 10 percent of participants would like a dual, ultra high-end GPU configuration. And 8 percent would like a triple configured option of the same calibre. To put that in perspective, 1 in 5 participants want ultra high-end GPU cards (the very top of the line GPUs) for their Mac professional desktops.

The results of the GPU study data gets a bit more interesting when we look at it by industry. We examine this on the page 4 in much more detail (and the chart is quite cool to review as well).

Question 9: How many processor cores are in your ideal pro desktop? (e.g.: cores in CPUs help you tackle many tasks at once and particularly multi-threaded applications like rendering and visual effects run best when given many cores.)

On the matter of CPU cores we found an interesting array of answers and excellent feedback on the issue. For a survey whose participants were dominantly in the architecture market, we were curious about the high percentage of users who wanted 8-12 cores in their future pro desktop Mac. This resultant, coupled with our interviews, has led us to believe that the architecture market is mis-informed on the matter of ideal CPU configurations. We’ll discuss this further in the report. (see image 09 below: How many processor cores are in your ideal pro desktop?)

When it comes to Mac pros and their professional desktop computer, nearly a third (29.06 percent) would prefer an 8-core system. Another quarter of them would prefer a 12 core system (24.91 percent). And believe it or not, 15.47 percent of participants would like a 32 core system. In fact, several participants complained that the new Mac Pro isn’t a dual processor system providing up to 32 cores or more. The current new Mac Pro is a single CPU system with 12 cores max, leaving the 23 percent of participants unsatisfied.

With a diversity of participants in markets such as architecture, engineering, film and VFX, product design, engineering, science and medicine, clearly one would expect to see this diversity of needs. Apple offers a spectrum of possible options for users, from 4-6 core iMacs to 6-12 core Mac Pros. But tapping out at 12 cores maximum is leaving many Mac pro users unhappy.

Again, we’ll dig into industry related differences at the latter half of this report.

Question 10: How important is the ability to upgrade your GPU(s) in your ideal pro desktop?

While the new Mac Pro has been well received, one initial stunning complaint was the inability to upgrade the GPU cards in it. As can be seen from chart above, 32.71 percent say upgrading the GPU is important. Another nearly 10 percent said it is mandatory. The remaining participants can likely deal with the inability to upgrade the GPU, whether that be inside a Mac Pro or iMac configured for pro desktop needs. (see image 10 above: How important is the ability to upgrade your GPU(s) in your ideal pro desktop?)

Question 11: Select all the IO ports that are mission critical to your present and future workflow needs. 

When looking at IO concerns for Mac pros, as one might expect Mac professionals need a wide range of options. At the top of the heap was the need for USB 3, while two gigabit ethernet ports was required by 1 out of 4 participants. (see image 11: Select all the iO ports that are mission critical to your present and future workflow needs.)

Thunderbolt 2 is required by half of all participants, which bodes well for this standard championed by Apple. Alas, Firewire 2 is still an important and forward looking necessity for more than a third of pro users on Mac, largely stemming from investments in storage, film industry equipment and other external devices.

Reviewing Questions

It is clear from the data that Apple should be delivering a wide spectrum of GPU configuration options for its pro users. The data supports Apple’s decision to ship all Mac Pros with dual GPU cards. What’s missing is that some users, who find the iMac ideal for their needs, would also benefit from a dual GPU configuration—something not offered by Apple. (On the next page we review iMac versus Mac Pro data in detail)

With regard to CPU cores, a surprising number of participants want more cores. Yet, many of these users are not aware that a high-percentage of their primary tools today are not taking advantage of all these cores. Perhaps, these users are being future-oriented, but in our interviews what was revealed more was a lack of knowledge. On the flip side, many tools do use every single core available (rendering, image processing and science software in particular) to the fullest extent. For many users, Apple is not meeting their needs.

Many interviewers attested that their belief in the need to be able to upgrade their GPU is often not backed up by their history of actually doing so. On the other hand, a third of all participants use their machines for three years before replacement, while another 1/4 each replaces on the 4th and 5th year, respectively. That means that half of all participants keep their machines long enough where a GPU upgrade would give their computers a good boost midway through their life span.

Finally, Apple pros want access to a ton of ports. Apple has been a consistent provider of numerous IO options for years and also a leading driver of newer IO technology.

In the next section we examine the iMac versus the Mac Pro for pro desktop needs across our demanding pro industries.

next page: Looking at iMac versus Mac Pro for pro desktop workflows

Looking at iMac versus Mac Pro for pro desktop workflows

The last part of our survey was aimed at getting participants to tell us why they feel the iMac or the Mac Pro are not entirely meeting their needs. “What’s missing?” in other words. If any of the current models are actually meeting their ideal needs, then the participants were asked to select a choice labeled Skip Question (and then move on to the next question).

For the iMac question nearly 30 percent said the current iMac is meeting their professional desktop workflow needs. Hence, 60 percent had something to say about how to improve the iMac.

For the Mac Pro question 62 percent said the machine currently meets their professional desktop workflow needs. Just less than 30 percent had some critical comments to make about the new Mac Pro. What this tells us broadly is that the new Mac Pro is more “ideal” for the pro user’s needs than the iMac, yet the iMac has grown greatly in popularity for some Mac professionals in fields such as Architecture.

Question 12: If your software needs can run natively on Mac OS X, what current version of Apple’s Macs best serve your current professional workflow needs?

Just under 3 out of 10 (28.4 percent) said the iMac best serves their needs. While nearly 6 out of 10 (57.2 percent) said the Mac Pro best served their needs. Not surprisingly, 14.4 percent of users said neither desktop systems best served their needs because a Mac Mobile computer was best suited for their workflow. (see image 12: If your software needs can run natively on Mac OS X, what current version of Apple’s Macs best serve your current professional workflow needs?)

Given the very high percentage of participants in the Architecture market, a market that has taken to the iMac in large numbers in the past few years, we found these results telling. There is a set of schisms in particular on the Architecture side. It goes like this.

Architects have grown uncomfortable with the high cost of a Mac Pro in order to obtain the higher performance they deem warrant for the price range. Yet, part of the problem is they can’t get the performance out of a Mac Pro they want because so much of their common workflows are dominated by single-threaded oriented software.

Architects who do their conceptual design using say, SketchUp, will not see a terribly big improvement with a Mac Pro over an iMac system. Likewise, even BOXX, the dedicated workstation maker aimed at the same pro markets as this survey, make wise note of the optimal Revit workstation being a single, high frequency Intel i7 processor—like the one used in the latest new iMac. And the BIM program that makes the most use of multi-threading and multi-cores is Graphisoft’s ArchiCAD and that system too does not benefit much beyond 4-6 cores.

Yet recall the desire for 8-12 cores as being prevalent in the data. A lot of users desire more cores than their actual software makes good use of. While Apple may be aware of this, at the same time Apple seems to be underestimating the legitimate users who actually can tap out 32 cores.

Another schism is that many architects are using Mac Pros or want the new Mac Pro. Yet that system, for its cost, is only well suited for the type of architect who is doing a lot of rendering work as part of their weekly workflows.

The mobile systems preference is likely go to grow as “mobility” itself grows in enterprise workflows in general.

Looking at iMac: Where is it Weak?

Question 13: If the iMac series does not presently meet your “ideal” pro desktop needs what are the primary reasons? 

The top reason cited at 35.32 percent was that the CPU is not powerful enough. Clearly this answer does not apply to the standard BIM user in architectural practice, nor the 2D CAD user. The next top reason (34.89 percent) was that the GPU is not powerful enough. And in third place was the issue that the GPU cannot be upgraded in the iMac. (30.21 percent). (see image 13: If the iMac series does not presently meet your “ideal” pro desktop needs what are the primary reasons?)

To summarize, of the nearly 6 out of 10 users who feel that the iMac is not suitable for them, the primary reasons are centered around lack of power and not being able to upgrade that power in the GPU. The fourth reason, by the way, is that the user needs multiple CPUs (or implied more CPU cores).

Only 10 percent said the iMac lacks their IO requirements. And only 18 percent said it was because the screen is integrated. Users can add displays to iMac scenarios. Importantly, 17.45 percent said they need multiple GPUs. Again, that is about power.

A few final comments about the iMac data. There were more than a handful of comments about how the iMac has become a more reasonable power per dollar pro desktop for users. The lion’s share of these comments were from Architecture market participants, or from those not in 3D, visual effects (VFX) and film markets. We will study this chart in more detail relative to markets later in the report.

Looking at the new Mac Pro: Where is it Weak?

Question 14: If the Mac Pro series does not presently meet your “ideal” pro desktop needs what are the primary reasons? 

On the matter of the Mac Pro 6 out of 10 users felt the present series meets their ideal professional desktop needs. However, for approximately 30 percent of participants, the following criticism was most important. 18.3 percent said the Mac Pro does not meet their GPU requirements (centered on lack of CUDA support). This was followed by 15.18 percent who said the GPU units are not able to be upgraded. And finally, 13.39 percent said the Mac Pro does not meet their CPU requirements. Explanations for these choices were: (see image 14 below: If the Mac Pro series does not presently meet your “ideal” pro desktop needs what are your primary reasons?)

• Does not meet my GPU requirements (e.g.: no CUDA support)
• Does not meet my CPU requirements (e.g.: need more cores, AMD or Intel i7 option)
• GPU units are not able to be upgraded

In terms of IO only 5.36 percent said it did not meet their requirements. And in terms of memory, only 3 percent said it lacked the memory capacity it needs. Interestingly, just 10.71 percent said the Mac Pro did not meet their internal storage requirements, a surprise given some initial ramblings on the Net about that issue.

The new Mac Pro supports 64 GB of memory at 60GB/s. It’s total internal storage capacity is just 1 terabyte but it uses PCIe Flash storage which is more than twice as fast as SATA flash drives and 10x faster than a normal SATA hard drive.

If you recall the IO chart, users desire and need Thunderbolt 2 (more than 50 percent), so the use of external storage is likely the high driver of this requirement, relieving the new Mac Pro of having to have so much internal storage capacity.

Question 15: What is the brand of your current desktop computer for professional needs?

Finally, in our last question we asked what users were currently using for a desktop computer for professional workflow needs. Not surprisingly, 88.89 percent were using Apple Macs. This followed by nearly 5 percent using Dell computers, HP at 3.29 percent, Boxx at 2.06 percent and IBM-Lenovo at just under 1 percent.

next page: Looking at Variances in Data by Industry

Looking at Variances in Data by Industry

6 out of 10 participants were in the Architecture market. As an industry, architectural users have a large set of core common workflows built around a relatively limited set of dominant applications.

This is quite different than say, the 3D industry where there are many more applications and much more diversity of workflow scenarios. We wanted to evaluate any key differences. Here is what we found.

Use of GPU hardware acceleration using OpenCL or CUDA

• In Architecture 62.5 percent said they use OpenCL or CUDA (average is 68 percent for study)
• In Industrial/Product Design 92.31 percent said they use OpenCL or CUDA
• In 3D/VFX/Film 92 percent said they use OpenCL or CUDA

These results reflected comments and interview data and our own knowledge of the software in the market. While we believe the Product Design and 3D/VFX and Film professional understands GPU hardware acceleration better than the Architectural professional based on incorrect information communicated in interviews and comments.

Number of monitors used

• 48 percent of Architecture professionals use 2 monitors (orange bar), while only 5 percent use 3
• 66 percent of Engineering professionals use 2 monitors, while 8.3 percent use 3
• 66 percent of Construction professionals use 2 monitors, while zero percent use 3
• 46 percent of Industrial/Product Designers use 2 monitors, while 15.4 percent use 3
• 60 percent of 3D/VFX/Film pros used 2 monitors, while 10.5 percent use 3
• 50 percent of Science & Medicine professionals use 2 monitors, while 12.5 percent use 3, and 12.5 percent use 5

Use of iMacs – Integrated Monitors

• 27 percent of Architecture pros are using iMacs (green bar)
• 16 percent of Engineering pros are using iMacs
• 0 percent of Construction pros are using iMacs
• 7.6 percent of Industrial/Product Design pros are using iMacs
• 7.9 percent of 3D/VFX/Film pros are using iMacs
• 12.5 percent of Science & Medicine pros are using iMacs

The overall data in the survey is likely too small to draw any reasonably accurate conclusions about the numbers of monitors used by industry, other than to discuss the Architecture and 3D/VFX/Film pros. (see image 15 below)

The one group that we truly have enough data on (Architecture) can be analyzed with a higher degree of confidence. We would expect the Architecture market to be utilizing the iMac quite extensively.

With Industrial and Product Designers using many more monitors it makes sense that the iMac use would drop dramatically. Same is true for 3D/VFX/Film pros.

How long do you keep your hardware

• 53 percent of Industrial/Product Design pros keep their Macs for five years
• 37 percent of Science & Medicine pros keep their Macs for five years
• 28 percent of Architecture pros keep their Macs for five years
• 21 and 31 percent of 3D/VFX/Film pros replace their machines in 2 and 3 years, respectively
• 25 and 37.5 percent of Science & Med pros replace their machines in 2 and 3 years, respectively

From the data Architects keep their machines on average 3.4 years, very close to other data we have collected here at Architosh over the years. For 3D/VFX/Film pros the data is similar at 3.3 years. For Industrial/Product Designers the data is 4 years. However, we have an inadequate number of participants in the survey from that market to feel confident about that figure.

Ideal GPU Configuration per Industry

• For the Architecture industry the most popular choice was dual, high-end GPUs (24 percent)
• For 3D/VFX/Film pros the most popular choice was also dual, high-end GPUs (38.9 percent)

As you can see from the data in the graph shown, the dark brown is the preference for dual, high-end GPUs while the apple green color is for triple, high-end GPUs. In comparing the two professional market areas below, architects, by and large, need less powerful GPU configurations. (see image 16)

Other than Industrial/Product Design, the other markets don’t have enough data in the survey for us to feel good about generalizing them. Industrial and Product Designers who use more MCAD and PLM tools seem to be able to get by with a single, high-end GPU (orange in chart), but so to do many architects. They also get by even more with a single, mid-range GPU (turquoise color).

Ideal CPU Configuration per Industry

• Construction industry pros need the least CPU cores among all pros in the survey
• The industries are similar with the exception of 3D/VFX/Film, which is oriented towards processor cores

An 8-core Mac is the most popular choice among the entire survey, as noted earlier. However, there is some real variance among industries, as can be seen in the image below. (see image 17) What stands out in the chart is the Construction professional and the 3D/Film professional. They are nearly opposite in nature, and understandably so.

3D/VFX/Film pros are the most demanding of their systems and desire maximum CPU power. Half of all such pros wish for 24-32 cores, which Apple does not provide in any of its systems, including the new Mac Pro which taps out at a 12 core single Xeon. The number one complaint among 3D pros who said the Mac Pro did not meet their needs was lack of a dual Xeon model (insufficient CPU cores).

Many professionals in Engineering, Science and Medicine desire dual Xeon Mac Pros in order to reach at least 24 processing cores.

next page: Participant Feedback and Architosh Conclusion

Participant Feedback and Architosh Conclusions

Survey participants offered tremendous feedback beyond just the interview participants—far too much to share here in this report. However, we want to provide a sampling of some of the excellent feedback. Architosh will be publishing a separate, more in-depth, PDF version of this study and will be sending it out to all those who took the study and provided us an email address. We will also provide a way for those who read Architosh, who don’t fall into that group, to obtain the PDF report as well.

Additionally, we will publish further related, analysis information on this study on Architosh in the weeks ahead. The following comments are a sampling of the feedback and are organized into some popular survey themes.

The iMac is Great for Architecture Pros

Architect Eric Batte, AIA, wrote:

“I’m a beta tester site for Graphisoft (ArchiCAD) and consulted with them directly prior to purchasing our first Macs. Previously we ran Windows on PCs until 2010. Since ArchiCAD is our primary software this was the driving force in our hardware selection. ArchiCAD makes more use of the CPU and the hard drive during processing and so and advanced, workstation grade graphics card is of little benefit. Therefore, we opted for quad-core processors and SSDs since switching to iMacs for the standard workstation.”

“Additionally, we appreciate that they are silent, have great wireless keyboards and mice. We enjoy the Magic Mouse touch surface as well as a general interface even though it doesn’t offer many advantages in ArchiCAD directly. The monitor size and general appearance is also fantastic.”

This author asked Eric Batte what it would take for his firm to adopt the new Mac Pro instead. His response follows: