It's a New Mac Pro for me - Updated or Not! Well Maybe....

If you don't need one immediately I suggest waiting for an update. I don't think it's going to happen immediately, but my concern with the older one is becoming how long it will remain supported considering that board design has been in use for quite a long time already. I like to buy earlier in a cycle whenever possible. This is just a suggestion. Obviously if you need something right now, that's a different story. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the update cycle goes into summer, but we shall see.

I reach the diametric opposite conclusion. If you need a Mac Pro now, then buy a Mac Pro now. Buy the computer directly from the online Apple Store. If per chance Apple is on the verge of offering a new model, then my experience is that Apple will offer the new model to you. As for how long the computer will be supported, the answer is really, really simple. Some states legally mandate that Apple support its computers for five years. Customers in all states reap the benefit of these legal mandates.

 

I have two Power Mac G5s--one from 2004 and the second from 2005--and both run beautifully today. A lot of new software won't run on them, but quite a lot of other new software will. Of course, the old compatible software did not suddenly become incompatible. These are PPC-based computers. The Mac Pros that you are considering are Intel-based. Software compatibility is not an issue now and will not be an issue five years from now. What would you expect a new Mac Pro or replacement model to have five years from now that the current model does not have? Two things come to mind--retina display graphics and optical Thunderbolt. Current Mac Pro graphics cards sport a DVI port and two Mini DisplayPorts. A graphics card upgrade will take care of both new expected hardware features. 

 

It's up to you. You said you wanted a Mac, but I have no idea what you're using currently. The mac pro right now is in the same slump that the Windows workstation boxes have suffered in that they're stuck with nehalem/westmere. Everyone spins it as a doom and gloom sign for their future, yet that happened with the laptops too. They held on to the Core2duo models for a long time when using NVidia chipsets going forward became impossible due to Intel's lawsuit. I doubt they'll announce anything at WWDC. They haven't really used it to talk about hardware in some time. They don't do hints. Most of what you see on here is speculation rather than a real leak. 

 

 

 

I'm sure they run fine, but I'm talking about things like OS updates. The G5s were sold into much of 2006. Some software developers didn't release intel compliant versions until 2007 to early 2008, and not everything ran well through Rosetta. Apple did an excellent job on Rosetta, but some stuff was just never meant for emulation. Anyway a lot of software support started to drop off by 2008 versions, less than a full two years after some of the late ones were sold as the first mac pros didn't hit until after mid 2006. Apple dropped G5 support in Snow Leopard in 2009. Obviously that isn't five years. I have no way of knowing the OP's situation. I was just letting him know that these have been out a very long time. The cpu, logic board, and gpu will all get an update. Software compatibility can still be an issue. As an example Adobe is dropping support for all of the 32 bit models. Apple drops support for legacy models at times. They're dropping support for some 2008 models with Mountain Lion. Again that's roughly four years from the time they came out, not the time they ceased being sold. I don't entirely know the OP's needs, but if he requires the capability to run the latest OS and software, then this can be a valid concern. The line hasn't seen any major changes in roughly three years (note 2010 was just a drop in type refresh), so it's definitely due for an update. 

 

 

Okay cpu-wise that's basically identical to the fully upgraded 27" imac. There's nothing bad about running the cpus at that load if it's actually doing something. Being able to harness power isn't a bad thing. The imac obviously has to absorb the cost of a display panel and a somewhat expensive gpu. It uses a mobile gpu for heat/power reasons, but it's not really an inexpensive one. They're normally used in 17" gaming laptops. The base mac pro is slower in some tasks than this one. Your gpu options are better, but workstations have been a bit stagnant on both the Windows and Mac side. HP, Dell, and a few others have been announcing their new Sandy Bridge E based designs. Apple has yet to announce anything based on this. It may be a little while. The current cpus are slower than what is used in your current machine, and it starts at $2500. The 6 core is popular, but when we see updates, you should be able to obtain a comparably fast machine for less money given the updated cpu/gpu options. Anyway you mention you could use the power at times, but unless you require OpenCL under OSX, you're unlikely to see a speed boost over your current machine, assuming your current hardware and Windows installation are both in good condition. I can't find a reasonable cpu comparison, but it's a W3530 in the starter mac pro. The 6 core uses a W3680. Your current one uses a different architecture with the i7 2600k. The base Xeons are roughly the same price, but as I said they're just an older generation. 

 

By the way, I have yet to see photoshop, illustrator, or indesign show real gains from anything beyond  quad cpus, so given the clock speed, your imac is about as fast as it'll get for those on the cpu end of things. Obviously I don't really know anything about your research program.

The CPUs are available to upgrade it and all models in the lineup will have upgrades available by June 5th. I think WWDC will make it clear what is happening.

As I mentioned in another thread, the highest-end Pro tends to outperform the highest-end consumer machines for 2-3 years so only the 6-12 core models are really worthwhile and the 6-core one is debatable now that the iMac is on Ivy Bridge while the Pro will be on Sandy Bridge. The cost for a reasonable Mac Pro is $3500-4000 plus display vs the iMac at $2000, which includes a 27" IPS display and a Radeon 6000 series GPU.

It is nice to be able to open up a machine to do minor servicing but I think the iMac just needs to make drives accessible from the RAM slots by using 2.5" drives, which go up to 1.5TB. Removing the optical drive will give them plenty of room to shuffle things around. They can slim it down to make it look exactly like a standard display.

If they do update the Pro, the GPU outputs can't go on the outside as they have to merge the displayport and PCI signals for Thunderbolt. This should mean no PCI slots have this privilege and therefore no point in having PCI slots except a single slot for a custom GPU with 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes. This leaves 24 lanes with 4 lanes per port so 6x Thunderbolt outputs running on PCIe3, which can go up to 20Gbps each way. Right now, the Pro has 2 x16 slots and 2 x4. This would be like having an x16 with a GPU in it and 6 x4 slots.

Removing the optical from the Pro and the slots means cutting down a huge amount of space so less cost, less weight, smaller form factor. I'd say they should aim for 2/3 the volume at most. An 8" Cube would be really nice but I don't think it would accommodate a 12-core. If they can do Thunderbolt chaining, they could get away with single processor models with a smaller PSU, fewer fans etc but it's probably more cost-effective offering a processor upgrade.

The difference in size just by cutting some parts would be noticeable:



The main question about the Pro is, how long does it have left? The current design lasted 9 years. Will the Mac Pro be needed in 9 years at all? The ratio of desktop to laptop is now 30:70 and desktops aren't climbing back up. As Steve Jobs said, "[Apple] chooses the technical vectors that have a future". The switch from the Macbook to the Air was a bit too soon but it undeniably has a future and growth. The Mac Pro doesn't. It's no longer a desirable item and it's hidden in the back corner in the Apple Stores.

I have reservations about whether a new Pro will stand the test of time for another 9 years. Remember, the iMac will be 16x faster by that point. Fewer and fewer people will have a reason to buy a more powerful machine.

I think an Ivy Bridge iMac with an SSD and 7970M GPU will be enough of a machine for anybody looking for a workstation. It's only half the speed of the 12-core Pro.

Here is the basic problem, much of what you mention is pedestrian level computer activities. Depending upon your level of usage even Photoshop can be a rather mild impact on the CPU.

So it comes down to your possible more advanced usage of PhotoShop and your research work. Since no body has any idea what your research work is we can only suggest in general terms. My suggestion is pretty simple, wait until new hardware debuts from Apple.

Why? Actually my concern isn't the CPU as much as the GPU. Hopefully apple will implement the newer series of hardware from AMD or NVidia. The desire here is for GPUs that do a much better Job of supporting OpenCL. Do not underestimate the importance of such support as just about everything is moving towards supporting OpenCL as opposed to other GPU compute offerings. Do understand though that GPU compute isn't the universal hammer for all nails.

The reality is that Ivy Bridge is a minor CPU update, thus there is little reason to wait for that upgrade in and of itself. On the Mac Pro, whatever Apple does here will likely be a bigger performance update than the mainstream machines. I still believe the Pro itself is dead, about to be replaced with something better. You can take that thought positively or negatively, but I'm hoping for a far better value. The Pro or it's replacement might be the most interesting hardware to come out this year and thus is worth waiting for.

In a nutshell Ivy Bridge isn't worth waiting for unless you depend upon the integrated graphics. The Mac Pro however might get a very capable processor upgrade.

Generally the best time to buy Mac hardware is right after new models are released. They are generally very good values then so if you can wait that isn't a bad thing to do. In this case I suspect that we are only weeks away from new models.

At least in some cases like the laptop MBP and the iMac. The Mac Pro or it's replacement could come at anytime. The only questionable hardware is the Mini and AIRs which likely won't ship until latter in June.

 

 

Well if you look at all machines using mac pro like hardware, they're basically all due for a refresh. Some of the other oems have announced them already, but they're all using hardware that was released in 2009-2010. The one you currently own uses newer hardware, because those options were actually released.

One thing about Mac Pros - they last. I'm still running my original 2006 Intel model. Only thing I had to do was add a new video card (Radeon 5770) last year. I will be replacing it within the next year to get access to updated software. If there is no new Mac Pro coming, then a top-end iMac will do the job.

 

 

You are cowering at your own ghost stories. Apple does not sell disposable computers. gfier is still using his six-year-old Mac Pro. The Mac Pro that you buy today will last you at least that long if you decide to keep it. With it, you will be as productive in 2018 as the day that you put the computer on line if not more so.

 

Indeed. Right now, for example, my priority in upgrades is knowing when to buy more RAM so that I can get the best deal on it before the price starts to skyrocket again. Would that be a few months after the release of the first Mac Pro model that is incompatible with my kind of RAM? Or would it be even sooner? I suppose I simply have to watch the prices. 

 

And if there's one good thing that comes out of the Hackintosh community (and there is only one good thing…), it's the compatibility with extra GPUs. So even if the Mac Pro is killed off, history says I should still be able to buy a Radeon 7xxx (or 8xxx, even, probably) series card and have it work in OS X with their hacked support.

Now is a very good time to buy RAM!

A lot of good things come out of he Hackintosh community. Sadly for a very long time now it has been the only way to get a decent desktop Mac. This is if you are willing to put up with the grief that comes with each OS release. So far I haven't been willing thus I have a MBP instead of a desktop because Apple can't see the wisdom in a proper desktop design.

 

 

What are your specifications for a "decent desktop Mac"?

 

 

 

I don't have a problem with the hackintosh community. I don't even think Apple minds it. A lot of the guys that build hackintosh desktops also seem to own Apple laptops. If the option didn't exist, I'm not sure they would actually go out and buy imacs or mac pros. In general, it's a hobbyist culture. I browse some of their forums occasionally. Apple's real concern most likely does not extend beyond those that would try to commercialize on the concept.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Wizard?

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

 

 

 

The key arguments laid bare with almost irrevocable facts.  Valid, insightful and prophetic.

 

The last line of which is very true.  Even more so next year with Haswell...like you say, on and on it goes *(looks to the next 9 years...)  The iMac isn't going to get less powerful moving forwards.

 

Apple are making their boxes slimmer, smaller and more powerful as far as miniaturisation allows at a given point.  Want to know where the Mac is headed?  Look at the iPad.

 

How long before the HD gives way to the SSD, the optical makes way, losing the 'chin'...the HiDPI screen is included...a touch capability.  A year?  Two?  Three?  The further iOS-ification of 'X'?  You're left with something that looks, unsurprisingly, like a giant iPad.  Making on a stand it can dismount..?

 

As for the workstation label.  As soon as the iMac got a big screen, an i7 and a decent gpu (6970m with a dollop of Vram...) along with SSD and Thunderbolt options, it had well and truly arrived as a 'workstation' (which can be defined by any computer doing your work...an ironic misnoma...) to handle even more traditional 'Pro/Mac tower' stuff.  That 'land grab' is only going to become more so within the context of ever shrinking desktop sales.

 

Mainframes...PCs...Macs...iOS...toys, toys, 'toys.' ;)

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

Edited by Lemon Bon Bon. - 4/30/12 at 8:20am

 

 

It's all over the place. Keep in mind that Apple does drop support for older machines at times. The 1,1 and 2,1 which came out in 2006 and 2007 are no longer supported as of mountain lion. This is mostly because they're dropping 32 bit efi, but some computers that debuted in 2008 also fall under that criteria. Typically you get 4-5 years of support, sometimes longer assuming you wish to run the current version of OSX. The current board design came out in 2009. It'll see Mountain Lion. It'll probably see one past that. After that there is no way to tell if it will remain officially supported. I should mention that the 2006 machines were an exceptional value. Quad core cpus weren't really the norm at that point. They came out with a dual socket machine at $2500 that was quite good aside from flakey gpus and expensive ram. Anyway, you really shouldn't go off anecdotes. If he's using it still today, it means his software demands did not grow by much during that time, even though the machine itself was really exceptional for being built in 2006. Regarding the machine you own currently, what would prevent you from using that one for 6 years? Windows machines aren't really any more disposable. If anything Apple is the one that's tried to make their machines more disposable, with their imac and macbook air designs.

 

Some of that is true. Xeons have a couple minor advantages, and they don't kernel panic often, although it's rare that I experience kernel panics in general. Windows encompasses a very wide range of hardware, so I hesitate to use the word "better". At equivalent price points, you can get solid hardware on either platform. I am aware of the patches. Macs still require updates, but it's slightly less intrusive in some ways, which is nice. I currently use macs because I've used them for a very long time, and I have many many terabytes of data in Mac specific volume types *facedesk*. Boot camp isn't that bad though. There are a few random driver bugs, but other than that it's okay. I'm really not trying to steer you away from it. I'm just saying if you want longevity, you'd be better off waiting for the refresh given that you already have a solid machine. With support, they could go much longer. It's just that Apple doesn't guarantee that they'll remain supported under the current OS after a certain amount of time. In this case the line in the sand happened to be 32 bit efi. It could be something different later. It could be AMD is no longer updating drivers for X gpu or whatever. Sometimes after official support is dropped, you can still get the thing to run. I think I've explained it enough. 

 

I see I need to describe an ideal desktop Mac again. For me it is all about capability beyond the Mac Mini, but a design that allows for a far cheaper machine than the Mac Pro. Thus we are talking about a physically smaller machine than the Mac Pro. Now I really don't care if it is a tower, cube, pentagon or some organic free form design, the box isn't critical only that it is physically smaller than a Mac Pro. A cube about 12" square and 4u high might not be a bad idea though.

Now here is the catch, it is what goes in the cube that counts. Here we would start with a desktop class processor with at least four cores. Ideally we would have two levels of machines one using integrated graphics and another with a midrange GPU on the mother board. In either case we need to potential for lots of RAM and and in the case of a machine supporting an external GPU RAM for the GPU would ideally reside on a plug in module. Thus RAM can be configured by the user to meet his specific needs. By the way there must be OpenCL support via the GPUs.

Next we have to address storage. In that regard we need fast access to SSDs and other technologies looking forward, thus the need for PCI Express slots. Some of these could be internal and dedicated to storage use but I would want to see at least two slots for regular PCI Express cards. At this point in time support for SSD storage technology can only be part of the storage solution so we need slots for disk drives. In the case of disk drives I'd like to see at least 3 slots for laptop class drives though 5 might be a better choice shotprt term. Oh by the way I know all about Thunderbolt but that does not and never will make up for having internal storage solution.

Speaking of TB there needs to be at least two TB ports but preferably 4. The main reason here is multiple monitor support and the need to have dedicated ports for mass storage arrays. Plus I do see a future for TB in instrumentation and other high performance devices. TB is also why I want to see the descrete GPU integrated into the motherboard. Contrary to popular opinion I see TB coming along just fine, so strong support in a midrange desktop is very important.

Note that while I don't care about the specific shape of the enclosure it must be a design that is highly accessible. While they improved the Mini somewhat I'm not exactly overjoyed at what it tales to get inside that machine. When the Mac Pro leaves us we will not have a serviceable Mac for the desktop. This is highly pathetic on Apples part as their Mac Book Pros are more serviceable than 2/3rds of their desktop line up.

As to performance I would expect something in the range of 59 to 75 watt Ivy Bridge chips or an AMD Trinity level processor. The idea is reasonable midrange performance. In other words as good or a bit better than the iMac but not a Mac Pro class machine by any means.

 

 

It's your opinion, for someone else it might be different.

 

In any case, your "vision" has a few flaws, and in fact, those have been the same for lots of "designs" that have been described in these forums: too much of everything on architectures that don't support them all.

 

You say: 4C minimum, 75W max and desktop class. the fact is, most desktop cpus are limited to 4C with Ivy Bridge and possibly Haswell too. So if you want desktop and 75W max, it's 4C max, not minimum. I don't understand the 59-75W range, is 77W too much for you? because you're limiting your computer even more, to 65W S series Core i5-i7. All 4C max. Could be as good as an iMac, but certainly not easily better in terms of performance.

 

You want the possibility of a dedicated gpu (x16 PCIe lanes), and a couple of PCIe slots (if you want to use them for fast SSD storage or any other specialty card, that means at least x8 slots, for any decent gpu you'd want x16 slots), and 4 T-Bolt ports (that means 2x4 PCIe lanes): so a total of at least 40 PCIe lanes needed... No consumer/cheap desktop cpu/system can offer that many lanes: only the Core i7-3800/3900 series and the Xeon E5-1600/2600 offer that many lanes per cpu. I don't even think that Haswell will offer more lanes than Ivy Bridge for consumer cpus.

 

You'll have to choose between all the features you want and the cost. And all the cpus that offer enough PCIe lanes for your project don't have integrated graphics. So that may mean 2 different architectures for your project.

 

Your "reasonable midrange performance" cpus (whatever that means) just cannot accomodate all the features you want.

 

Now if you add all the parts that are indeed needed to built a computer capable of what you want, you need a high-end cpu (desktop or Xeon) at $294 and up, a dedicated gpu capable of 4 displayport outputs for the 4 T-Bolt ports that also need 2 high-end T-Bolt controllers, a few slots, a few HDD bays, cooling, power supply for all that, etc. That's starting to look like an updated Mac Pro with a few twists on the enclosure/bays/slots. But still a Mac Pro in terms of pricing.

 

 

 

Remember we are talking a mid range machine here.
Non sense this is very doable with mainstream Intel hardware. Which makes the design very probable no. I mean really if most of Intels hardware already comes with 4 cores then the minimal design is easy to achieve. If Intel doesn't want to supply more cores I'm sure AMD will in the future. Don't get bent out of shape over a suggested operating range. As it is thermals on processor chips are highly variable as it is. The idea is to set out a range of possupible values. as long as the design doesn't grottoes the processor under heavy load it will do well. You have gone wild here with your numbers. First Ivy Bridge chips support 1x16 or 2x8 PCI Express generation 3 on chip, eight of these lanes would be fine for any graphics card suitable for this class of machine. Actually 8 lanes of gen 3 should be about as fast as gen 2 with 16 lanes. Ideally the on board controller would allow the other 8 lanes to be used for other purposes, in this case they could either feed a high speed storage device or a Thunderbolt controller. Most of Intels PCH come with 8 lanes of gen 2 PCI express for the rest of the I/O. I don't know what Intel has planned but I cold easily see future chipsets having more PCI Express lanes in favor of SATA and other legacy hardware. Right now the limitation is DMI, so I can even see more of these lanes implemented right on the processor chip. Well only if you insist on the need for all of those lanes which aren't needed. However you highlight a big problem with the current Pro, that is that it is built around one architecture which boxes the platform in. Maybe Apple should reconsider that strategy. Honestly not everybody needs or wants a Xeon type chip in their desktop platform. Apple still suffers from an incredible gulf between the Mini and the Pro. I'd like to see this box fit right in the middle but if they can also build out a high end "Pro" box with a Xeon it might not be a bad idea. Why not? This isn't a problem using modern chipsets. We are talking three slots most likely here, a high speed slot for SSD, and two 4 lane PCI Express slots. Most descrete GPU chips these days support multiple monitors without issue, but that does not mean that all four TB ports must support monitors at the same time. As to HDDs power is one of the reasons I specified laptop drives.

Honestly I don't think you are looking at modern components here. Please look at the pricing of modern motherboards from the mainstream manufactures. Except for Thunderbolt and the integrated on GPU there is nothing unusual here. In fact it is more or less a minimal board compared to some of the everything and the kitchen sink motherboards out there.
If half of what you say here was true most of the motherboards on the market right now couldn't exist. More so PCI Express 3 is a very capable upgrade and gives designers significant options.

I would not spend any amount of money on a current Mac Pro, it is a bit long in the tooth…

 

This would leave you two choices, one cheaper than the other, but fraught with more perils…

 

One - The Hackintosh Route - Get one of those EFI thingies & a copy of Snow Leopard (which you will then upgrade to Lion) and install Mac OS X on your current PC…

 

Two - The Pimped-Out iMac Route - Get a loaded top-of-the-line iMac; which as covered above is quite the capable machine…

 

After the dust settles & NEW Mac Pros are announced/released, get a brand-spanking new Rev. One Mac Pro & Live The Dream…!

 

The Hackintosh Route is cheaper in initial cash outlay, but the iMac Route is 'Plug-n-Play'…

 

And with the iMac, once replaced with a shiny new Mac Pro, you have an awesome secondary machine for usage on everything that is not 'work' (surfing the web, email, gaming, etc.)…

 

My 2¢ worth…

I'm targeting a 'HiDPI' monitor, Haswell cpu, 8000m series GPU iMac with SDD drive to go and a side order of fries.  I guess that's next year then.  ;)  

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

 

 

Hmm.  Thanks for your X-Mac machine description.  It doesn't seem like anything remarkable.  But you get the access you crave and reasonable performance with a monitor of your choice.

 

I project it will arrive next year in the form of a Haswell Mac Mini.  Without the easy access to everything, of course. ;)

 

What actually work do you do?  It can't be that demanding if you 'only' use a 'laptop' AIO..?  

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

 

 

Fully loaded with more ram than a working lady in the red light district.

 

Lemon Bon Bon. 

 

 

I love my iMac.  Plug and play, baby.  *(Former Power Mac 'clone war' owner which cost £6000 with an Adobe suite and a big Diamondtron monitor.  (Back and bank breaker.)  Put that into American Dollars.  Needless to say I won't be paying that for a Mac ever again.)

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

As for the hacktintosh route.  Yes.  We sometimes forget about prices in the 'real world' being on Apple forums.

 

Just go to overclockers.co.uk for the value bitch of your choice. ;)

 

Not as sexy as the 'badge' though...plus you don't get your ass reamed on the price.  Another fringe benefit of being an Apple customer. :D :P

 

Lemon Bon Bon.