Intel reportedly shipping next-gen Thunderbolt controllers expected in new Macs

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post






    Yes, it's much more expensive, but that only means you can get a set of Mac Mini of the same power or same price as the Mac Pro and fit them in a much smaller space.



    Or were you mocking the idea of server rooms full of Mac Mini?



  • Reply 22 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Yes, it's much more expensive, but that only means you can get a set of Mac Mini of the same power or same price as the Mac Pro and fit them in a much smaller space.



    Or were you mocking the idea of server rooms full of Mac Mini?











    Known in the trade as a smash volley.



    I think your stack 12 minis in the space of the Mac Pro's footprint is an interesting suggestion.



    Didn't Apple themselves put a picture of Mini vs Pro footprint comparisons themselves?



    If the entry Mini ever goes 'quad' then you can essentially buy...1, 2, 3, 4...Mac Mini's for £2000.



    That would be...4, 8, 12, 16 cores...



    Stick a 8 gigs in each one...that's 8, 16, 24 (count with me...) and 32 gigs of ram.



    1 TB in each one. 1, 2, 3, 4 TBs...



    GPUs aren't great in each one...but the whole grid could have one external GPU thunderbolt gpu from MSI when they go on sale.



    How do you put all that power to purpose? Mini 3D render farm? Pre-compute and parcel the data into Open CL chunks?



    The power of X-Grid via Open CL?



    I'm not Apple. They'd know what to do better than me.



    *looks at the picture. That's a lot of minis...



    Lemon Bon Bon.
  • Reply 23 of 36
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Author LG Nilsson speculated that Apple will most likely use the DSL 3310 for its notebooks and the DSL 3510 for its desktop systems.



    How are laptops supposed to replace desktop systems if laptops continue to receive less functional or less powerful components?
  • Reply 24 of 36
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Haggar View Post


    How are laptops supposed to replace desktop systems if laptops continue to receive less functional or less powerful components?



    They don't know what they're talking about. The MBPs had the 4 lane variant of TB, the MBA used the 2 lane. If the new ones are smaller than the old, expect all Apple products to use the 4 lane variant.
  • Reply 25 of 36
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post






    Known in the trade as a smash volley.



    I think your stack 12 minis in the space of the Mac Pro's footprint is an interesting suggestion.



    Didn't Apple themselves put a picture of Mini vs Pro footprint comparisons themselves?



    If the entry Mini ever goes 'quad' then you can essentially buy...1, 2, 3, 4...Mac Mini's for £2000.



    That would be...4, 8, 12, 16 cores...



    Stick a 8 gigs in each one...that's 8, 16, 24 (count with me...) and 32 gigs of ram.



    1 TB in each one. 1, 2, 3, 4 TBs...



    GPUs aren't great in each one...but the whole grid could have one external GPU thunderbolt gpu from MSI when they go on sale.



    How do you put all that power to purpose? Mini 3D render farm? Pre-compute and parcel the data into Open CL chunks?



    The power of X-Grid via Open CL?



    I'm not Apple. They'd know what to do better than me.



    *looks at the picture. That's a lot of minis...



    Lemon Bon Bon.



    In order for this configuration to be taken seriously, Apple would have to use it themselves in their own massive data centers. Bt the way, the purpose of having redundant, hot swap power supplies and hard drives is so the server continues to operate after a power supply or hard drive fails. And so the failed components can be replaced without bringing down the server. Saying a Mac Mini is cheap enough for companies to buy 2 or more does not address the redundancy issue because someone still has to manually disconnect the failed system, bring the spare system online, and possibly reconfigure system settings + transfer critical files over.
  • Reply 26 of 36
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post


    Didn't Apple themselves put a picture of Mini vs Pro footprint comparisons themselves?



    I made one a while ago that shows you can fit about 30 in the same space with 2 in the middle:







    It takes 4x quad-core Minis to rival the processing power of the 12-core Mac Pro though so the 30-Mini setup would only be 7.5x the power in the same space.



    In terms of price, 7.5x 12-core is $6200 x 7.5 = $46,500, 30 x Mini Server = $30,000.



    The power consumption and heat output are the real kickers:



    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2836

    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3468



    The Mac Pro is 145-285W with 494-972BTU/h

    The Mini is 10-85W with 34-290BTU/h



    The Mac Pro sucking up 145W at idle is terrible for server use. With both maxed out (4x Mini vs 1x Pro), they are fairly even. The quad-i7 likely produces more heat than the C2D listed but the power usage is in the same region.



    They can even do VPS setups on the Mini. They could fit 4 buyers at $20/m on one Mini and pay for the hardware in a year.



    For redundancy, they would of course simply use a controller so that if anything went wrong with one Mini (not just the PSU), the service stays up.



    The previous picture is using the old Minis, the new ones look much nicer, are half the height and don't need a power brick:



    http://www.macminicolo.net/facility.html



    950 Minis hosted there so somewhere between $0.5-1m worth of hardware.



    As Apple themselves pointed out, a Mini with dual SSD outperforms a quad-XServe with SAS drives.



    Smaller is the way forward and Thunderbolt is a key element to this. When you think about Thunderbolt as PCI, Apple has effectively placed a PCI slot on an 11" Macbook Air.
  • Reply 27 of 36
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I made one a while ago that shows you can fit about 30 in the same space with 2 in the middle:







    It takes 4x quad-core Minis to rival the processing power of the 12-core Mac Pro though so the 30-Mini setup would only be 7.5x the power in the same space.



    In terms of price, 7.5x 12-core is $6200 x 7.5 = $46,500, 30 x Mini Server = $30,000.



    The power consumption and heat output are the real kickers:



    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2836

    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3468



    The Mac Pro is 145-285W with 494-972BTU/h

    The Mini is 10-85W with 34-290BTU/h



    The Mac Pro sucking up 145W at idle is terrible for server use. With both maxed out (4x Mini vs 1x Pro), they are fairly even. The quad-i7 likely produces more heat than the C2D listed but the power usage is in the same region.



    I still don't understand your logic. While a few people might benefit from rackmountable mac pros, it's not really for the purpose of mounting many of them as a server cluster. If they wanted server hardware, why not just buy 2U type units to populate the rack? If they're going the route of many low power machines, how does this hold up against other similar solutions? You should be able to get them without any kind of integrated graphics for such a thing as the current ones wouldn't support OpenCL if it's used at all. How would this compare in terms of cost and efficiency vs. atom socs or GPGPU clusters? ARM will probably go after this market in the near future as well. Anyway... you're clearly sold on minis, but it's a leveraged solution rather than one that's really designed for such use. Cooling would be a factor as well given that the temps these can reach aren't really approved for 24/7 use.



    QUOTE=Marvin;2095093]



    The previous picture is using the old Minis, the new ones look much nicer, are half the height and don't need a power brick:



    http://www.macminicolo.net/facility.html



    950 Minis hosted there so somewhere between $0.5-1m worth of hardware.[/QUOTE]



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    As Apple themselves pointed out, a Mini with dual SSD outperforms a quad-XServe with SAS drives.



    That's because the XServe sucked . It was a really poor effort.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    Smaller is the way forward and Thunderbolt is a key element to this. When you think about Thunderbolt as PCI, Apple has effectively placed a PCI slot on an 11" Macbook Air.



    Keep in mind there are different thunderbolt chips. The Air uses a lower bandwidth chip, and speeds aren't expected to increase prior to 2014-2015. Even then it may not be as significant as you might hope. Thunderbolt basically enables transfer capacity that you couldn't get on a laptop or without dedicated hardware prior to this, yet it's a step backward on display bandwidth because of the way it piggybacks data. I wish this was not the case.
  • Reply 28 of 36
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    If they wanted server hardware, why not just buy 2U type units to populate the rack? If they're going the route of many low power machines, how does this hold up against other similar solutions?



    The only options that run a Mac OS are the Pro and Mini and the Mini is better. I don't think PC towers would do much better in performance per dollar as Intel sets the price for the CPUs.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    How would this compare in terms of cost and efficiency vs. atom socs or GPGPU clusters? ARM will probably go after this market in the near future as well. Anyway... you're clearly sold on minis, but it's a leveraged solution rather than one that's really designed for such use. Cooling would be a factor as well given that the temps these can reach aren't really approved for 24/7 use.



    The theoretical reasons why Minis aren't good for this don't matter as they are in real-world use 24/7. I do think ARM will take over some server share eventually but not soon. x86 will hold its own due to software compatibility for now and the Mini is a good option. It is affordable, easy to setup and install and easy to replace.
  • Reply 29 of 36
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    The only options that run a Mac OS are the Pro and Mini and the Mini is better. I don't think PC towers would do much better in performance per dollar as Intel sets the price for the CPUs.




    I was suggesting that for heavier server use, I'm not sure this presents a great solution relative to typical rackmount units.



    I'm not sure how they're dealing with cooling. They may not be pushed close to their limit, which would help. The appeal to ARM is similar to that of building from atom based nodes. Assuming software compliance, that could work. I have to wonder how many people (or businesses) really run Mac OSX based servers these days.
  • Reply 30 of 36
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Even Ford eventually replaced the model T.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Oh dear heavens no?



    I didn't think about that?



    "The new Mac Pro."



    One hard drive bay.

    One double-wide PCIe slot, taken up by the double-wide GPU.

    Eight Thunderbolt.



    It might not be that bad. I actually see a greater use of PCI Express slots. For example Intel just announced their PCI-E SSD, Apple has Anobit in their pocket for a solution there.



    Sadly I suspect we will be looking at a new approach to GPUs. That to support video over TB.

    Quote:

    Buy the rest.



    Like fun I will.



    Everyone needs to relax until the Pros replacement arrives. The technology is there to make a far better machine if Apple is up to it.
  • Reply 31 of 36
    not1lostnot1lost Posts: 136member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post






    Known in the trade as a smash volley.



    I think your stack 12 minis in the space of the Mac Pro's footprint is an interesting suggestion.



    Didn't Apple themselves put a picture of Mini vs Pro footprint comparisons themselves?



    If the entry Mini ever goes 'quad' then you can essentially buy...1, 2, 3, 4...Mac Mini's for £2000.



    That would be...4, 8, 12, 16 cores...



    Stick a 8 gigs in each one...that's 8, 16, 24 (count with me...) and 32 gigs of ram.



    1 TB in each one. 1, 2, 3, 4 TBs...



    GPUs aren't great in each one...but the whole grid could have one external GPU thunderbolt gpu from MSI when they go on sale.



    How do you put all that power to purpose? Mini 3D render farm? Pre-compute and parcel the data into Open CL chunks?



    The power of X-Grid via Open CL?



    I'm not Apple. They'd know what to do better than me.



    *looks at the picture. That's a lot of minis...



    Lemon Bon Bon.



    Just having two of them stacked on my desk thunderbolted together... would tickle the crap outa me!
  • Reply 32 of 36
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    For Apple to get serious about the new Mac Pro they need 2 or 3 dedicated x16 slots for GPGPUs chained together and if that gives an option for RackMount or a larger container with redundant power, water cooling and the rest, so be it.



    If they did that and opened up a box for 128GB RAM they would own the high end workstation market in 1 quarter.



    For 2 or 3 dedicated GPUs, they'd need to increase the power allowed on the PCI slots and the PSU. A single GTX 580 will use 250W. Right now, the slots are only given 300W max as the internal PSU is 1,000W. The CPUs draw 285W at maximum load.



    128GB RAM is already available for the current Mac Pro:



    http://blog.macsales.com/13028-owc-a...aximum-offered



    These moves would make the Mac Pro more expensive and possibly bulkier. While this may satisfy the handful of people with >$4k to spend, there's a far bigger crowd that could use an affordable mini tower.



    I'd like to see them go with just a single 6-core/12-thread CPU and a single high-end GPU and cut the PCI slots altogether in favour of 6x Thunderbolt ports.



    If they could use a cube design, I think it would be a big hit but no bigger than 8" cubed. They could no question build a machine at about 14" x 14" x 8" but a cube has a really nice uniform appearance and would work well for server use.
  • Reply 33 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Sadly I suspect we will be looking at a new approach to GPUs.



    I don't see the sadness.



    Sure, SoCs bang for buck are going through the roof each year. The new iPad being a wonder of power and slender design. Astonishing all round. ('Star Trek' tech' in my book. *Thinks back to the 8 Bit wars...) And next year, a faster dual processor or quad core cpu and the PS3 graphics class Rogue kick the iPad into another performance realm which should have Mac's noted the upstart's power.



    That's the super integrated approach.



    But looking at the popularity of laptops and svelte designs...eg Air, Mini and iMac (where Apple appears to live and breath...)...there's sufficient bang for the buck. But if you want to take the 'hub' behind it's design limits then you can add ram, thunderbolt HD, SSD...and yes, I don't see any reason....why that doesn't include the external GPU.



    The PC is a pretty modular thing anyhow. It always has been. Stick another HD in or out. Doesn't it matter if the GPU is in or out like the HD? Same with the monitor. It's either built in...or externally attached. *Shrugs. Be nice to augment your gpu power if you're a mini, iMac or laptop.



    Lemon Bon Bon.
  • Reply 34 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I'd like to see them go with just a single 6-core/12-thread CPU and a single high-end GPU and cut the PCI slots altogether in favour of 6x Thunderbolt ports.



    I'd like that machine. How much? £1495. With Apple display. £2300?



    Or it could be a top end 'iMac Pro'?? £2k all in.



    Quote:

    If they could use a cube design, I think it would be a big hit but no bigger than 8" cubed. They could no question build a machine at about 14" x 14" x 8" but a cube has a really nice uniform appearance and would work well for server use.



    Aye. 8 inch cubed... If they could get a 6 core in that with a decent GPU...I'd be all over it. *Wet dream.



    Lemon Bon Bon.
  • Reply 35 of 36
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post


    I'd like that machine. How much? £1495. With Apple display. £2300?



    Or it could be a top end 'iMac Pro'?? £2k all in.



    Well, knowing that Apple inflated their margins $500 and cutting the materials and engineering down by removing the components could save say $200-300, we'd be looking at $800 flexibility on top of the $300 chip they already use in the entry Pro. This allows them to use any chip up to $1100 and still come under their current entry price.



    Unfortunately, Intel's options and prices really aren't all that great no matter what way you go.



    For example, if you get the following 6-core Xeon:



    http://ark.intel.com/products/64591/...-GTs-Intel-QPI)



    you'll score maybe 8 in Cinebench but with a 6-core i7 from 2010, which is cheaper:



    http://ark.intel.com/products/47932/...-GTs-Intel-QPI)



    you can score closer to 9. This still makes a $6k 12-core Mac Pro better value as it's all Sandy Bridge.



    Now, if Intel made an Ivy Bridge 2012 6-core i7, it would rival the current 8-core Mac Pro for $2499 - essentially giving you a 2010 8-core Mac Pro + 27" Cinema display for the price of the entry quad Mac Pro. Chain up 3x Ivy Bridge Minis and you beat the 12-core E5 for $5500. Saves $700 and you get a free $1,000 screen.



    Apple is in quite a tough position with the Pro right now. They can't ignore Thunderbolt so they have to redesign it but Intel hasn't given them good enough options to make it worthwhile.



    Keeping the dual-CPU option gives users who opt for it better value but users who opt for single CPU worse value and vice versa. I'd side with the lower-end for the volume and shrink it down. Next year will bring 10-core/20-thread chips so plenty to make it worthwhile over a quad-i7.
  • Reply 36 of 36
    Interesting comments.



    Oh for a desktop i7 6 core. I'd like to think my next iMac will have 6 cores in it. I'm still another year or so out from another iMac purchase.



    I thought we'd be headed towards consumer 6 or even 8 core chips by now. Still, I guess the quads have gotten faster and the turbo boost they do is pretty cool as well.



    The pricing on the 6 core Xeon should see a Mac Pro well capable of hitting a £1495 price point with an APple monitor to buy of around £2300 all in. Hmm. Historically, Apple towers have been better value than that. That would have you £650 ahead of the top end iMac. Hardly a paradigm shift. I think the days of paying over £2k just to get a powerful tower are over. Dual CPU workstation is one thing. But £2045 just to get on the ladder is ridiculous. If that was for the entry dual cpu Pro then it would be 'ok.' But I think Apple should have 3 single cpu towers in the £1k to £1600 price range. Duals starting at £1800-ish and going higher.



    If someone has waiting for Sandy they may as well wait for Ivy Iron if that brings 10 core chips with 20 threads.



    But I guess some folks out there are gagging for an update and will pounce on whatever Apple release.



    I wonder if Apple will give us something radically different. A product that would create value added, modular and volume and performance incentives.



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...=1#post2095931



    Interesting posts by Junkyard as well.



    The concept seems to fit in with what many posters would like. AKA, a re-factored 'Pro' more in keeping with Apple in 2012.



    Lemon Bon Bon.
Sign In or Register to comment.