New 'pro' iMac said to have discrete GPU and Xeon E3 processor, ship at end of 2017

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 74
    macxpress said:

    How many real Pros are actually going directly to Microsoft? 
    We transitioned 40 of our 50 developers to Windows 10 PC's when we last refreshed our hardware. The MacPro simply wasn't flexible enough for our games developers.
    xzuwilliamlondon
  • Reply 42 of 74
    If you want more than 32gb ram, an E3 is out - has to be an E5+ or i7.

    smalm
     said:
    An old Broadwell at the very end of 2017? First class information from DigiTimes...

    tht said: 
    This rumor makes no sense at all. A Xeon E3-1285? This processor will be 2.5 years old if Apple ships in Q2 17. It's slower than what you can get in an iMac today.
    The DigiTimes article specifically refers to a Kaby Lake E3-1285 "v6". This isn't currently listed, so it's either currently unreleased or it's a mistake for one of the four that have been released so far this year, like the E3-1280 v6. Anyhow, they all support 64GB RAM and DDR4, as well as Optane storage.

    So it's not crazy to think these might end up in an iMac Pro. BUT:

    [1] Historically, the Xeon E3 family has not really been intended for discrete GPUs. Yes, you could do it. But no, these were optimal for Intel's own Iris Pro graphics. That was the whole point of the E3 line -- "entry-level" servers and workstations with Intel graphics. But maybe that is changing with v6?

    [2] IIRC, Phil Schiller said there would not be a change in form factor for these new "pro" iMacs this year. Introducing a Xeon into an iMac, even the E3 v6 which uses the same socket as the current Core i5 and i7 iMacs, seems problematic without the kind of redesign that requires a change in form factor.
    edited April 18
  • Reply 43 of 74
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,944member
    lkrupp said:
    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    Hopefully Apple will consult with real pros (not the ones here) to get their input. Alex Lindsey (Lucasfilm, Pixel Corps) pretty much spelled out his desires on last week’s MacBreak Weekly show. He wants a 2U configuration with the ability to swap out HDDs/SSDs and GPUs. Yes, he wants a rack mountable Mac Pro, not a cheese grater.
    For many industries Rack mount is very important, however the volume simply isnt there.   This is why i would prefer to see a convertible Mac Pro that comes in half rack widths.  Thus you mount the thing in a rack when you need too.  

    This is fairly easy to do, HP/Agilent/ Whatever, Tektronix and a bunch of other electronics companies have been doing so for years now.   With the shrinking size of components a work station capable machine could easily fit into a half wide 3U box. For those that still need rotating, rust a disk array could be bolted to the side of the compute unit.   It is simple design that produces machines for both the desktop and the "plant".   In other words on box for most pro users.  

    On the ither hand i think the bloggers are right, Apple has spent far too much effort on design "making it pretty" for a customer base that doesnt care!!!  Maybe Apple was after higher margins, but businesses must address performance per dollar.   An audio engineer, for example, with racks of instruments doesnt care what the PC looks like, it just needs to fit in.   I understand Apple going smaller with the Mac Pro current, i dont understand their total disregard for professional needs.  Frankly im not hopeful that they get it.  
    xzublastdoor
  • Reply 44 of 74
    danvmdanvm Posts: 371member
    danvm said:
    macxpress said:
    lkrupp said:
    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    Hopefully Apple will consult with real pros (not the ones here) to get their input. Alex Lindsey (Lucasfilm, Pixel Corps) pretty much spelled out his desires on last week’s MacBreak Weekly show. He wants a 2U configuration with the ability to swap out HDDs/SSDs and GPUs. Yes, he wants a rack mountable Mac Pro, not a cheese grater.
    Thats an interesting concept...I'm to sure that will meet most users needs, but perhaps they could offer this as a BTO. Not everyone has a rack sitting next to them. I could see that option working as a Mac server again should one need it. I'd love to see a rack mountable Mac just for that use alone. 

    I can maybe see where Alex is going with that. You could create a small rendering farm with a couple (few?) rack mounted Mac Pro's. Whether or not this meets the needs of the average true pro I'm not sure. I'm not a pro so I can't honestly say. 

    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    I'd rather Apple make it right and not just slap a bunch of parts together with an Apple logo on the side of it. If you want that, then go get an HP or a Dell. There's a reason why Apple takes as long as it does to engineer a Mac, or any product for that matter.  People like Neil will be the first to bitch too if someone Apple released has a major issue simply because Apple rushed a product out the door just to say we upgraded the Mac Pro. You're better off to do it right the first time, not the second or third. 


    Best of all?  HP don't wait 3 years to update their systems and have no issues with thermal design.  Compare that to what Apple does with their Pro desktops, and you'll see which one is doing the right thing. 
    That looks just like an old MP. That's because HP is following, while Apple took a chance on parallel processing. It didn't work out this time, parallel GPU processing didn't come to pass and Apple couldn't retool it and now must start again. That happens when you're bold and take chances -- success is not guaranteed. But it works out for Apple more often than it doesn't, so I'm not sweating it. Despite all the hand-wringing on forums, very very few of us actually buy MPs (single-digit only, remember), so all this arguing is largely just hypothetical entertainment. As a pro software dev I find my MBP and iMac do the job very well.
    Yes, it looks like the old MP, but you should know that HP has been doing workstation since mid 1980's (200 series), while Apple enter the market with the Power Macintosh in mid 1990's.  So HP has a lot experience with workstations and hardware design.  In this case, they made something good better, while Apple...you know.  And while you are happy with you MBP/iMac, there is a long list of professionals with different needs, aeronautical, geospatial, oil/gas, video/media editing, among others. And Apple approach, with single Pro desktop, is not enough.  That's the reason you see HP with the long list of options.
    edited April 18 xzuuniscapewilliamlondon
  • Reply 45 of 74
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,944member
    macxpress said:
    lkrupp said:
    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    Hopefully Apple will consult with real pros (not the ones here) to get their input. Alex Lindsey (Lucasfilm, Pixel Corps) pretty much spelled out his desires on last week’s MacBreak Weekly show. He wants a 2U configuration with the ability to swap out HDDs/SSDs and GPUs. Yes, he wants a rack mountable Mac Pro, not a cheese grater.
    Thats an interesting concept...I'm to sure that will meet most users needs, but perhaps they could offer this as a BTO. Not everyone has a rack sitting next to them. I could see that option working as a Mac server again should one need it. I'd love to see a rack mountable Mac just for that use alone. 

    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    I'd rather Apple make it right and not just slap a bunch of parts together with an Apple logo on the side of it. If you want that, then go get an HP or a Dell. There's a reason why Apple takes as long as it does to engineer a Mac, or any product for that matter.  People like Neil will be the first to bitch too if someone Apple released has a major issue simply because Apple rushed a product out the door just to say we upgraded the Mac Pro. You're better off to do it right the first time, not the second or third. 
    Well on one of the last Macbreak Weekly shows Alex Lindsey basically said he wished Apple would get out of the Mac hardware market and just license macOS to 3rd party hardware OEMs. That's how upset some pro Mac users are. He seems like just the kind of customer Apple wouldn't want to lose.
    Some of the complaints expressed about the current Mac Pro are plain non sense.   On the other hand some issues are valid.  One very valid complaint is that the new Mac Pro just doesnt fit in.  That is it is physically difficult to integrate it in with the rest of your equipment.  

    Apple doesnt need to give up on the Mac but they do need tto get in touch with their user base.   The fact is there are valid complaints with regard to the entire Mac line up and many garbage complaints.    They need to sort through these and make sure their designs address the issues.   Frankly i have more Mac Book Pro concerns than Mac Pro concerns.  

    To put it another way Apple never learned from the stupidity of "New Coke".  
    xzu
  • Reply 46 of 74
    danvmdanvm Posts: 371member
    macxpress said:
    danvm said:
    macxpress said:
    lkrupp said:
    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    Hopefully Apple will consult with real pros (not the ones here) to get their input. Alex Lindsey (Lucasfilm, Pixel Corps) pretty much spelled out his desires on last week’s MacBreak Weekly show. He wants a 2U configuration with the ability to swap out HDDs/SSDs and GPUs. Yes, he wants a rack mountable Mac Pro, not a cheese grater.
    Thats an interesting concept...I'm to sure that will meet most users needs, but perhaps they could offer this as a BTO. Not everyone has a rack sitting next to them. I could see that option working as a Mac server again should one need it. I'd love to see a rack mountable Mac just for that use alone. 

    I can maybe see where Alex is going with that. You could create a small rendering farm with a couple (few?) rack mounted Mac Pro's. Whether or not this meets the needs of the average true pro I'm not sure. I'm not a pro so I can't honestly say. 

    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    I'd rather Apple make it right and not just slap a bunch of parts together with an Apple logo on the side of it. If you want that, then go get an HP or a Dell. There's a reason why Apple takes as long as it does to engineer a Mac, or any product for that matter.  People like Neil will be the first to bitch too if someone Apple released has a major issue simply because Apple rushed a product out the door just to say we upgraded the Mac Pro. You're better off to do it right the first time, not the second or third. 
    If you think that HP "just slap a bunch of parts together", I suppose you have no idea what Z workstations are.  They have the Z2 Mini, a workstation similar in size to the Mac Mini, all the way to the Z840, with two CPU / 44 Cores and 1TB of RAM.  They even have an All-In-One workstation, the Z1 G3.  Slapping a bunch of parts together doesn't gives you a system like the Z840,

    Best of all?  HP don't wait 3 years to update their systems and have no issues with thermal design.  Compare that to what Apple does with their Pro desktops, and you'll see which one is doing the right thing. 
    But in the end...it still runs Windows. :)
    Yes, it run Windows and Linux.  So there are two options, run macOS in below average workstation, as the Mac Pro or run Windows/Linux (IMO, macOS, Windows and Linux are excellent) in a workstation line with wide range of options.  Too bad that macOS users have just a singe option for a workstation desktop.  I remember when many people here said that it was for the best for Apple to have full control of software and hardware.  Looks like that not true at all. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 47 of 74
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,944member
    One thing the so called pros in this forum have a hard time understanding is the dramatic shifts happening in the PC industry.    One big one just announced yesterday is that IDF is gone.  That is Intels Developer Forums.     This just demonstrates how dead the PC world is these days.   With other changes already announced the days of yearly and significant updates are gone.  So even if Apple ships new machines this year dont expect rapid improvements in the follow on years.  

    The there is the issue of big boxes.  Sorry guys but that ship has sailed.   The last thing Apple needs to do is to ship a cheese grater sized machine.   The market isnt there for one.  Two such machines arent needed anymore.  

    The fact is there is no real value in a big box machine, tech has shrunken to the point that one chip is good enough for most peoples CPU needs.    Take a good look at AMDs Ryzen CPUs, six cores twelve threads are easy these days.   We are talking 65 watt chips in some cases.   Right now pros requiring more thread support than that are few and hardly noticable on the sales charts.   One of these stuffed into a Mini/max or a cut down Mac Pro, a machine that supports a GPU chip, would be good enough for the majority of users out there.   The point here is that the days of needing a massive box to control thermals is gone.   You can build a very good "pro" desktop in a 250 watt envelope.   You can do even better at 500 watts but the reality is sales arent there to support development of such boxes.  At least not on its own, your best bet is a family built around a chassis that can support both envelopes.   

    The biggest mistake Apple made with the Nac Pro isnt the machines Physical size, it is rather the fact that the entry price was way to high for a entry level Pro machine.  One simply doesnt need to spend $3000 for a machine capable of Pro work these days.   Further much of the Pro world doesnt need dual GPU cards.  The lack of a Mac Pro in the $1200 range is just plain stupid.  

    I suspect Apple thought they had a more dedicated Pro customer base, willing to put up with poor value in its hardware. The recent knee jerk reaction prety much highlights that.their customer base wasnt locked in.  You cant pedal high priced crap to people that make a living off your tools.  It isnt just the Mac Pro either they pretty much screwed up the MBP as a "Pro" macine.   Frankly i dont see much hope for a "pro" iMac considering recent history.   
  • Reply 48 of 74
    I like the Achilles heel analogy, remembering that Achilles' mother Thetis dipped Achilles in the River Styx to give him immortality, while holding onto his foot.  The mac is the driving force, the winged foot that gives Achilles his speed.  It is indeed vulnerable!

    The question of how to make it less vulnerable?  There are two ways.  One is to make it more powerful, and the other is to make it less expensive.  

    Apple could soon be in a position where it might create an iMac so appealing and un-copyable that if it were priced the same or less than other computers people would hands down buy the Mac.  After a couple of years of this market, PC manufacturers would be hard put to continue their lines of product.  

    The approach of making the Mac more powerful, while it benefits the power user who can afford it, probably does not remove the vulnerability, since lesser-priced PCs will still be around.  Also, most computers are fast enough for most things now, so increasing the power and scope doesn't make as much of a difference as it used to, while the integration with the ecosystem is starting to be a real friction-removing benefit.

  • Reply 49 of 74
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 1,584member
    macxpress said:
    danvm said:
    macxpress said:
    lkrupp said:
    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    Hopefully Apple will consult with real pros (not the ones here) to get their input. Alex Lindsey (Lucasfilm, Pixel Corps) pretty much spelled out his desires on last week’s MacBreak Weekly show. He wants a 2U configuration with the ability to swap out HDDs/SSDs and GPUs. Yes, he wants a rack mountable Mac Pro, not a cheese grater.
    Thats an interesting concept...I'm to sure that will meet most users needs, but perhaps they could offer this as a BTO. Not everyone has a rack sitting next to them. I could see that option working as a Mac server again should one need it. I'd love to see a rack mountable Mac just for that use alone. 

    I can maybe see where Alex is going with that. You could create a small rendering farm with a couple (few?) rack mounted Mac Pro's. Whether or not this meets the needs of the average true pro I'm not sure. I'm not a pro so I can't honestly say. 

    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    I'd rather Apple make it right and not just slap a bunch of parts together with an Apple logo on the side of it. If you want that, then go get an HP or a Dell. There's a reason why Apple takes as long as it does to engineer a Mac, or any product for that matter.  People like Neil will be the first to bitch too if someone Apple released has a major issue simply because Apple rushed a product out the door just to say we upgraded the Mac Pro. You're better off to do it right the first time, not the second or third. 
    If you think that HP "just slap a bunch of parts together", I suppose you have no idea what Z workstations are.  They have the Z2 Mini, a workstation similar in size to the Mac Mini, all the way to the Z840, with two CPU / 44 Cores and 1TB of RAM.  They even have an All-In-One workstation, the Z1 G3.  Slapping a bunch of parts together doesn't gives you a system like the Z840,

    Best of all?  HP don't wait 3 years to update their systems and have no issues with thermal design.  Compare that to what Apple does with their Pro desktops, and you'll see which one is doing the right thing. 
    But in the end...it still runs Windows. :)
    So basically HP should ask Apple to let them license macOS. ;)
  • Reply 50 of 74
    grangerfxgrangerfx Posts: 332member
    No one is asking for server grade processors in a pro iMac. That would just be an excuse to jack up the price sky high. An 8 (or rumored 16) core AMD processor would be perfect and reasonably affordable.
  • Reply 51 of 74
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 41,329member
    danvm said:
    If you think that HP "just slap a bunch of parts together", I suppose you have no idea what Z workstations are.  They have the Z2 Mini, a workstation similar in size to the Mac Mini, all the way to the Z840, with two CPU / 44 Cores and 1TB of RAM.  They even have an All-In-One workstation, the Z1 G3.  Slapping a bunch of parts together doesn't gives you a system like the Z840,

    Best of all?  HP don't wait 3 years to update their systems and have no issues with thermal design.  Compare that to what Apple does with their Pro desktops, and you'll see which one is doing the right thing. 
    “But it’s proprietary, so it’s bad!” – Anti-Apple shills
  • Reply 52 of 74
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,006member
    Just a few musings after reading this thread and some other stories/podcasts lately:
    - After 47 posts, there is very little consensus on this thread as to what a new Mac Pro should have.  It ranges all the way from a smaller but powerful package, to something like the previous MP model, up to a server and then into the realm of Apple basically reselling components anyone wants and supporting that user upgradeable system.  The only thing guaranteed is that no matter what Apple introduces, the Internet will be filled with wailing of failure.

    - We keep hearing that Apple needs to "innovate" here, but I am not sure why.  Most people that are voicing an opinion on the "pro market" are saying they want only bigger/better/faster (with no interest in size/weight/battery life/UI).  Apple produced an innovative MBP, and the complaints were that all "pros" wanted was faster CPU, more RAM, thicker, more ports with keeping of existing ports.  That doesn't seem to require innovation.  The last MP was an Apple attempt at innovation (clearly in the wrong direction).  But what we hear a lot is that having ability to upgrade the GPU to latest and greatest, with more RAM of course, is the most important.  So again, doesn't require a lot of innovation (it does require good engineering, time & resources of course).  Perhaps we can agree that Apple's problem here is too much innovation (or attempts at it), not too little?

    - The nature of high-end computing has changed a lot in the last decade, and it isn't slowing down.  10 years ago an enterprise had to have its own mini-DC -> now they can just as easily purchase computing resources on-demand from any number of public cloud providers (Amazon, MS Azure, Google Cloud, Backspace, ...).  Scale here is simple and almost infinite (I need 520GB of RAM to run this application...done).  I am not sure that someone who is "computer modelling" is thinking of a new Mac Pro, vs. a cloud strategy.  For sure, there are pro tasks like video & photo production / editing which require the high-end work stations due to the user/operator interaction.  But I know for a fact that many tasks which do not require immediate user interaction are done via cloud computing (video compression, encryption, etc).

    - No matter how much money/resources that Apple "could" devote to higher-end Mac's in the future, it would not move the needle on Apple's revenue.  There are absolutely valid reasons for pros that use Macs to want better machines than Apple has given them.  And Apple does need to keep a vibrant developer community for its application ecosystem.  However, I am afraid that those who think having a wide range of Mac options for the pros will lead to growth (Apple's salvation...!!) are delusional.  Look at Apple's Mac revenue line over the last 10 years.  Apple couldn't grow their high-end Mac business by more than a few $B/year no matter what they develop.  The market simply isn't there (Apple's isn't also going to say let's drop their margin pants so we make very little money per unit, and majority of those with Windows workflows forever aren't going to switch).  The only growth in Apple's Mac business is to go a bit further down in the premium laptop market, to say the $799 entry point.  They could only do this with their own CPU (and maybe GPU) ARM-based tech, and it is not clear that they will do this.  They seem to be pushing iPad in this area.

    I certainly hope Apple developers a "really good" Mac Pro that provides for updates for at least 10 years, if not more.  It should keep a number of developers from leaving and the bad press from getting out of hand - because that is what this is really about - this new MP might as well be coming out of the PR/marketing budget.
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 53 of 74
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 2,704member
    danvm said:
    macxpress said:
    danvm said:
    macxpress said:
    lkrupp said:
    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    Hopefully Apple will consult with real pros (not the ones here) to get their input. Alex Lindsey (Lucasfilm, Pixel Corps) pretty much spelled out his desires on last week’s MacBreak Weekly show. He wants a 2U configuration with the ability to swap out HDDs/SSDs and GPUs. Yes, he wants a rack mountable Mac Pro, not a cheese grater.
    Thats an interesting concept...I'm to sure that will meet most users needs, but perhaps they could offer this as a BTO. Not everyone has a rack sitting next to them. I could see that option working as a Mac server again should one need it. I'd love to see a rack mountable Mac just for that use alone. 

    I can maybe see where Alex is going with that. You could create a small rendering farm with a couple (few?) rack mounted Mac Pro's. Whether or not this meets the needs of the average true pro I'm not sure. I'm not a pro so I can't honestly say. 

    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    I'd rather Apple make it right and not just slap a bunch of parts together with an Apple logo on the side of it. If you want that, then go get an HP or a Dell. There's a reason why Apple takes as long as it does to engineer a Mac, or any product for that matter.  People like Neil will be the first to bitch too if someone Apple released has a major issue simply because Apple rushed a product out the door just to say we upgraded the Mac Pro. You're better off to do it right the first time, not the second or third. 
    If you think that HP "just slap a bunch of parts together", I suppose you have no idea what Z workstations are.  They have the Z2 Mini, a workstation similar in size to the Mac Mini, all the way to the Z840, with two CPU / 44 Cores and 1TB of RAM.  They even have an All-In-One workstation, the Z1 G3.  Slapping a bunch of parts together doesn't gives you a system like the Z840,

    Best of all?  HP don't wait 3 years to update their systems and have no issues with thermal design.  Compare that to what Apple does with their Pro desktops, and you'll see which one is doing the right thing. 
    But in the end...it still runs Windows. :)
    Yes, it run Windows and Linux.  So there are two options, run macOS in below average workstation, as the Mac Pro or run Windows/Linux (IMO, macOS, Windows and Linux are excellent) in a workstation line with wide range of options.  Too bad that macOS users have just a singe option for a workstation desktop.  I remember when many people here said that it was for the best for Apple to have full control of software and hardware.  Looks like that not true at all. 
    I'll take macOS anyway of the week one some crappy version of Windows and well nobody cares about Linux. The problem is getting fixed with the Mac Pro so keep your pants on...
    StrangeDayswilliamlondon
  • Reply 54 of 74
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 2,704member

    macxpress said:
    danvm said:
    macxpress said:
    lkrupp said:
    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    Hopefully Apple will consult with real pros (not the ones here) to get their input. Alex Lindsey (Lucasfilm, Pixel Corps) pretty much spelled out his desires on last week’s MacBreak Weekly show. He wants a 2U configuration with the ability to swap out HDDs/SSDs and GPUs. Yes, he wants a rack mountable Mac Pro, not a cheese grater.
    Thats an interesting concept...I'm to sure that will meet most users needs, but perhaps they could offer this as a BTO. Not everyone has a rack sitting next to them. I could see that option working as a Mac server again should one need it. I'd love to see a rack mountable Mac just for that use alone. 

    I can maybe see where Alex is going with that. You could create a small rendering farm with a couple (few?) rack mounted Mac Pro's. Whether or not this meets the needs of the average true pro I'm not sure. I'm not a pro so I can't honestly say. 

    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    I'd rather Apple make it right and not just slap a bunch of parts together with an Apple logo on the side of it. If you want that, then go get an HP or a Dell. There's a reason why Apple takes as long as it does to engineer a Mac, or any product for that matter.  People like Neil will be the first to bitch too if someone Apple released has a major issue simply because Apple rushed a product out the door just to say we upgraded the Mac Pro. You're better off to do it right the first time, not the second or third. 
    If you think that HP "just slap a bunch of parts together", I suppose you have no idea what Z workstations are.  They have the Z2 Mini, a workstation similar in size to the Mac Mini, all the way to the Z840, with two CPU / 44 Cores and 1TB of RAM.  They even have an All-In-One workstation, the Z1 G3.  Slapping a bunch of parts together doesn't gives you a system like the Z840,

    Best of all?  HP don't wait 3 years to update their systems and have no issues with thermal design.  Compare that to what Apple does with their Pro desktops, and you'll see which one is doing the right thing. 
    But in the end...it still runs Windows. :)
    So basically HP should ask Apple to let them license macOS. ;)
    And Apple would respond by saying BAHAHAHAHAHAHA...NO!
    williamlondonanome
  • Reply 55 of 74
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 2,704member
    brucemc said:
    Just a few musings after reading this thread and some other stories/podcasts lately:
    - After 47 posts, there is very little consensus on this thread as to what a new Mac Pro should have.  It ranges all the way from a smaller but powerful package, to something like the previous MP model, up to a server and then into the realm of Apple basically reselling components anyone wants and supporting that user upgradeable system.  The only thing guaranteed is that no matter what Apple introduces, the Internet will be filled with wailing of failure.

    - We keep hearing that Apple needs to "innovate" here, but I am not sure why.  Most people that are voicing an opinion on the "pro market" are saying they want only bigger/better/faster (with no interest in size/weight/battery life/UI).  Apple produced an innovative MBP, and the complaints were that all "pros" wanted was faster CPU, more RAM, thicker, more ports with keeping of existing ports.  That doesn't seem to require innovation.  The last MP was an Apple attempt at innovation (clearly in the wrong direction).  But what we hear a lot is that having ability to upgrade the GPU to latest and greatest, with more RAM of course, is the most important.  So again, doesn't require a lot of innovation (it does require good engineering, time & resources of course).  Perhaps we can agree that Apple's problem here is too much innovation (or attempts at it), not too little?

    - The nature of high-end computing has changed a lot in the last decade, and it isn't slowing down.  10 years ago an enterprise had to have its own mini-DC -> now they can just as easily purchase computing resources on-demand from any number of public cloud providers (Amazon, MS Azure, Google Cloud, Backspace, ...).  Scale here is simple and almost infinite (I need 520GB of RAM to run this application...done).  I am not sure that someone who is "computer modelling" is thinking of a new Mac Pro, vs. a cloud strategy.  For sure, there are pro tasks like video & photo production / editing which require the high-end work stations due to the user/operator interaction.  But I know for a fact that many tasks which do not require immediate user interaction are done via cloud computing (video compression, encryption, etc).

    - No matter how much money/resources that Apple "could" devote to higher-end Mac's in the future, it would not move the needle on Apple's revenue.  There are absolutely valid reasons for pros that use Macs to want better machines than Apple has given them.  And Apple does need to keep a vibrant developer community for its application ecosystem.  However, I am afraid that those who think having a wide range of Mac options for the pros will lead to growth (Apple's salvation...!!) are delusional.  Look at Apple's Mac revenue line over the last 10 years.  Apple couldn't grow their high-end Mac business by more than a few $B/year no matter what they develop.  The market simply isn't there (Apple's isn't also going to say let's drop their margin pants so we make very little money per unit, and majority of those with Windows workflows forever aren't going to switch).  The only growth in Apple's Mac business is to go a bit further down in the premium laptop market, to say the $799 entry point.  They could only do this with their own CPU (and maybe GPU) ARM-based tech, and it is not clear that they will do this.  They seem to be pushing iPad in this area.

    I certainly hope Apple developers a "really good" Mac Pro that provides for updates for at least 10 years, if not more.  It should keep a number of developers from leaving and the bad press from getting out of hand - because that is what this is really about - this new MP might as well be coming out of the PR/marketing budget.
    Thats because this thread is supposed to be about an iMac Pro...not the new Mac Pro. 
  • Reply 56 of 74
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 1,361member
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    macxpress said:
    lkrupp said:
    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    Hopefully Apple will consult with real pros (not the ones here) to get their input. Alex Lindsey (Lucasfilm, Pixel Corps) pretty much spelled out his desires on last week’s MacBreak Weekly show. He wants a 2U configuration with the ability to swap out HDDs/SSDs and GPUs. Yes, he wants a rack mountable Mac Pro, not a cheese grater.
    Thats an interesting concept...I'm to sure that will meet most users needs, but perhaps they could offer this as a BTO. Not everyone has a rack sitting next to them. I could see that option working as a Mac server again should one need it. I'd love to see a rack mountable Mac just for that use alone. 

    I can maybe see where Alex is going with that. You could create a small rendering farm with a couple (few?) rack mounted Mac Pro's. Whether or not this meets the needs of the average true pro I'm not sure. I'm not a pro so I can't honestly say. 

    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    I'd rather Apple make it right and not just slap a bunch of parts together with an Apple logo on the side of it. If you want that, then go get an HP or a Dell. There's a reason why Apple takes as long as it does to engineer a Mac, or any product for that matter.  People like Neil will be the first to bitch too if someone Apple released has a major issue simply because Apple rushed a product out the door just to say we upgraded the Mac Pro. You're better off to do it right the first time, not the second or third. 


    Best of all?  HP don't wait 3 years to update their systems and have no issues with thermal design.  Compare that to what Apple does with their Pro desktops, and you'll see which one is doing the right thing. 
    That looks just like an old MP. That's because HP is following, while Apple took a chance on parallel processing. It didn't work out this time, parallel GPU processing didn't come to pass and Apple couldn't retool it and now must start again. That happens when you're bold and take chances -- success is not guaranteed. But it works out for Apple more often than it doesn't, so I'm not sweating it. Despite all the hand-wringing on forums, very very few of us actually buy MPs (single-digit only, remember), so all this arguing is largely just hypothetical entertainment. As a pro software dev I find my MBP and iMac do the job very well.
    Yes, it looks like the old MP, but you should know that HP has been doing workstation since mid 1980's (200 series), while Apple enter the market with the Power Macintosh in mid 1990's.  So HP has a lot experience with workstations and hardware design.  In this case, they made something good better, while Apple...you know.  And while you are happy with you MBP/iMac, there is a long list of professionals with different needs, aeronautical, geospatial, oil/gas, video/media editing, among others. And Apple approach, with single Pro desktop, is not enough.  That's the reason you see HP with the long list of options.
    Like I said, Apple gambled and a took a chance with a parallel processing model for work computing. It didn't work out. However it doesnt mean eternal damnation, and I have no doubt the Pro will be corrected -- for that single-digit market of Pro mac customers, which excludes the vast majority of us. (It's my hunch that the most vocal of whiners don't even buy these things but just like to protest)

    And even faster 5k iMacs for the rest of us pros who don't need an actual work station? Sure, keep it coming. I've been pleasantly surprised how well a fully-loaded iMac has served me. That and my MBP for mobile development and I really can't complain, it's a great environment for software development.
    edited April 18 randominternetpersonwilliamlondon
  • Reply 57 of 74
    thttht Posts: 2,536member
    wizard69 said:

    The biggest mistake Apple made with the Nac Pro isnt the machines Physical size, it is rather the fact that the entry price was way to high for a entry level Pro machine.  One simply doesnt need to spend $3000 for a machine capable of Pro work these days.   Further much of the Pro world doesnt need dual GPU cards.  The lack of a Mac Pro in the $1200 range is just plain stupid.  

    I suspect Apple thought they had a more dedicated Pro customer base, willing to put up with poor value in its hardware. The recent knee jerk reaction prety much highlights that.their customer base wasnt locked in.  You cant pedal high priced crap to people that make a living off your tools.  It isnt just the Mac Pro either they pretty much screwed up the MBP as a "Pro" macine.   Frankly i dont see much hope for a "pro" iMac considering recent history.   

    This argument has been going around on Appleinsider since the 90s. xMac ;)

    A big part of the dilemma is the presence of the iMac and Apple's reluctance to have overlap at various price tiers. As long as they consider the iMac and a headless machine as the same type of desktop computer, they won't give the consumer a choice. Ie, an iMac at $1800 and a Mac Pro + display at $1800 is a choice they don't really want to give to their prospective customers. For better or worse, iMacs occupy price tiers from $1000 to $2500, Mac Pros at >$3000, Mac minis at <$1000, or thereabouts. There's some overlap with upgrade options, but the model lineup is organized along price tiers, not form factor.

    As long as they do this and have the iMac, the Mac Pro has to be at least >$2000.

    The biggest mistake with the 2013 Mac Pro is that they made a form factor, and presumably a custom assembly line for it, that they themselves couldn't update with newer and higher performance components. And it took them 3 years to realize it. In hindsight, the 2013 Mac Pro should never have made it out the door, and they should have offered an upgraded cheese grater in 2013 and started over instead of starting over in late 2016.
  • Reply 58 of 74
    misamisa Posts: 797member
    The retarded marketing department at Intel decided to make this chip useless by capping memory options at 32 GB. Please Apple fix that by going big on your own processor designs, even if it takes time to get things right like SMT.
    64GB is the maximum you can install in Uniprocessor (eg one physical CPU) systems based on the desktop platform. Socket 2011 allows for 128GB per physical CPU.

    However a lot of that has to do with memory modules that are available.  64GB is 4x16GB DDR4 modules. 128GB is 8x16GB DDR4. The more you have the slower maximum speed available.

    Apple tends to use Mobile CPU's in their iMac's as well as their notebook/laptops. LPDDR3 maxing out at 16GB with 2 cores, and DDR4 maxing out at 64GB with 4 cores. 

    Basically how it works out is 8GB per core for LPDDR3, 16GB per core for DDR4, as ultimate maximums. The most expensive E7 CPU you can get that has 24 cores supports 3TB of RAM. The most expensive conventional Xeon (E5) with 22 cores supports 1.54TB. The most expensive Xeon E3 (E3-1280V6) is still only 4 CPU cores and maxes out at 64GB.

    The E3 and the i7 parts are essentially identical save for ECC being available and not having iGPU bits. In theory the Xeon should actually be cheaper than the i7.
  • Reply 59 of 74
    misamisa Posts: 797member
    macxpress said:
    sog35 said:
    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    I like Cybart but I disagree with his Mac is Apple's achilles heel. His hypothesis is that Apple does not have enough resources to both produce new pro quality Macs and iOS devices. I disagree 100%. Apple has enough $ and resources to make awesome Mac Pro's and iOS devices. Its not one of the other.
    I replied to him that Apple needs an SVP of Mac hardware engineering. He didn't like that suggestion. I still believe it's the right thing to do. The Mac isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It needs attention. Apple shouldn't cede the professional market to Microsoft and make no mistake Microsoft is going after that market in a big way. Don't let it happen Apple.
    How many real Pros are actually going directly to Microsoft? 
    Not many.

    The line of thinking today is basically "Apple has abandoned us" for the pro market and those industries like film and television that have a full Mac pipeline are just hanging on to their old systems and buying preowned systems off eBay if one fails, or resorting to hackintosh machines if they absolutely can not switch out of the Apple ecosystem but need something significantly more powerful that Apple doesn't offer. For new productions that don't have a pipeline setup, they're using other products that they have lower productivity with. For high-end consumer/prosumer markets, they can get away with an iMac and external drive arrays, but this feels like a bandaid and everyone is waiting for Apple to produce a real Mac Pro, or giving up and bowing out of the Apple ecosystem altogether.

    iMac's are fashion accessories/toys, if Apple considered them anything other than a toy, it would not be chasing the thinner-lighter rabbit. Apple seems to be so disconnected from what people want that the latest MacBook Pro also adopted this fashion toy design.

    Apple has not produced a usable computer since the "cheese grater" Mac Pro. Sure the OS works just fine, but the throw-away hardware that is the Macbook Pro and iMac is not what Pro's want. Someone at Apple is deluded enough to believe that people will buy a $5000 PC every year, when the desktop computer lifecycle is a definitive 7 years with a RAM and GPU replacement/upgrade every 3.5 years. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 60 of 74
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 2,704member
    macxpress said:

    How many real Pros are actually going directly to Microsoft? 
    We transitioned 40 of our 50 developers to Windows 10 PC's when we last refreshed our hardware. The MacPro simply wasn't flexible enough for our games developers.
    Games...enough said. And, thats not directly to Microsoft, meaning not using Microsoft hardware. 
    edited April 18
Sign In or Register to comment.