Pshh, airflow. Like Apple knows anything about that. Check out my ride, bizzizzles:
Now lemme see, we got one, two, three, four, five, SIX di-rec-tions of fans for mayyyyximum airfaaaaa-low.
Single direction front to back… Pah! Mac Pro's got nuthin' on this.
Yeah, you go, girlfriend:
Yes, but that's only part of the point. Thunderbolt ports cannot be considered part of the spec without the ability to push graphics as well as data. Therefore the ports have to be connected to SOME sort of GPU, and that's either going to be a chip integrated on the logic board or the Thunderbolt ports will be on the GPU in a PCIe slot (but that's not allowed, as far as I know).
OR, the third option, whatever GPU you order from Apple is built into the computer and non-upgradable. That gives users the power of that card usable through their logic board Thunderbolt ports.
That is one of my concerns with this refresh. I want to get a Thunderbolt Display, but unless they come out with a brand new graphics card that supports Thunderbolt, at best I will be pushing HD3000 through the port (isn't HD4000 only in Ivy Bridge?) . At the same time I am also considering getting a less pixel dense monitor so I might be able to some light gaming (not a priority, but would be nice with some of the offerings from the App Store).
I would love a 4K display, but again I don't see too many GPU's capable of taking advantage of it right now or even being able to push a decent frame rate. I guess that is my reasoning for wanting the Mac Pro, at least there is some expandability built into there.
Yes, but that's only part of the point. Thunderbolt ports cannot be considered part of the spec without the ability to push graphics as well as data. Therefore the ports have to be connected to SOME sort of GPU, and that's either going to be a chip integrated on the logic board or the Thunderbolt ports will be on the GPU in a PCIe slot (but that's not allowed, as far as I know).
OR, the third option, whatever GPU you order from Apple is built into the computer and non-upgradable. That gives users the power of that card usable through their logic board Thunderbolt ports.
Thunderbolt supports accepting video from a standalone graphics card which is multiplexed and output on the thunderbolt port. How do you think they output the discreet GPU to thunderbolt in an iMac for example?!? Also take some models of MBP which has both on-chip graphics and discrete switchable gpu, both which work fine out the thunderbolt port. Go look at Wikipedia search for thunderbolt and read about it. Look at the diagram which shows this.
It will surprise me if it's not on a life support R&D budget. My prediction is they do something with the design in 2014 given that the board should last through Ivy Bridge E. Intel tends to update workstation chipsets on tock cycles. I still think your ideas are cool though.
I really don't mind the case, but this is one of those things where people will say it looks modern until the day it changes. A few months later it would look completely dated. Dell updated theirs considerably. The mac pro is closest to the T5600 in available configurations, but people often mistakenly compare it to the T7600 which is much larger. The same goes for HP. The one closest in size to the mac pro is made to accommodate more stuff internally. The mac pro overall is designed like a mid level workstation. The largest ones can typically take quite a few drives. It has been missing a few common features such as the ability to accept a larger number of drives if 2.5" drives are used, but I do think it's probably on a low R&D budget. While I don't mind the size or configuration, there are other perfectly valid designs that run at low decibel levels within spec using similar cpu configurations.
12U to hold two machines would be ridiculous. Hence the suggestion for a slight redesign to reduce the size of the machines. Heck, cut the bloody handles off and it will fit on it's side...
I'm hoping for new Mac Pros just so I can get an updated graphics card. Sure, for a few games, but I've run across some beautiful terrain generators for which a 4870 just can't do justice.
Wow that statement is so wrong. And so reeks of someone making up for something else being too small.
A workstation only needs 'macho' in terms of power. Physical size and look are beside the point.
Such machines are more accurately described as "deskside" rather than "desktop" computers (whether a true workstation or merely a tower). Hardly anyone actually puts them on the desk where they take up useful space to no good end. They are put where convenient and appearance really does not matter much so long as it is a function device.
You're still missing the point.
The Xserve was a low volume machine and therefor was cut. The Mac Pro is a low volume machine (and there were concerns it would be cut). Why not make a few minor modifications that make the machine serve both purposes? Now you have a machine that is still potentially low volume, but you've increased sales slightly because it can fit in another market.
Tomahawk,
Your point about killing two birds with one stone is well taken, if Apple had any intention of bothering to continue the product line. Like many others, I doubt the Mac Pro, however configured, is in Apple's long term plans. If the rumored Mac Pro update is not the last hurrah, it is not far from it. History has shown that Apple can not be expected to update the platform with new graphics cards & etc in between major refreshes, if there is to be one, and so many people are on the banks of the Rubicon contemplating crossing it. Once crossed, there really is no turning back. Even a hack is not a long term solution as once the Mac Pro is EOL'd, OS X will certainly leave the necessary code behind in the trash heap of history.
Apple have had plenty of opportunities to put out the word in one way or another that they intend to continue the Mac Pro line, but have not done so. Reading the tea leaves, if this is not the end of the road, the end of the road is just around the corner.
Cheers
I am happy Apple is updating the Mac Pro. My Mac Pro is only 3 years old and runs well so need for me to get this version, but I want that option in the future and I am glad I will be able to upgrade when needed. I understand the need to have a high end Mac Pro with as many slots for Ram and as many CPU's and cores possible for those people that demand every ounce of performance they can get. What I don't understand is why Apple insists on putting a Xeon in the low end model that only includes one CPU. Aren't the high performance ivy bridge Core i7 as fast if not faster than Xeon when you only have one? Not to mention a lot cheaper.
You're looking at it wrong.
The E5 replaces the 5000 series Xeons. Intel just so happens to make 1, 2, and 4 processor models of the E5, where as before they didn't. (Though the DP's could be used in UP configuration)
The E3 is the rebadged i7/i5 with ECC support, that's it.
If you look at Apple's previous Mac Pro offerings, they offered UP and DP, using 5000 series processors, so logically they'll use E5-1xxx and E5-2xxx parts, in up to 8 core's. They could make a 4x4 or 4x8 (eg 32 cores) system if they wanted to. But past a certain point you're no longer selling workstations, but high end servers. Ask people who build data centers how they pick parts, and why the Xsan/Xserve wasn't a successful product. They pick the cheapest parts for the power envelope. So in data centers where space and power is a premium, building a 4x8 system makes sense, where neither are a premium, putting 42 1U's with a single or dual processor is more economical since the $/core is cheaper.
People who use MacMini's as data center servers, are out of their mind if they're running anything business-critical on them. It wouldn't make sense to except where space and power are a premium, and reliability is not a priority. Those are not enterprise hard drives in the mini and apple time capsule, and they don't come with ECC memory (apparently there is exactly one mobile cpu that can.) Though a Macmini is probably the cheaper than an Atom-based 1U server and you can fit 2 of them in their space.
8 cores? That's.... hopefully just the base configuration. I've had an 8-core machine for years now. I'm looking for 16 (or more) cores, not to mention more, faster RAM -- and drives.
And no, virtual cores a'la hyper-threading won't do. I need more FPUs.
Power! give me POWER!
Now, a mac with four CPU sockets capable of 8 cores each... and quad ported RAM to deal with them -- I'd buy that in a heartbeat. Maybe just a twitch of a ventricle.
I'm not in the market for another 8-core, though. I already sit around enough with all 8 cores pegged. It's not that entertaining.
Well, unless we're talking about a $999, 8-core short-tower with a couple of card slots and 8 ram slots. Might be worth networking a few of those.
8 cores? That's.... hopefully just the base configuration. I've had an 8-core machine for years now. I'm looking for 16 (or more) cores, not to mention more, faster RAM -- and drives.
The base configuration is probably 6 cores but it sounds like you'll get your 16 cores but don't expect more than that.
Looks like the current MP is limited to 48 or 96 megs of usable ram. I assume the next gen being quad channel will up that to 64 and 128? Does that mean still just four ram slots on the base model or eight slots on all machines? Four slots on a $2400 machine always seemed dumb to me.
OWC just came out with a way to get 64 - 128GB, in the current 8,12 core Mac Pro (2009 & 2010).
hxxp://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1333-memory
The new E3 Xeons are Ivy Bridge. They are unsuitable unless Apple really is planning to introduce a micro-server in a rack mountable case. The 6 and 8 core E5 Xeons that are likely to be in any new Mac Pro model are definitely Sandy Bridge unless Intel has planned a big surprise announcement for WWDC.
Froaster, wasn't it?
Since this is Apple's only machine that has a swappable graphics card, it would be nice if they grew up enough to allow all PC graphics cards to work, provided the drivers were available. Paying three times the price for a generation old graphics card just because it has the magical Apple ROM on it is insulting.
You should probably grow up a little. And read up on this stuff.
I'm a 67 year old developer. I suspect this may be my "LAST COMPUTER!"
I'm 65 myself and my 2006 Mac pro is showing its age. I just hope this ISN'T my last computer!
