New Mac Pros rumored with 8-core Xeon E5 CPUs, Thunderbolt & USB 3.0 - Page 2

I agree with you on the airflow, which seems optimized for the present component layout. However, one big case improvement would be to move the drive bays to the front for easier access (and possibly include hot-swap capability), although that would require reworking the airflow.

 

And although it would be an aesthetic challenge, creating something that could optionally be rack-mounted (as suggested earlier) would make the overall package more flexible for those who benefit from such functionality.

It isn't a little nit pick, the garbage quoted in the article pretty much throws into question the article writers suitability as an author on technical issues. It further tarnishes the declining reputation of Appleinsider as site with an actual grasp of what is happening in the industry.
Yes a very good step up! People also need to realize that there isn't a huge difference in CPU performance between Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. In a Xeon there would be little to gain from Ivy Bridge.
With the massive delays in the Sandy Bridge based Xeons I'm not even convinced a Ivy Bridge based Xeon will be made. At this point Intel might as well go next generation.

As far as this article goes, if you have any influence at Appleinsider please do something to get them to stop printing plain ignorance. It is one thing to speculate about the next Pro, after all that is what Future Macs is all about, but it is another thing to print obviously wrong info. Sadly the article would have been far more interesting to read if the garbage was simply edited out.

You are talking about two completely different machines. Something that is only 2U or 3U cannot be used as a tower. It would fall over and the DVD would be vertical. If they made it rackable it would be a minimum of 4U. Otherwise it would have to be used as an old style desktop CPU, laying flat with the monitor on top, and that will never happen.

I doubt that very much. They say 67 is the new 47. Hell my mother is almost 80 and is getting pretty damned efficient on her iMac.

Just because a new Mac Pro case is introduced it does not imply that it would be any less professional. I really don't buy this mentality that if the case changes the product is somehow less professional. I can make a very good arguement that the current case is far from what many professionals need.
Interestingly I've never had that happen. Then again I make a point to never run flash unless it is absolutely required.
Well that is nice buying sight unseen. If that is the case, why even bother writing about what Apple does with the chassis?

 

That would be an interesting trick, considering the Xeon CPUs don't have GPUs built in.  Adding the 4000 directly to the mobo and using that to drive a main monitor and then your video card is being used entirely for GPGPU functionality or is powering a different monitor that has your actual work on it?  That doesn't really make a ton of sense.

This is one good reason to overhaul the Mac Pro. While I don't really see a huge demand for the services you mention a Rack Mountable Mac Pro would solve many problems for a wide range of users.

I agree. The only time this worried me was when I was traveling to Boston from Florida and mine was in the back of my Jeep. I suddenly had this vision of a crash stop causing the Mac Pro to continue moving from the rear of my Jeep through the seat, me and exit the front. At the next rest stop I put a seat belt on it!

Please realize this is Sandy Bridge E we are talking about in the Mac Pro. This is an all new Xeon class chip.
It isn't so simple. Intel just started to include USB 3 in its hardware. In the past many of the USB3 to PCI bridges had problems, either with power, performance or bugs that only recently have been ironed out. You have no information to justify that statement. Though honestly I can see them blowing this rev again and ignoring what their customers need. They could very easily continue the Mac Pros downward spiral with respect to sales. However they could address that with a smart redesign that addresses the needs of a wider array of power users. I agree with this. Apples current desktop lineup is just plain dumb. It is no wonder that laptop sales continue to increase for them.
This I disagree with. Apple simply needs a midrange machine, that is a desktop box with slots and expansion capability that allows for sales to those that don't need a Pro but do need a sound choice in GPUs and a bit of internal expansion. The Mini is almost there but is always outfitted by Apple with extremely low end components. By that I mean the Mini doesn't even get strong performing laptop parts which makes it a bit worthless as a longer term investment.

If you hit 67 you might as well shoot for 100!!!!!!

I'm about to hit 60 and I might use the same excuse / lol

I sold my 8 Core Xeon Mac Pro with twin 30" ACDs and moved to a MBP i7 2.66 GHz with 8 GIGs of RAM and 23" ACD (to save space as we down sized our home) ... It's a great little Mac but it's terrible at multi tasking compared to the Mac Pro and seems very slow in comparison in many other areas that on paper didn't seem to be the case. The reality is, it is slow, hot and I miss the Mac Pro like hell ...Plus I have an iPad now for portability .. A rack mount would save a lot of space! Oh the temptation .... My last one honest ...

I really don't understand the rush to retire. A person might want to slow down a bit but to stop working completely just seems like giving up.
One big issue in the USA is that the government penalizes retires if they make to much money every year. This is the strangest thing one can imagine. They really should do the opposite and encourage productivity for these individuals.
Likewise I'm the owner of an old 2008 MBP which suffers under the strain of modern software and a demanding user. Still I'm not convinced the Mac Pro is for me. Often I feel forced into a laptop if I want to get reasonable performance out of a Mac, apple simply doesn't have a good desktop alternative. {Don't get me started on the iMac}.

 

Not to mention that some people get health problems (read: die, I think) from just up and not working anymore, you know?

My retirement plan is to keep up with Apple hardware and Apple and Adobe software even if then only for hobbies ... that should keep my mind active ... It worked for my dad who sadly passed away last year at 86, sitting at his new 27" iMac i7 I should add.

 

I couldn't disagree more. 

 

Pro or consumer, a machine only requires a new look when the makers feel it is needed, not some external 'this is old looking so now it's trash' clock. If Apple feels that the Mac Pro is not in the ideal shape or size then yes they will and should change it. On the flip if they feel they have the winning look for their other machines then they damn well better not waste time coming up with something new and fresh because of some arbitrary BS reason like consumers expect it. Consumer expectations can be changed. And since Apple is the last company to give the consumers what they want when they want it (like blu-ray support) they will be the ones to make the consumers change expectation to fit their plans not the other way around. They will spend their time improving what needs to be improved, the internal hardware and the software. 

I suspect one of two things will happen with the Mac Pro.

One is that Apple will solder the GPU right on the motherboard with GPU ram in a card slot. This will make TB connections easy to do and might have other performance advantages.

Two is that a new card format will be defined in conjunction with Intel. This card will have extra connections for data channels to the TB switch. This would allow for upgradability if the industry can accept the need for GPU specific slots.

I'm leaning towards #1.

 

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. 

They can keep the over all design...just make it smaller. There's no need for it to be as big as it is. There is quite a bit of dead space inside it. They could make it the size of the PowerMac G4 and keep the aluminum case and basic design. 

 

It's not a fact that they are now. Could turn out that they aren't which will lead to the typical "Apple is stupid for not . . ." bashing that comes with everything they don't do. 

Does anybody know if this will be available as a Dual 8-Core?

Will I be able to order a 16 core version you think?

I think you missed his point entirely. We are talking about a Mac Pro that can be easily rack mounted if required. There is a huge difference there. Done right it is a viable way to solve real issues for people while still having a solution for the desktop user.

A $150 kit to make the machine a rack mount is digestible. My preference is actually a bit different as I would prefer half width units with enough "u" space for a reasonable number of I/O cards. That would make for a very compact machine but it isn't impossible these days.

In any event no body is talking about a 1U dedicated server machine here.

 

I think its just people get sick of working after a while. I know I do, and I'm only 29. Vacations only go so far to recharge your batteries. I think less people would retire if there was a good way of just slowing down. Not having to get up early, or being pressed to be there at a certain time, maybe not being there 40 hrs a week, etc. Unfortunately, the US model the really allow that to happen without getting penalized in some way, and/or making enough to live and do the things you want to do while not working. 

 

Sometimes I feel like I wish I could retire...but at the same time, I think, well what the hell would I do all day? 

 

As I've said before, I still wish Apple would make a consumer oriented tower. There is a market for this, I don't care what people say. I'm not the only person who wants this. Yes, the iMac is great for most, but there are some who want a Mac tower and the Mac Mini isn't good enough for them and the Mac Pro is overkill and way too expensive. I would like a simple tower about the size of the PowerMac G4 that I can put 2 HD's in, 4 RAM slots, and maybe 2 PCI-e slots (or fit 1 double bay card) with the Core i series. Doesn't need to be all out like a MacPro. It doesn't need all the bells and whistles with the numerous ports, just something simple...sorta like an iMac, only in a tower form without the screen. 

 

It's not really dead space. More like white space. They needed that empty for air flow to keep the system cooled.

 

Which begs the question of whether they need it anymore. Might there be a way to configure the components so that everything has all the air and heat dissipation that it needs without the big air space. And would that change be of more utility than the current form, say like making it rackable. Might they be better off with making something more like a super charged Mac Mini running the system off an SSD and all the data on more of a drive mount style unit connected via thunderbolt. Or some kind of snap together SATA connection. A lot of folks have been clamoring for that kind of design and there were rumors that that is exactly what Apple is up to. 

 

Apple wasn't exactly big in the enterprise department either. Now days, its a little different. Yes, they aren't the major platform of companies, but they're getting to be more and more noticeable. A MacMini doesn't always cut the mustard for someone's purposes and a huge MacPro tower isn't practical as far as fitting inside a server closet. 

 

IMO, its wasted space inside. They didn't redesign the tower because they didn't have to when they switched to Intel. The MacPro doesn't have even half the fans the G5 did nor does it need special plastic internal covers, special bays, etc so that tells me it doesn't need the airflow the G5 did.  I've owned both a PowerMac G5 and a MacPro and I could definitely see the need for what they did with the PowerMac G5, but the MacPro was just a waste inside IMO. 

 

I do like the idea though an expanded MacMini Server. Maybe something slightly wider and deeper with a pull out tray to easily expand and work on. I don't see any way in hell they could use an 8-core Xeon on that though which is what some people need. So I think a MacPro type server is still necessary. 

Sorry to hear about your dads passing! I might suggest that it is far better to go that way than the way other have gone. My farther passed away after more than two weeks in the hospital, it was slow, and frankly sickening to watch. Towards the end it took great effort to make each visit, it is not an experience I would wish on anyone.

In a way that gives me hope. That is being able to actually use an iMac at 86 instead of trying to remember my name.

Thanks for the kind words. Yep, not a bad way at all. Only hours earlier we were emailing back and forth about some technical issue ... and he was always right!

I wasn't completely oblivious to his point.  Let me restate what I was thinking... hopefully a little better this time.  Apple, I'm guessing, doesn't see a big enough market for rack-mountable hardware as evidenced by the relative flop that was the Xserve.  If they aren't convinced there's a big enough need then I can see why they wouldn't commit the resources and live with potential design compromises to turn the Mac Pro into a rack-mountable machine.

 

Let's remember that non-portable hardware is a declining market in relative terms if not also in absolute terms.  This isn't because Apple shuns that segment as all PC makers are seeing the same thing.  I'm sure Apple will put resources into advancing hardware in this segment but it's quite unlikely, at this point, that they are going to come up with a game-changing proposition in a declining market.

While I agree with your points below I still believe the days of big towers is very limited. Flash based SSDs are just the start of solid state storage systems and even magnetic based drives are becoming much smaller and denser.

At some point the big box just becomes a waste. I actually think we are already at the tipping point here, bleeding edge servers are now using laptop sized "drives" and RAM is far denser today and with 3D tech will be taking up very little board space.

Not to mention that high integration makes smaller Pro class motherboards a reality. I'm not about to say that all of these technologies are ready for Apple to transition too. What I'm saying is that enough of this stuff is ready that a big box is no longer required to bring on pro level performance.

One thing is for sure, it will be very interesting to see Apples take on a Pro machine at WWDC this years. If it is true that it has been the focus of more than two years of development effort than it should be a very interesting box no matter what it's size.

This is certainly the case for some. Exactly and frankly it sucks. Sadly many other countries/cultures have more respect for the older person and his value to society. It is pretty obvious that an older person can't keep up with a younger in many cases but the way we just dismiss people from the workforce at 65 is a joke. I honestly believe this leads to depression in many older people. There is a real need in people to feel needed and valuable. I agree 100% and if you follow my posts you will see I'm behind the concept of an XMac completely. xMac being a slightly expandable desktop Mac built with desktop parts. I disagree here, iMac is a terrible choice for most. I will not buy one in its current form. This I disagree with also. It isn't a desire for a tower, it is rather the desire for a realistic desktop machine. I wouldn't care if it was wrapped in a ball as long as it was affordable, accessible and supported a bit of internal expansion. Neither the iMac nor the Mini really answer these needs though the Mini comes closer. I'd be happy with a Fat Mini that supported CPUs in the 45 to 65 watt range and a decent GPU. Ideally the Fat Mini would also have room for at least 3 storage modules. Close, but these days it doesn't need to be even PowerMac G4 sized. You feature set is about right though.
I/O is still important. Then again the Mini doesn't do too bad in this regard. My basic problem with the Mini is that Apple appears to castrate it on purpose. The latest example being adding a GPU to one model and then giving it a paltry amount of RAM. Speaking of RAm Apple screws Mini buyers big time there also.

Stop trying to "fix" the problem with poorly placed fans and cooling then. My iMac runs 24/7 and it never overheats. My MacBook Pro is used 8+ hours per day and also never overheats.

 

No, a workstation class machine needs to have workstation class performance. "Macho" factors are for 13 year old boys and men who have low self-esteem.

It is waged space and is a hang over from the G5 days as you note. Contrary to popular opinion all that dead space does nothing for cooling. In fact it makes it harder to cool the unit.

Anybody needing an 8 core Xeon should be buying a Pro. Apples problem is that they have nothing running a mainstream desktop processor (these days quad cores).

In any event guys too much time has been spent in this thread. It is nice outside!

 

But then how am I going to replace the workout I get by slipping a bar through the top hooks and doing 3 sets of 30 reps each day???

They frequently copy these articles from other sites without correcting obvious errors.

It is silly. When the machine debuted, 8GB dimms were still extremely expensive. The prior generations all came with 8 slots.

Yep... copy and paste. They've done this with other things like quoting incorrect skus. With the last macbook pro refresh prediction they predicted the use of an extreme edition cpu which Apple has never used simply because they didn't look for direct successors.

This annoys me to a degree too. The imac isn't really an ideal configuration for much of its hardware. Last time I was criticized for mentioning that we should be able to easily change a hard drive. While not everyone will exercise such an option, they'll be glad it's there if something fails. Another commonly discussed factor would be people who play games. The imac display has a lot of pixels, so the card it uses could become quite strained within a couple years assuming they're playing at native resolution. This applies to a lesser extent in OpenGL applications.

I kind of hope Intel updates the spec to allow for data only ports. This would allow for for full displayport 1.2 compliance, and it would be much simpler to implement on such a machine. I wonder if they'll actually bring thunderbolt to the mac pro. It would allow the use of the newer peripherals, and you could share things with a laptop. If it's problematic to implement in such a machine, then I wouldn't consider it an absolute guarantee.

Yes that's why I'm saying I'd like to see an approved data only spec.

Apple often is not the first to use new or revolutionary technology.  OTOH, they sometimes are the first to use new things in completely new ways (Mac mini is one example).

 

I could see this transpiring:  When the component changes you cite become pervasive enough, Apple could design an all new Mac Pro based on those changes that would allow for a much smaller chassis, rack-mountability, etc.  Not sure if enough of those component changes have happened yet for a completely new Mac Pro to appear in 2012.  We'll see.

 

That defeats the point of Thunderbolt, though.

 <===== meant to be a sad face. Please AppleInsider - fix the Smiley feature....

I too was surprised by the description of why the new Xeon CPUs are Sandy Bridge rather than Ivy Bridge. Intel hasn't kept it a secret that they concentrated on improving integrated graphics and reducing power consumption with Ivy Bridge. Those are very different design goals than what would be used to design new Xeons.

Hopefully these will not be the last Mac Pros but a new smaller case that's convertible to rack mountable probably would be a good idea for the next generation.

*raises the question. begging the question is something completely else. sorry, had to do it.