The D700 in the 2013 Mac Pro is said to be rated at 3.5 teraflops, so a replacement pushing 12 teraflops and having 16GB RAM looks very impressive indeed.
If they put two of these in a Mac Pro, could that be cooled in the current trash can? Does this signify a change in form factor?
That's 16GB per card. There are Dual D700s, so you can expect to see Dual 16GB HBM2 Vegas.
Here's the real rub, AMD has already committed with HBM2 Vega for Dual GPGPUs on the same card w/ 16GB capacities each.
Navi, the successor to Vega scales much greater than that.
I wish they'd use NVIDIA in the iMac instead...much better video chips.
That is more myth than anything. AMD's chips are very good for the way Apple and many developers use them. Im actually hoping to see AMD ZEN in some of Apples machines.
If Apple decides to stick with x86 rather than go ARM in Macs, then I agree that it might be beneficial to go with Zen.... IF AMD can deliver.
Here's a nice fantasy scenario:
Highest BTO Mac Pro has two Zen-based SOCs, each with 16 CPU cores and a GPU. Those integrated GPUs are really there for compute ,not for graphics. Then have a single discrete GPU for actual graphics.
Maybe the stock Mac Pro has one Zen-based SOC with 8 CPU cores and a GPU, plus a discrete GPU.
Technically, that is feasible. Sadly I very much doubt it will happen.
(you get two of them but you can count on 1 hand the number of software that supports dual cards).
Actually not true. This is Metal that supports dual cards on behalf of the applications. Thanks to Metal, all the applications on macOS support dual GPUs, provided they code to Metal. The function of the Metal platform is to allow developers to "write to the metal", i.e. get most granular control on implementing the parallelism between GPU's and CPU. If your CPU waits until the GPU completes some shader then this is not very intelligent way to spend your money. In contrast if you distribute the task in a so granular fashion that all CPU, GPU1 and GPU2 are busy all the time then this is true parallel computing. In order to get that granularity you must "write to the metal" of the GPU. With Nvidia you cannot get that. Only AMD and the GPU in Apple's A series chips can be used that way.
I should have been more specific... You can count on 1 hand the number of Professional software that supports dual cards. Other than Final Cut Pro, I don't know of any. The problem with Metal is that at the moment its single platform, where most pro software is developed for multi platform. No pro developer is going to fork their software and spend time on this for one computer on one platform that is 3+ years old as well as Apple's blatant ignoring of the pro community.
None of the CAD/CAV software that we use have, nor plan on supporting multiple GPU's for the mac for the reason I mentioned . Trust me...I asked. Bottom line. I would rather pay $600 for a modern 9 teraflop GPU on a single card then Apple's ancient $1500? proprietary dual GPU that gets you 7 teraflops in optimized conditions and only 3.5 teraflops the rest of the time.
(you get two of them but you can count on 1 hand the number of software that supports dual cards).
Actually not true. This is Metal that supports dual cards on behalf of the applications. Thanks to Metal, all the applications on macOS support dual GPUs, provided they code to Metal. The function of the Metal platform is to allow developers to "write to the metal", i.e. get most granular control on implementing the parallelism between GPU's and CPU. If your CPU waits until the GPU completes some shader then this is not very intelligent way to spend your money. In contrast if you distribute the task in a so granular fashion that all CPU, GPU1 and GPU2 are busy all the time then this is true parallel computing. In order to get that granularity you must "write to the metal" of the GPU. With Nvidia you cannot get that. Only AMD and the GPU in Apple's A series chips can be used that way.
I should have been more specific... You can count on 1 hand the number of Professional software that supports dual cards. Other than Final Cut Pro, I don't know of any. The problem with Metal is that at the moment its single platform, where most pro software is developed for multi platform. No pro developer is going to fork their software and spend time on this for one computer on one platform that is 3+ years old as well as Apple's blatant ignoring of the pro community.
None of the CAD/CAV software that we use have, nor plan on supporting multiple GPU's for the mac for the reason I mentioned . Trust me...I asked. Bottom line. I would rather pay $600 for a modern 9 teraflop GPU on a single card then Apple's ancient $1500? proprietary dual GPU that gets you 7 teraflops in optimized conditions and only 3.5 teraflops the rest of the time.
Ironically Final Cut Pro X doesn't use dual GPUs in the way most people think, it uses one for graphics the other for number crunching, it's like not like Catalyst with say GTA V that literally shares the graphics between cards.
I wouldn't read too much into it. There was a reference to a machine with 10 USB3 ports in El-Capitain over a year ago and nothing developed from it. Since USB3 is considered obsolete to Apple, you will never see this so called 10 USB3 Mac.
You realize the USB-C ports being used are USB3 as well, technically USB3.1 (which encompasses gen 1 and gen 2) but don't conflate USB-A connectors with the USB3 protocol.
The D700 in the 2013 Mac Pro is said to be rated at 3.5 teraflops, so a replacement pushing 12 teraflops and having 16GB RAM looks very impressive indeed.
If they put two of these in a Mac Pro, could that be cooled in the current trash can? Does this signify a change in form factor?
The latest GPUs from AMD and NVidia are 40-50 GFLOPs per Watt. If Apple allocates 300W for the GPUs, that's 12-15TFLOPs total. Expect double the performance of the current model. Vega is supposed to improve performance per watt a bit though:
An NVidia 1080 is 180W so dual 1080 would fit in the Mac Pro. That performance level of around 16-18TFLOPs is reachable vs the current 7TFLOPs. The following lists Vega 10 at 230W, Apple can use slightly lowered clocked versions e.g 180W per GPU to hit 18TFLOPs:
What would be very useful is having drivers that let the OS see the GPUs as a single unit. NVidia mentioned they had this so that apps don't need special development, they just see multiple GPUs as one. Vega 10 is due to be announced later this year and launching early next year. Some reports say CES 2017. AMD also has a 16TFLOP Radeon Pro:
The machine running that used just under 500W total. That's with an older GPU architecture and is a dual GPU so Apple could have the two parts in that split. Using the latest architecture would be best though.
The D700 in the 2013 Mac Pro is said to be rated at 3.5 teraflops, so a replacement pushing 12 teraflops and having 16GB RAM looks very impressive indeed.
If they put two of these in a Mac Pro, could that be cooled in the current trash can? Does this signify a change in form factor?
The latest GPUs from AMD and NVidia are 40-50 GFLOPs per Watt. If Apple allocates 300W for the GPUs, that's 12-15TFLOPs total. Expect double the performance of the current model. Vega is supposed to improve performance per watt a bit though:
An NVidia 1080 is 180W so dual 1080 would fit in the Mac Pro. That performance level of around 16-18TFLOPs is reachable vs the current 7TFLOPs. The following lists Vega 10 at 230W, Apple can use slightly lowered clocked versions e.g 180W per GPU to hit 18TFLOPs:
What would be very useful is having drivers that let the OS see the GPUs as a single unit. NVidia mentioned they had this so that apps don't need special development, they just see multiple GPUs as one. Vega 10 is due to be announced later this year and launching early next year. Some reports say CES 2017. AMD also has a 16TFLOP Radeon Pro:
The machine running that used just under 500W total. That's with an older GPU architecture and is a dual GPU so Apple could have the two parts in that split. Using the latest architecture would be best though.
Radeon Pro is Polaris. The Vega is what will be placed within the Mac Pro, with a Radeon Pro Vega variant for OpenGL companies, sans Apple. Apple limited to OpenGL 4.1 Core is not going to be offering Radeon Pro OpenGL 4.5 based cards which have support contracts through AMD. Those are OEM cards for Windows and Linux customers.
(you get two of them but you can count on 1 hand the number of software that supports dual cards).
Actually not true. This is Metal that supports dual cards on behalf of the applications. Thanks to Metal, all the applications on macOS support dual GPUs, provided they code to Metal. The function of the Metal platform is to allow developers to "write to the metal", i.e. get most granular control on implementing the parallelism between GPU's and CPU. If your CPU waits until the GPU completes some shader then this is not very intelligent way to spend your money. In contrast if you distribute the task in a so granular fashion that all CPU, GPU1 and GPU2 are busy all the time then this is true parallel computing. In order to get that granularity you must "write to the metal" of the GPU. With Nvidia you cannot get that. Only AMD and the GPU in Apple's A series chips can be used that way.
I should have been more specific... You can count on 1 hand the number of Professional software that supports dual cards. Other than Final Cut Pro, I don't know of any. The problem with Metal is that at the moment its single platform, where most pro software is developed for multi platform. No pro developer is going to fork their software and spend time on this for one computer on one platform that is 3+ years old as well as Apple's blatant ignoring of the pro community.
None of the CAD/CAV software that we use have, nor plan on supporting multiple GPU's for the mac for the reason I mentioned . Trust me...I asked. Bottom line. I would rather pay $600 for a modern 9 teraflop GPU on a single card then Apple's ancient $1500? proprietary dual GPU that gets you 7 teraflops in optimized conditions and only 3.5 teraflops the rest of the time.
"most pro software is developed for multi platform"
That is the point. That "write once run everywhere" era has ended. The most spectacular examples are Flash and Java. That was a paradigm of 2000s and Steve Jobs ended that paradigm with his open letter about Flash. Big software houses will adapt to the proliferation and multitude of mobile devices or they will spectacularly fail as well.
I wouldn't read too much into it. There was a reference to a machine with 10 USB3 ports in El-Capitain over a year ago and nothing developed from it. Since USB3 is considered obsolete to Apple, you will never see this so called 10 USB3 Mac.
You realize the USB-C ports being used are USB3 as well, technically USB3.1 (which encompasses gen 1 and gen 2) but don't conflate USB-A connectors with the USB3 protocol.
Yes... USB-3 devices can be used on USB-C but it doesn't work the other way around. USB-C devices will not work on USB-3. To further complicate things USB-C devices will work on TB3 but TB3 devices will not work on USB-C even though the connector is exactly the same.
Anyways... If you are claiming that Apple will be putting in 10 TB3 - USB C ports I think that would be over kill but I'll be more than happy. I'm thinking 6- TB3/USBC and 4 USB3 would be the more likely scenario. That is, if they decide to release a MacPro soon. Maybe we will be talking TB4 and USB D by the time they think the MacPro is a little outdated and in need of a refresh.
I wouldn't read too much into it. There was a reference to a machine with 10 USB3 ports in El-Capitain over a year ago and nothing developed from it. Since USB3 is considered obsolete to Apple, you will never see this so called 10 USB3 Mac.
You realize the USB-C ports being used are USB3 as well, technically USB3.1 (which encompasses gen 1 and gen 2) but don't conflate USB-A connectors with the USB3 protocol.
Yes... USB-3 devices can be used on USB-C but it doesn't work the other way around. USB-C devices will not work on USB-3. To further complicate things USB-C devices will work on TB3 but TB3 devices will not work on USB-C even though the connector is exactly the same.
Anyways... If you are claiming that Apple will be putting in 10 TB3 - USB C ports I think that would be over kill but I'll be more than happy. I'm thinking 6- TB3/USBC and 4 USB3 would be the more likely scenario. That is, if they decide to release a MacPro soon. Maybe we will be talking TB4 and USB D by the time they think the MacPro is a little outdated and in need of a refresh.
The first part is incorrect. First off, USB-C IS USB 3. Maybe you meant USB-A, but that's not correct either. The USB 3.1 standard is backward compatible with USB 3.0 and USB 2.0. All you'd need is a USB-C to USB-A cable.
But yes, TB3 devices require a TB3 enabled USB-C port, that's true.
I'm not claiming anything as I have no idea what they've got planned, but when you say USB3 I *think* you mean USB-A ports, in which case I guarantee you will NOT see those on any future Macs. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were a mix of TB3/USB-C ports as well as some additional USB3.1 gen2 only USB-C ports for USB-only devices as well on the next Mac Pro, kinda like the low-end MBP13". Definitely no USB-A though, that port is dead dead dead despite people whining about it.
I wouldn't read too much into it. There was a reference to a machine with 10 USB3 ports in El-Capitain over a year ago and nothing developed from it. Since USB3 is considered obsolete to Apple, you will never see this so called 10 USB3 Mac.
You realize the USB-C ports being used are USB3 as well, technically USB3.1 (which encompasses gen 1 and gen 2) but don't conflate USB-A connectors with the USB3 protocol.
Yes... USB-3 devices can be used on USB-C but it doesn't work the other way around. USB-C devices will not work on USB-3. To further complicate things USB-C devices will work on TB3 but TB3 devices will not work on USB-C even though the connector is exactly the same.
Anyways... If you are claiming that Apple will be putting in 10 TB3 - USB C ports I think that would be over kill but I'll be more than happy. I'm thinking 6- TB3/USBC and 4 USB3 would be the more likely scenario. That is, if they decide to release a MacPro soon. Maybe we will be talking TB4 and USB D by the time they think the MacPro is a little outdated and in need of a refresh.
The first part is incorrect. First off, USB-C IS USB 3. Maybe you meant USB-A, but that's not correct either. The USB 3.1 standard is backward compatible with USB 3.0 and USB 2.0. All you'd need is a USB-C to USB-A cable.
But yes, TB3 devices require a TB3 enabled USB-C port, that's true.
I'm not claiming anything as I have no idea what they've got planned, but when you say USB3 I *think* you mean USB-A ports, in which case I guarantee you will NOT see those on any future Macs. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were a mix of TB3/USB-C ports as well as some additional USB3.1 gen2 only USB-C ports for USB-only devices as well on the next Mac Pro, kinda like the low-end MBP13". Definitely no USB-A though, that port is dead dead dead despite people whining about it.
I think its you that's incorrect. USB-C is not USB-3 or USB-3.1. Although they were ratified around the same time USB-C has its own specification USB-C 1.0 . USB 3.1 devices will more than likely use the same type C connector but they don't have to. Devices claiming to be 3.1 are backwards compatible with older USB's but USB-C devices may or may not be. In other words:
USB 3.1= USB-3 down to USB-1 (may or may not work with USB-C devices) USB C = All of USB 3.1 operability and assurance it works with USB-C devices TB3- = All of USB C operability and it works with TB3 devices
I wouldn't read too much into it. There was a reference to a machine with 10 USB3 ports in El-Capitain over a year ago and nothing developed from it. Since USB3 is considered obsolete to Apple, you will never see this so called 10 USB3 Mac.
You realize the USB-C ports being used are USB3 as well, technically USB3.1 (which encompasses gen 1 and gen 2) but don't conflate USB-A connectors with the USB3 protocol.
Yes... USB-3 devices can be used on USB-C but it doesn't work the other way around. USB-C devices will not work on USB-3. To further complicate things USB-C devices will work on TB3 but TB3 devices will not work on USB-C even though the connector is exactly the same.
Anyways... If you are claiming that Apple will be putting in 10 TB3 - USB C ports I think that would be over kill but I'll be more than happy. I'm thinking 6- TB3/USBC and 4 USB3 would be the more likely scenario. That is, if they decide to release a MacPro soon. Maybe we will be talking TB4 and USB D by the time they think the MacPro is a little outdated and in need of a refresh.
The first part is incorrect. First off, USB-C IS USB 3. Maybe you meant USB-A, but that's not correct either. The USB 3.1 standard is backward compatible with USB 3.0 and USB 2.0. All you'd need is a USB-C to USB-A cable.
But yes, TB3 devices require a TB3 enabled USB-C port, that's true.
I'm not claiming anything as I have no idea what they've got planned, but when you say USB3 I *think* you mean USB-A ports, in which case I guarantee you will NOT see those on any future Macs. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were a mix of TB3/USB-C ports as well as some additional USB3.1 gen2 only USB-C ports for USB-only devices as well on the next Mac Pro, kinda like the low-end MBP13". Definitely no USB-A though, that port is dead dead dead despite people whining about it.
I think its you that's incorrect. USB-C is not USB-3 or USB-3.1. Although they were ratified around the same time USB-C has its own specification USB-C 1.0 . USB 3.1 devices will more than likely use the same type C connector but they don't have to. Devices claiming to be 3.1 are backwards compatible with older USB's but USB-C devices may or may not be. In other words:
USB 3.1= USB-3 down to USB-1 (may or may not work with USB-C devices) USB C = All of USB 3.1 operability and assurance it works with USB-C devices TB3- = All of USB C operability and it works with TB3 devices
You're conflating the USB-C connector specification with the USB #.x data/power transfer specs. They're not interchangeable, they're complimentary. For example USB-C connectors on the Mac supports various modes of USB data/power transfer such as 3.1 gen x and downward. TB3 ports use the USB-C connector and also support USB data/power. A USB-C port elsewhere may or may not even support USB 3.1. It's a connector spec that allows for it, but doesn't imply actual data spec usage.
I wouldn't read too much into it. There was a reference to a machine with 10 USB3 ports in El-Capitain over a year ago and nothing developed from it. Since USB3 is considered obsolete to Apple, you will never see this so called 10 USB3 Mac. Apple is so innovative right now, that their computers are becoming obsolete before they even release them.
Luckily we have the "can't innovate my ass" 3+ year old MacPro available to show us how its done. Make sure you configure it with the $1000US (upgrade price) D700 that gets you a whopping 3.5 teraflops (you get two of them but you can count on 1 hand the number of software that supports dual cards). Meanwhile you can buy the 9 teraflop Nvidia 1080 for under $600 (full price). Oh yah... that's right, Apple does not allow us to upgrade graphics cards in our workstations. "can't innovate my ass"
What is the reference data for the new MacBook Pro USB ports ..... it would be interesting to compare.... I would suspect they show up as USB3 ports as well since they are technically USB 3.1 Rev B ports through a USB-C connector.
I must correct my first tweet (#1 on this thread) Polaris is already old hat. I hadn't read up on AMDs latest work. Vulcan or even later seems more likely. I was about to upgrade my 6 Core Mac Pro with RAM and SSD but now I think I will wait and see what happens. A trade up to to a 'new new Mac Pro' may be a better investment especially given faster ports as well as GPUs and CPU.
I'd also like to amend by suggested recommendation to bootcampdrivers web site. I'd modded Omega drivers a year or two back by taking the closes PC driver and altering all the calls to the card's ID. Although it worked my Mac Pro's fan went into hyper drive. I quickly went back to the Apple driver. It seems this web owner is doing the exact same thing I did for Crimson drivers. I tried his Mac Pro one and again it worked fine but no increase in frame rates and my Mac tried to take off (or to be more accurate drill its way to the center of the earth) the fan was so cranked up. I went back to Apple latest AMD v6 driver and all is calm again. Lesson learned, modding a driver not intended for your card is not a good idea.
I wouldn't read too much into it. There was a reference to a machine with 10 USB3 ports in El-Capitain over a year ago and nothing developed from it. Since USB3 is considered obsolete to Apple, you will never see this so called 10 USB3 Mac.
You realize the USB-C ports being used are USB3 as well, technically USB3.1 (which encompasses gen 1 and gen 2) but don't conflate USB-A connectors with the USB3 protocol.
Yes... USB-3 devices can be used on USB-C but it doesn't work the other way around. USB-C devices will not work on USB-3. To further complicate things USB-C devices will work on TB3 but TB3 devices will not work on USB-C even though the connector is exactly the same.
Anyways... If you are claiming that Apple will be putting in 10 TB3 - USB C ports I think that would be over kill but I'll be more than happy. I'm thinking 6- TB3/USBC and 4 USB3 would be the more likely scenario. That is, if they decide to release a MacPro soon. Maybe we will be talking TB4 and USB D by the time they think the MacPro is a little outdated and in need of a refresh.
The first part is incorrect. First off, USB-C IS USB 3. Maybe you meant USB-A, but that's not correct either. The USB 3.1 standard is backward compatible with USB 3.0 and USB 2.0. All you'd need is a USB-C to USB-A cable.
But yes, TB3 devices require a TB3 enabled USB-C port, that's true.
I'm not claiming anything as I have no idea what they've got planned, but when you say USB3 I *think* you mean USB-A ports, in which case I guarantee you will NOT see those on any future Macs. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were a mix of TB3/USB-C ports as well as some additional USB3.1 gen2 only USB-C ports for USB-only devices as well on the next Mac Pro, kinda like the low-end MBP13". Definitely no USB-A though, that port is dead dead dead despite people whining about it.
I think its you that's incorrect. USB-C is not USB-3 or USB-3.1. Although they were ratified around the same time USB-C has its own specification USB-C 1.0 . USB 3.1 devices will more than likely use the same type C connector but they don't have to. Devices claiming to be 3.1 are backwards compatible with older USB's but USB-C devices may or may not be. In other words:
USB 3.1= USB-3 down to USB-1 (may or may not work with USB-C devices) USB C = All of USB 3.1 operability and assurance it works with USB-C devices TB3- = All of USB C operability and it works with TB3 devices
A USB-C port elsewhere may or may not even support USB 3.1.
and may I ask you what this USB-C port that doesn't even support USB 3.1 would be called?
You keep on telling me that I'm wrong and that USB-C and USB-3.1 are the exact same thing and now you are telling me that a USB-C port may not even support USB 3.1. Dude. this is not debatable. The facts are just a few clicks away. Since you refused to look at the wiki link I posted, let me copy and paste a few key points that support my claim.
"The USB Type-C Specification 1.0 was published by the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) and was finalized in August 2014.[2] It was developed at roughly the same time as the USB 3.1 specification.
I don't know how I can explain it any better. USB-C and USB-3.1 are not synonymous. They are two different specifications. I don't really care to debate you but I don't want someone to go in a store and buy a machine with USB-3 and believe they are getting USB-C based on this thread. So buyer beware. make sure you look into this and know what you're getting.
I doubt there will be any USB-C connectors that do not support USB 3.1 rev A (5gbit) [basically USB 3.0 renamed] or the newer computers USB 3.1 rev B (10gbit).
In the future when they develop the next version - maybe called USB 4.0 -- it will likely still use the USB-C specifications for the connector.
The chipset is going to report the version of the USB datastream standards used, and not the USB connector itself.
The standards may be somewhat independent in theory, but not so much in practice.
and may I ask you what this USB-C port that doesn't even support USB 3.1 would be called?
You keep on telling me that I'm wrong and that USB-C and USB-3.1 are the exact same thing and now you are telling me that a USB-C port may not even support USB 3.1. Dude. this is not debatable. The facts are just a few clicks away. Since you refused to look at the wiki link I posted, let me copy and paste a few key points that support my claim.
"The USB Type-C Specification 1.0 was published by the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) and was finalized in August 2014.[2] It was developed at roughly the same time as the USB 3.1 specification.
I don't know how I can explain it any better. USB-C and USB-3.1 are not synonymous. They are two different specifications. I don't really care to debate you but I don't want someone to go in a store and buy a machine with USB-3 and believe they are getting USB-C based on this thread. So buyer beware. make sure you look into this and know what you're getting.
To answer your first question, I just meant it's a USB-C style port, it just doesn't imply what it's used for. "If a product implements USB Type-C, it does not necessarily support USB 3.1 or USB Power Delivery." from your own Wikipedia quote, which is where I got it as well.
I didn't say "USB-C and USB-3.1 are the exact same thing", I said the exactly the opposite — they're not the same thing. Not sure how you got that from what I wrote, but if that's what you're saying now then we agree. I thought you were implying that USB-C and 3.1 were the same thing. I think we just misunderstood each other.
This actually lays it out in the clearest way I've been able to find.
If the Mac Pro was a launch model for Vega, it helps both Apple and AMD. AMD would get a lot more publicity from that. One of the benefits that comes from the new GPUs is the HBM memory with power draw. AMD has a document here that mentions the bandwidth per watt of HBM vs GDDR5:
The new memory could free an extra 50W to be used by the GPU.
Apple could have used AMD's 28nm Fiji XT models last year as they were powerful GPUs too at ~45GFLOPs/Watt, the latest Polaris ones with HBM will go above 50 and the lower power draw will help if they plan to have 16GB video memory. Single GPUs that can go in the iMac can come close to the dual D700 in the old Mac Pro. That's why the Mac Pro becomes less important as time goes on. If the 2013 Mac Pro satisfied a portion of buyers, the latest iMac will be about 80% of the highest spec model. Demand for the fastest hardware never goes away but the size of that market will keep shrinking the more that lower priced hardware satisfies the performance demands.
The visuals possible with mainstream GPUs has really improved since developers started using physically based lighting engines. Hideo Kojima was talking about aiming for photorealistic graphics in his next game using the Decima Engine from Horizon Zero Dawn. This will improve on work already done in the Fox engine:
Horizon Zero Dawn is here and you can see the quality that they can render environments at now e.g 4:50:
The PS4 this game runs on is under 2 TFLOPs and the new iterations of the consoles are about 3-4x this. New iMacs would be in the same league as the consoles and a Mac Pro would be about 2-3x this.
Comments
That's 16GB per card. There are Dual D700s, so you can expect to see Dual 16GB HBM2 Vegas.
Here's the real rub, AMD has already committed with HBM2 Vega for Dual GPGPUs on the same card w/ 16GB capacities each.
Navi, the successor to Vega scales much greater than that.
Here's a nice fantasy scenario:
Highest BTO Mac Pro has two Zen-based SOCs, each with 16 CPU cores and a GPU. Those integrated GPUs are really there for compute ,not for graphics. Then have a single discrete GPU for actual graphics.
Maybe the stock Mac Pro has one Zen-based SOC with 8 CPU cores and a GPU, plus a discrete GPU.
Technically, that is feasible. Sadly I very much doubt it will happen.
None of the CAD/CAV software that we use have, nor plan on supporting multiple GPU's for the mac for the reason I mentioned . Trust me...I asked. Bottom line. I would rather pay $600 for a modern 9 teraflop GPU on a single card then Apple's ancient $1500? proprietary dual GPU that gets you 7 teraflops in optimized conditions and only 3.5 teraflops the rest of the time.
You realize the USB-C ports being used are USB3 as well, technically USB3.1 (which encompasses gen 1 and gen 2) but don't conflate USB-A connectors with the USB3 protocol.
http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/
The latest GPUs from AMD and NVidia are 40-50 GFLOPs per Watt. If Apple allocates 300W for the GPUs, that's 12-15TFLOPs total. Expect double the performance of the current model. Vega is supposed to improve performance per watt a bit though:
An NVidia 1080 is 180W so dual 1080 would fit in the Mac Pro. That performance level of around 16-18TFLOPs is reachable vs the current 7TFLOPs. The following lists Vega 10 at 230W, Apple can use slightly lowered clocked versions e.g 180W per GPU to hit 18TFLOPs:
http://wccftech.com/amd-polaris-revisions-performance-per-watt/
What would be very useful is having drivers that let the OS see the GPUs as a single unit. NVidia mentioned they had this so that apps don't need special development, they just see multiple GPUs as one. Vega 10 is due to be announced later this year and launching early next year. Some reports say CES 2017. AMD also has a 16TFLOP Radeon Pro:
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-Pro-Duo-Review/Clock-Speeds-Power-Consumption-Pricing-and-Conclusi
The machine running that used just under 500W total. That's with an older GPU architecture and is a dual GPU so Apple could have the two parts in that split. Using the latest architecture would be best though.
That is the point. That "write once run everywhere" era has ended. The most spectacular examples are Flash and Java. That was a paradigm of 2000s and Steve Jobs ended that paradigm with his open letter about Flash. Big software houses will adapt to the proliferation and multitude of mobile devices or they will spectacularly fail as well.
Anyways... If you are claiming that Apple will be putting in 10 TB3 - USB C ports I think that would be over kill but I'll be more than happy. I'm thinking 6- TB3/USBC and 4 USB3 would be the more likely scenario. That is, if they decide to release a MacPro soon. Maybe we will be talking TB4 and USB D by the time they think the MacPro is a little outdated and in need of a refresh.
But yes, TB3 devices require a TB3 enabled USB-C port, that's true.
I'm not claiming anything as I have no idea what they've got planned, but when you say USB3 I *think* you mean USB-A ports, in which case I guarantee you will NOT see those on any future Macs. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were a mix of TB3/USB-C ports as well as some additional USB3.1 gen2 only USB-C ports for USB-only devices as well on the next Mac Pro, kinda like the low-end MBP13". Definitely no USB-A though, that port is dead dead dead despite people whining about it.
USB 3.1= USB-3 down to USB-1 (may or may not work with USB-C devices)
USB C = All of USB 3.1 operability and assurance it works with USB-C devices
TB3- = All of USB C operability and it works with TB3 devices
If you need more info here is the wiki to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_Type-C
I'd also like to amend by suggested recommendation to bootcampdrivers web site. I'd modded Omega drivers a year or two back by taking the closes PC driver and altering all the calls to the card's ID. Although it worked my Mac Pro's fan went into hyper drive. I quickly went back to the Apple driver. It seems this web owner is doing the exact same thing I did for Crimson drivers. I tried his Mac Pro one and again it worked fine but no increase in frame rates and my Mac tried to take off (or to be more accurate drill its way to the center of the earth) the fan was so cranked up. I went back to Apple latest AMD v6 driver and all is calm again. Lesson learned, modding a driver not intended for your card is not a good idea.
You keep on telling me that I'm wrong and that USB-C and USB-3.1 are the exact same thing and now you are telling me that a USB-C port may not even support USB 3.1. Dude. this is not debatable. The facts are just a few clicks away. Since you refused to look at the wiki link I posted, let me copy and paste a few key points that support my claim.
"The USB Type-C Specification 1.0 was published by the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) and was finalized in August 2014.[2] It was developed at roughly the same time as the USB 3.1 specification.
If a product implements USB Type-C, it does not necessarily support USB 3.1 or USB Power Delivery. [3]"
I don't know how I can explain it any better. USB-C and USB-3.1 are not synonymous. They are two different specifications. I don't really care to debate you but I don't want someone to go in a store and buy a machine with USB-3 and believe they are getting USB-C based on this thread. So buyer beware. make sure you look into this and know what you're getting.
In the future when they develop the next version - maybe called USB 4.0 -- it will likely still use the USB-C specifications for the connector.
The chipset is going to report the version of the USB datastream standards used, and not the USB connector itself.
The standards may be somewhat independent in theory, but not so much in practice.
USB-C is just the connector standard.
I didn't say "USB-C and USB-3.1 are the exact same thing", I said the exactly the opposite — they're not the same thing. Not sure how you got that from what I wrote, but if that's what you're saying now then we agree. I thought you were implying that USB-C and 3.1 were the same thing. I think we just misunderstood each other.
This actually lays it out in the clearest way I've been able to find.
http://www.usb.org/developers/usbtypec/USB_Type-C_Language_Product_and_Packaging_Guidelines_FINAL.pdf
Anyway, moving along...
https://youtu.be/Ms16uGxQzSY?t=1651
If the Mac Pro was a launch model for Vega, it helps both Apple and AMD. AMD would get a lot more publicity from that. One of the benefits that comes from the new GPUs is the HBM memory with power draw. AMD has a document here that mentions the bandwidth per watt of HBM vs GDDR5:
https://www.amd.com/Documents/High-Bandwidth-Memory-HBM.pdf
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/05/the-tech-behind-hbm-why-amds-high-bandwidth-memory-matters/
The new memory could free an extra 50W to be used by the GPU.
Apple could have used AMD's 28nm Fiji XT models last year as they were powerful GPUs too at ~45GFLOPs/Watt, the latest Polaris ones with HBM will go above 50 and the lower power draw will help if they plan to have 16GB video memory. Single GPUs that can go in the iMac can come close to the dual D700 in the old Mac Pro. That's why the Mac Pro becomes less important as time goes on. If the 2013 Mac Pro satisfied a portion of buyers, the latest iMac will be about 80% of the highest spec model. Demand for the fastest hardware never goes away but the size of that market will keep shrinking the more that lower priced hardware satisfies the performance demands.
The visuals possible with mainstream GPUs has really improved since developers started using physically based lighting engines. Hideo Kojima was talking about aiming for photorealistic graphics in his next game using the Decima Engine from Horizon Zero Dawn. This will improve on work already done in the Fox engine:
http://manatank.com/2012/03/kojima-shows-fox-engine-horses/
http://kotaku.com/1789646840
Horizon Zero Dawn is here and you can see the quality that they can render environments at now e.g 4:50:
The PS4 this game runs on is under 2 TFLOPs and the new iterations of the consoles are about 3-4x this. New iMacs would be in the same league as the consoles and a Mac Pro would be about 2-3x this.