or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple tells reseller new Mac Pro coming in spring 2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple tells reseller new Mac Pro coming in spring 2013 - Page 3

post #81 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

 

You completely didn't get what was getting at. I was trying to get it the wire mess connecting external hard drives, video cards (if ever possible), and other thunderbolt devices as a result of not having an iMac. 


Well.....i did miss your point then! :-)

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #82 of 516

++++++

Apple would do well to make sure that the new Pro is readily adaptable to rack installations.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDreamworx View Post

Just let it fit into a 19" rack mount without needing to saw off the handles!
post #83 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

If you want to compare like with like the current iMac is a lot thinner than that.


your right but i was just comparing to the iMac in the picture.......the Dell image is from about 5 years ago. i wasn't touting the Dell at all......

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #84 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

++++++

Apple would do well to make sure that the new Pro is readily adaptable to rack installations.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDreamworx View Post

Just let it fit into a 19" rack mount without needing to saw off the handles!

Do you think many people are going to use them as servers? There are much more economical and better server configurations available.

 

I see them mainly as video editing workstations which don't often involve rack mounting. I'm not against rack mountable design but I would prefer to use it as a tower as it has less footprint that way.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #85 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm 
You're looking at the wrong chipset. They would use one of the C600 type chipsets unless they switch to completely different parts.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/152825/future-of-mac-pro/160#post_2266617
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm 
I expect it will continue to use X79, and I haven't read about any replacements to this.

The HP z820 uses X79 for Sandy Bridge but anyway, the C600 series isn't any better - USB 2, PCIe 2, only 2 SATA 6G ports. If Apple wanted to add things like USB 3 themselves, why did they wait until Intel did it for the laptops/iMac?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm 
drifting off into hyperbole (2 year old architecture:rolleyes: when sandy bridge EP workstations didn't ship until early Q3 2012).

I was about to write 1 year but decided to call it like it is. It doesn't matter when the Xeons arrived, the fact is the 32nm Sandy Bridge architecture was introduced in February 2011. It is now February 2013 and we've had 22nm Ivy bridge and we're moving onto 22nm Haswell. The 32nm Sandy Bridge architecture is 2 years old and Apple should skip it and go with Ivy Bridge so that it's just a 1 year old architecture.

HP announced them in March 2012:
http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/03/06/hp.z420.z620.z820.hint.plans.for.others/
Here's a review from late May 2012:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5846/hp-z420-workstation-review-competition-heats-up
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm 
I'd say a late Sandy with Ivy showing up next year would be a far more likely scenario.

It doesn't make sense that Intel would make HP wait 2 years for a new model. They sampled them late last year:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2204751/idf-bryant-says-intel-is-sampling-ivy-bridge-xeon-e5-and-e7-chips

Estimate was 10 months from September, which is July. If Apple releases a 32nm Sandy Bridge Xeon in March or so, HP will come out with 22nm Ivy Bridge Xeon 4 months later. That's a stupid thing to do and doesn't qualify as 'really great'.

I don't get why you'd prefer Sandy Bridge, wouldn't you rather have an Ivy Bridge Xeon? It's been 2.5 years, another 3-4 months surely wouldn't be a disaster to get the latest CPUs and potentially a new chipset.
post #86 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


It's lower in cubic volume yet doesn't save any desk space. Brilliant design1rolleyes.gif. The footprint of the stand remains the same. In fact if you used it with an arm to free up desk space, that is no longer an option. That means in a small percentage of use cases, the new one effectively takes up more usable space. The panel depth makes no functional difference and doesn't alter the number of required cords, so why are you posting such a silly strawman?

 

A straw man is when you don't address your opponent's actual argument, but mock up a version of it you prefer and attack that instead. I wasn't attacking anyone's argument, merely pointing out that if you update the Dell in that picture you need to update the iMac too, so I don't know what you meant by my "posting a silly straw man."
 
As for increased thinness not being a value, I disagree. If you look at it in purely practical terms you may be right, though there are benefits in terms of using fewer materials and corresponding lower shipping costs and (potentially) prices. But the whole thing with Apple is that they are an integration of technology and the liberal arts (remember Steve and his street sign?). Logically such a company would not draw a sharp distinction between practical values and aesthetic values - it's all just Apple values. In other words the new iMac is better than the old one simply because it is more beautiful, and that's just as important as having a faster processor.
 

 

post #87 of 516

Is no one else worried about what Apple are going to do with it?

Are we going to see the (pointlessly) smallest, thinnest Mac Pro ever with no ODD?

post #88 of 516

The reason for the Mac Pro isn't to have a big box but rather to have high performance.     A big box is not needed these days to bring high performance work stations to the user community.   However to effectively decrease the size of the Mac Pro they have to design it that way.  This should be pretty obvious, if you expect to shrink the Mac Pros case you need to design out those things that result in today's current big case.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

It may in fact be smaller and cheaper, but to try and design it that way on purpose kind of goes against the whole raison d'etre for the Mac pro in the first place.  

 

It's not a mini tower for joe average to tinker with in his basement just because he "doesn't like" all-in-ones.  It's a professional grade machine. 

This idea that "professional grade" computers have to look a certain way has to die.   It is what has gotten  the current Mac Pro into so much trouble sales wise.  The idea that a professional machine needs to be a huge empty box really makes no sense at all.   Professional machines, whatever that means, need to be high performance machines first and foremost.  It would make far more sense for Apple to design a machine around that goal than to try to build a big box to satisfy those that need a big box to show off.  

post #89 of 516

This is nonsense, the Mac Pro is no more a pro grade machine than anything else Apple sells.  If a professional can put a Mini to good use then it is a pro grade machine.  

 

This whole idea that a Machine needs a certain appearance to be considered to be a pro machine is ridiculous.   

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

The Mac Pro isn't, and never has been, a "desktop".  It's a Pro grade machine.  The Mac/iMac is the only "desktop" class machine that Apple has ever sold. 

post #90 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

[...]The idea that a professional machine needs to be a huge empty box really makes no sense at all.   Professional machines, whatever that means, need to be high performance machines first and foremost.  It would make far more sense for Apple to design a machine around that goal than to try to build a big box to satisfy those that need a big box to show off.  

The reason it was designed as a big box was so that it could have big fans and if configured with multiple hard disks there was plenty of circulating air to cool them. Also the large aluminum case is a practical heat dissipation feature. You also need a big case for a heavy duty power supply. Take for example the old Xserve which was a small enclosure. The fans were high speed and very noisy. The Mac Pro was designed as a workstation and therefore needs to be quiet which is perfect for creative work environments. The big fans spin more slowly hence less noise. The Pro will last a long, long time because of the excellent cooling features.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #91 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Of course it's a desktop. So what?

The problem is one of perception. People on this forum have this belief that a computer has to look a certain way to be considered a "professional machine".
The fact of the matter is that it is targeted at high end professionals and is not expected to be a high volume consumer product.

Therein lies the problem, a machine targeted to a shrinking group of users has no future. This is why Apple needs to refactor the concept of what a Mac Pro is so that they can actually drive sales to a level that supports development. Like the XServe the Mac Pro won't stay around to support a tiny minority of users.
The Mini is the entry level desktop. The iMac is the mainstream desktop. The Pro is the high end desktop/workstation computer intended to meet the needs of only a tiny percentage of the population. There really hasn't been a distinction between 'high end desktop' and 'workstation' for quite a while.

 

The iMac isn't really a desktop machine as many would define it. IMac muddies the line up because people point to it as a midrange machine but that is only useful to a limited number of people seeking a desktop machine. For many of us the desktop is a platform upon which you configure the machine for specific uses, the iMac isn't suitable for such uses. Thus Apple has this gaping hole though which a lot of sales fall. The fact of the matter is the Mac Pro is way to expensive to do duty in place of normal desktop installations.
post #92 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

Yeah, I remember.  But to the consumer it's never been presented as a desktop alternative, that was my only point.  

 

I just find it sad that the minute this rumour raises it's head, there are half a dozen comments by people who are basically expecting an "X Mac" mini-tower (that Apple has never made and never should make).  You do not need a Mac Pro for an "iPhoto server" for instance.  

 

Apple needs to make desktops that sell in large volumes, that is the motivation for the XMac.

It's the same tired old crap over and over again from people who think Macs are just like PC's, and that they should be like PC's because of course *everyone* want's to be able to swap graphics cards, etc. etc. blah-blah-blah. 

This is evidence that you simply don't grasp what people are asking for. Nobody here wants a Mac Pro or XMac for that matter that looks like a run of the mill PC. What we are looking for is cost effective solutions to real user problems. One of these issues is expandability especially when it comes to secondary storage or PCI Express cards.
 

If they do finally make what these people want, IMO it would be evidence of Apple's decline because it's placing consumerism over professional well-deisgned products if they go that direction.  

That is just plain ignorant and show a considerable lack of understanding when it comes to the needs of professional users. A well designed desktop is capable of supporting a wide array of user needs in a cost effective package. Nothing in Apples desktop lineup fills that role.
 

I honestly hope that whatever they come up with, that it still costs $3,000 for a good configuration.  

 

Well you are showing your colors here. Apparently the Mac Pro is all about snob appeal to you.
post #93 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

The Mac Pro isn't, and never has been, a "desktop".  It's a Pro grade machine.  The Mac/iMac is the only "desktop" class machine that Apple has ever sold. 

Mac Pros belong to what's commonly called "workstation class" machines: expensive, powerful. People who use their Macs for asset creation and need either the extra cores and/or expansion capabilities.

For these users, something like dual-link HD-SDI is probably a more important connector than, say, Thunderbolt.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #94 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Actually, I consider the Mini to be the desired x-Mac. What are the characteristics of the xMac that people want? Expandability and low price. The Mini is clearly low priced and with Thunderbolt has expandability galore.

Granted, adding a high end video card is somewhat expensive at this point, but it's possible with some of the expansion boxes.

The Mini has been improved vastly over the years as processor performance has increased however it is hardly the expandable machine people are looking for.     For one access to the disk drives suck.    It is Internal expansion of secondary storage that many see as a significant shortcoming of the Mac Mini.   Before you try to trot out TB, I know all about TB and as such can say without hesitation it is no place for your secondary storage.    Backup and TIme Machine drives can hang off TB fine but it is less than in deal for working storage.  

post #95 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

My concern as I said in my previous post and as Marvin also mentioned is just how far Intel is letting the Xeon line fall behind their Core line. They are a couple of generations behind now. In April Intel will release their Haswell Core i7. I haven't really read a lot about it and perhaps it really is not very different from Ivy Bridge. The main advantages seem to be in power savings and better graphics which would matter far more on a Macbook than a Mac Pro. But even Ivy Bridge for Xeon is months away. I don't know why Intel let the Xeon line fall 2 generations behind their Core line but it is troubling. 

I don't know if I speak for just myself or many others. But I think an entry level Mac Pro with an extreme edition Core i7 would more than meet my needs. 6 real and 12 virtual cores along with a Nvidia GTX 690 with around 32GB of DDR3 Ram would be a fast machine. I think the reason many people buy the entry level Mac Pro over an iMac has more to do with expansion and upgrading features later on so I don't think that would be a problem. But, since the Core i7 seems to get so many more frequent updates it might be a problem a year from now when the next batch of Core i7 are ready and the Xeons are not. They couldn't really only upgrade the entry Mac Pro. 

Agreed about the Xeons. It is a small market compared to mobile CPUs, so there's no price break for volume. As for the Core i7, its a fast chip, but I need the extra cores for global illumination algorithms. There's research into doing Monte Carlo on GPUs, but currently, radiosity software uses CPU cores, lots of them. And four ain't enough. The more the better!

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #96 of 516

The baloney is rather deep these days.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elderloc View Post

I wish people would stop asking for a smaller tower. This is a workstation not a desktop, workstations are trucks.

Even Detroit had to focus on making trucks more economical to run.
Workstations are certified platforms, with near server specs for reliability. When you use workstations for 99.999% uptime on things like rocket, and satellite control you need a solid platform.
So you are saying a smaller platform can't have similar up times? If so you just look foolish.
Or any other heavy level effort. Apple's desktops are the Mini and the iMac and I do not think they are ever going to make a cheap desktop that's upgradable. 
What is with people's focus on cheap. An expandable desktop in the $1500 range is not cheap if you look at what is available in the PC world. Frankly many of us would be happy with an Apple desktop that had an entry price around $1500 that was of decent value. That isn't cheap but it would be a platform that solved far more user needs than the Mac Pro.
 

It is my sincere hope they don't lower the bar, I'm very happy with the current design.

Why do people associate a change in the case/chassis with lowering the bar? The current Mac Pro is a joke of a machine stuffed into a case designed for very hot PowerPC chips. It is not a modern solution to a power user machine.
I'd be thrilled if they added the latest IO (USB3, SATA 3 or 3.5, ThunderBolt) This workstation should be a measure of the highest order, not a dumbed down desktop. It's a heavy lifting beast, wrapped inside a candy coated shell and I for one would not want it any other way.

 

There has to be a medical definition for this sort of mentality but I'm not sure what it is. The fact of life here is that the current Mac Pro case is no longer needed to deliver professional level performance. Further its huge size removes it from consideration in areas where rack mounted equipment is used.

Please do not screw with excellence. 

 

If the Mac Pro was the machines of excellence that you imply we wouldn't be dealing with the declining sales that the platform is seeing. In reality the current Mac Pro is a dinosaur.
post #97 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Do you think many people are going to use them as servers? There are much more economical and better server configurations available.

 

I see them mainly as video editing workstations which don't often involve rack mounting. I'm not against rack mountable design but I would prefer to use it as a tower as it has less footprint that way.

Some people do rackmount workstations. Dell, Lenovo, and HP towers are all rackable. They're not as rack friendly as in 1-3U, but they aren't hostile to the implementation. I don't think anyone expects a 1U pizza box.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/152825/future-of-mac-pro/160#post_2266617
The HP z820 uses X79 for Sandy Bridge but anyway, the C600 series isn't any better - USB 2, PCIe 2, only 2 SATA 6G ports. If Apple wanted to add things like USB 3 themselves, why did they wait until Intel did it for the laptops/iMac?
I was about to write 1 year but decided to call it like it is. It doesn't matter when the Xeons arrived, the fact is the 32nm Sandy Bridge architecture was introduced in February 2011. It is now February 2013 and we've had 22nm Ivy bridge and we're moving onto 22nm Haswell. The 32nm Sandy Bridge architecture is 2 years old and Apple should skip it and go with Ivy Bridge so that it's just a 1 year old architecture.

 

Hehe I do get mixed up myself at times. I was actually checking on that. Part of it is the range of cpus Apple uses in a given machine. Recall the backplane design where they mixed in EP chips? My impression was that those would not be compliant with X79. Intel usually keeps things very consistent on the workstation end. Also Xeons often come later, although that has been reversed in the past. My impression was that they'll continue to use Xeons. X79 Sandy Bridge E i7s only afford them a couple cpu options, and they still likely wouldn't make the proposed shipping date. Next is Ivy possibly shipping late this year. Well that will be approaching a year and a half old at that point. If you went Haswell, that means using the same cpu types as the imac line. I was going by the parts they've used in the past. Unless they change direction on that, it is realistic. Apple will get things 3 months prior to everyone else is just dreaming. There's really no reason to suspect that, as ARM lacks a real contender in that space that could ship in the current year. The usb3 thing is largely immaterial. As I mentioned they need to test third party chipsets anyway, and engineering in thunderbolt shouldn't be a terrible problem if it's seen as a priority, but it would likely fall on Apple. Intel hasn't shown any signs of pushing it in E/EP/EN (by the way I've also mixed up EN and E3, which is equally silly).

 

 

Quote:

HP announced them in March 2012:
http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/03/06/hp.z420.z620.z820.hint.plans.for.others/
Here's a review from late May 2012:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5846/hp-z420-workstation-review-competition-heats-up
It doesn't make sense that Intel would make HP wait 2 years for a new model. They sampled them late last year:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2204751/idf-bryant-says-intel-is-sampling-ivy-bridge-xeon-e5-and-e7-chips

Estimate was 10 months from September, which is July. If Apple releases a 32nm Sandy Bridge Xeon in March or so, HP will come out with 22nm Ivy Bridge Xeon 4 months later. That's a stupid thing to do and doesn't qualify as 'really great'.

I don't get why you'd prefer Sandy Bridge, wouldn't you rather have an Ivy Bridge Xeon? It's been 2.5 years, another 3-4 months surely wouldn't be a disaster to get the latest CPUs and potentially a new chipset.

 

 

They're always pushing things back, and if you recall the Sandy Bridge E rollout, their official launch date was when they started shipping to supercomputer vendors. Some Sandy Bridge E cpus officially launched October 2011. Workstations appeared 8 months later. I am simply not confident in intel's release cycle estimates. I think it'll go later and we won't see shipping ivy machines in that space until early next year. I also disagree on a newer chipset, especially if Intel is trying to get something out the door. They are unlikely to introduce a further potential for hiccups. Note that this happened with 2010 mac pros. It was just a firmware tweak.

post #98 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac 
My concern as I said in my previous post and as Marvin also mentioned is just how far Intel is letting the Xeon line fall behind their Core line. They are a couple of generations behind now. In April Intel will release their Haswell Core i7. I haven't really read a lot about it and perhaps it really is not very different from Ivy Bridge. The main advantages seem to be in power savings and better graphics which would matter far more on a Macbook than a Mac Pro. But even Ivy Bridge for Xeon is months away. I don't know why Intel let the Xeon line fall 2 generations behind their Core line but it is troubling.

They are really only one generation behind. The chips in the Ivy Bridge iMacs came out early last year but Intel had supply issues so recommended pushing models back and the Ivy Bridge iMacs just came out in December. So Ivy Bridge Xeon in July would be roughly a year after the i7 line, although it's 1.5 years after the initial processors arrived. Sandy Bridge Xeons were available in March-May last year so it makes sense that Ivy Bridge Xeon would be available in July this year. That way the next Mac Pro won't seem so bad because it means the Ivy Bridge Mac Pro is just 7 months behind the Ivy Bridge iMacs.
post #99 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Do you think many people are going to use them as servers? There are much more economical and better server configurations available.

Why does the mention of rack mounting equate to servers in your mind? One thing about this thread that really bothers me is that people have a very narrow view of the computing world. Generally the feelings expressed here run like this: "if you don't use the machine the way I do it can't be professional usage". Tat is really sad if you ask me.
 

I see them mainly as video editing workstations which don't often involve rack mounting. I'm not against rack mountable design but I would prefer to use it as a tower as it has less footprint that way.

 

The idea isn't to build a rack mount machine per say but to make sure the new Mac Pro is easily adaptable to rack mounting. That means heights that fall in "U" increments and widths that can be easily shelved in an equipment rack. With a modest amount of thought this should be easy to accommodate in a Mac Pro replacement.
post #100 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

The reason it was designed as a big box was so that it could have big fans and if configured with multiple hard disks there was plenty of circulating air to cool them.

The Mac Pro isn't known for keeping its hard drives as cool as the should be. In any event the Mac Pros case is a hang over from the G5 days when the massive heat sinks and radiators where required.
Also the large aluminum case is a practical heat dissipation feature. You also need a big case for a heavy duty power supply.
Again the large power supply is a hang over from the PPC days. A Mac Pro replacement can be designed so that it doesn't have the high variability in power supply requirements. One approach here would be to solder the GPU on the motherboard.
Take for example the old Xserve which was a small enclosure. The fans were high speed and very noisy. The Mac Pro was designed as a workstation and therefore needs to be quiet which is perfect for creative work environments. The big fans spin more slowly hence less noise. The Pro will last a long, long time because of the excellent cooling features.

 

That is true but again a smaller enclosure doesn't mean that you have to have high speed fans. Especially in the case of the Mac Pro where so much space is wasted these days. Also don't forget the XServe was a 1U computer, nobody here wants a Mac Pro replacement that is that thin. The idea expressed that the current Mac Pros case is some how the ultimate in thermal design is of no value at all. Apple has very talented engineers I'm sure they an come up with a smaller platform that is equally quiet and thermally efficient.
post #101 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Why does the mention of rack mounting equate to servers in your mind? One thing about this thread that really bothers me is that people have a very narrow view of the computing world. Generally the feelings expressed here run like this: "if you don't use the machine the way I do it can't be professional usage". Tat is really sad if you ask me.

Why? Because I have a couple racks full of servers. As a workstation I see little advantage to rack mounting the computer especially if it is the only piece of equipment being used at that station. I could see it rack mount if you had other rack mounted equipment to go along with it such as audio amplifiers or audio input boards but in a typical video editing booth you really don't have a need for rack mounting in my opinion. As I said, I not opposed to the capability of rack mounting it, just that I don't see a lot of people doing that.

 

From the way you carry on about rack mounting and smaller enclosure it sounds like you are still pissed that they discontinued the XServe. Do you even own a Mac Pro? The only two reasons that I see for declining sales of the Pro are price and lack of CPU updates. I believe most people who currently work on a Mac Pro on a daily basis as I do have no complaints about the case design, just lack of TB and CPU/GPU/USB3 updates. The case size, and lack of rackable design are the least of my concerns.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #102 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin 
They are really only one generation behind. The chips in the Ivy Bridge iMacs came out early last year but Intel had supply issues so recommended pushing models back and the Ivy Bridge iMacs just came out in December. So Ivy Bridge Xeon in July would be roughly a year after the i7 line, although it's 1.5 years after the initial processors arrived. Sandy Bridge Xeons were available in March-May last year so it makes sense that Ivy Bridge Xeon would be available in July this year. That way the next Mac Pro won't seem so bad because it means the Ivy Bridge Mac Pro is just 7 months behind the Ivy Bridge iMacs.

Yeah but the Haswell release has been delayed with the current projection being for June. Won't the push back the IB Xeons? If so, we're looking at a late july or even august release for them. How long can Apple wait for these, especially given that Intel's projections keep slipping?
post #103 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Apple has very talented engineers I'm sure they an come up with a smaller platform that is equally quiet and thermally efficient.

Smaller rackable design means to me that it would be 19" by at least 3U, probably 4U which is not significantly smaller than the current design. If you are asking for a 2U box, that would necessitate it being either flat on the desk or racked because a 2U box will not work as a tower. Even a 3U case would probably not work as a tower due to being unstable and prone to falling over.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #104 of 516

Maybe they are working on something else?  

 

I agree that XEON has fallen behind but that just reflect the minuscule market such chips support.   There is another possibility though and that may be that Apple and Intel are working on something different.   

 

What would that be?   How about a workstation technical computing specific chip?   Here is what I'm thinking, Intel has already introduced it XEON Phi co processor chips to the technical computing market, however there was talk some time ago that there was more to the Phi family than the coprocessors.   Specifically there is a XEON being worked on that is optimized for technical computing with a built in supercomputing networking interface.  

 

References to such a chip seem to be hard to come by suddenly which leads me to speculate that the XEON approach that we are familiar with in the Mac Pro is dead.   I'm still thinking we will get a modular Mac Pro that can be easily linked together to realize the computing machine you need.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

My concern as I said in my previous post and as Marvin also mentioned is just how far Intel is letting the Xeon line fall behind their Core line. They are a couple of generations behind now. In April Intel will release their Haswell Core i7. I haven't really read a lot about it and perhaps it really is not very different from Ivy Bridge. The main advantages seem to be in power savings and better graphics which would matter far more on a Macbook than a Mac Pro. But even Ivy Bridge for Xeon is months away. I don't know why Intel let the Xeon line fall 2 generations behind their Core line but it is troubling. 

 

I don't know if I speak for just myself or many others. But I think an entry level Mac Pro with an extreme edition Core i7 would more than meet my needs. 6 real and 12 virtual cores along with a Nvidia GTX 690 with around 32GB of DDR3 Ram would be a fast machine. I think the reason many people buy the entry level Mac Pro over an iMac has more to do with expansion and upgrading features later on so I don't think that would be a problem. But, since the Core i7 seems to get so many more frequent updates it might be a problem a year from now when the next batch of Core i7 are ready and the Xeons are not. They couldn't really only upgrade the entry Mac Pro. 

Actually as described above that wouldn't be a bad machine.   Core i7 would certainly be fine for me.    However I'd like to think Apple is trying to move things ahead like I've described above.   That is give us a true new generation machine.  

post #105 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


Yeah but the Haswell release has been delayed with the current projection being for June. Won't the push back the IB Xeons? If so, we're looking at a late july or even august release for them. How long can Apple wait for these, especially given that Intel's projections keep slipping?

 

You're on the right track here, but look at Intel's official shipping date on Sandy Bridge EP compared to when HP and Dell were shipping workstations. I get a bit mixed up at times as sometimes I'll read E5-16XX reported as E, when I think it should fall under EP. Anyway you should look at EP for reference unless you think Apple is going to limit it to 6 core workstations. The i7s really don't do much for costs anyway. The main thing is their shipping schedules are often a bit more aggressive. All signs point to Apple having axed the prior configuration without a replacement plan.

 

 

http://ark.intel.com/products/64621

http://ark.intel.com/products/64593

 

Those two are in reasonably close alignment with what Apple uses in their current baseline machines at the single and dual level. Anything else would be a change of direction, and I really don't see them going with something like an EN unit. They aren't designed for this space.  Marvin suggested Ivy Bridge E. That would grant them these two options as the third is +$400 for .1 ghz. Apple would typically and justifiably skip that. He and I disagree on whether they are likely to drastically change directions. I am trying to determine a suitable wager.

 

http://ark.intel.com/products/63698

 

http://ark.intel.com/products/63697

post #106 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

 

That is true but again a smaller enclosure doesn't mean that you have to have high speed fans. Especially in the case of the Mac Pro where so much space is wasted these days. Also don't forget the XServe was a 1U computer, nobody here wants a Mac Pro replacement that is that thin. The idea expressed that the current Mac Pros case is some how the ultimate in thermal design is of no value at all. Apple has very talented engineers I'm sure they an come up with a smaller platform that is equally quiet and thermally efficient.

There are many things they could improve in its design. My guess is that they didn't devote any engineers to it before as it may have been up for cancellation. Having to release a redesigned imac and macbook pro line likely made reallocation of engineers to the mac pro a lower priority. It's possible that we'll see design improvements if they wish to have another go at it, but I think many of the predictions are a little unrealistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


References to such a chip seem to be hard to come by suddenly which leads me to speculate that the XEON approach that we are familiar with in the Mac Pro is dead.   I'm still thinking we will get a modular Mac Pro that can be easily linked together to realize the computing machine you need.  

Actually as described above that wouldn't be a bad machine.   Core i7 would certainly be fine for me.    However I'd like to think Apple is trying to move things ahead like I've described above.   That is give us a true new generation machine.  

See I still see that as unrealistic in the current year. I think if they were going to try that, they would have done so while they could still capture customers who used the old Xgrid. Those people have either moved on or can accomplish their workloads on a much smaller array of hardware at this point assuming stagnant computational requirements.

post #107 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Why? Because I have a couple racks full of servers. As a workstation I see little advantage to rack mounting the computer especially if it is the only piece of equipment being used at that station. I could see it rack mount if you had other rack mounted equipment to go along with it such as audio amplifiers or audio input boards but in a typical video editing booth you really don't have a need for rack mounting in my opinion. As I said, I not opposed to the capability of rack mounting it, just that I don't see a lot of people doing that.

This is why I suggested that the new Mac Pro needs the option of being rack mountable. Obviously not everybody needs that capability, but the lack of any sort of Apple supported rack mount solution is a problem.
 

From the way you carry on about rack mounting and smaller enclosure it sounds like you are still pissed that they discontinued the XServe.

Not at all, I've never considered an XServe.
Do you even own a Mac Pro?
Nope, I have a MBP and as such have grown tired of using it as a primary machine. It is a bit older so performance is wanting but the big issue is storage which currently means an array of external devices. So what am I looking for in a desktop. Performance better than a MBP at a better price with at least a couple of easily accessible drive bays and a boot / Applications SSD hanging off the PCI Express bus.
The only two reasons that I see for declining sales of the Pro are price and lack of CPU updates.
Well I believe there is more to it than that but have to agree that price is a big factor. In fact it is a huge factor as the entry level machine has been a terrible value in the Mac Pro for over half a decade. In fact back when I bought my MBP I considered it to be a far better value than the Mac Pro. What I didn't count on is the expansion squeeze that using a laptop puts you in.

In any event I have enough experience to say I'm now looking for a desktop that relieves my expansion my needs while giving me a significant performance boost over a laptop. That doesn't require a massive tower.

I believe most people who currently work on a Mac Pro on a daily basis as I do have no complaints about the case design, just lack of TB and CPU/GPU/USB3 updates. The case size, and lack of rackable design are the least of my concerns.

 

While I agree that those updates and improvements suggested above are important I see no reason for avoiding a design that can be easily rack mounted. Note I didn't say the design is a rack mount machine, just that it can be easily rack mounted when required. I think it Is silly for Apple to not consider this in the design. Frankly it is done in the electronics industry. All the time where a desktop instrument can be easily adapted for rack use with a kit.
post #108 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


You're on the right track here, but look at Intel's official shipping date on Sandy Bridge EP compared to when HP and Dell were shipping workstations. I get a bit mixed up at times as sometimes I'll read E5-16XX reported as E, when I think it should fall under EP. Anyway you should look at EP for reference unless you think Apple is going to limit it to 6 core workstations. The i7s really don't do much for costs anyway. The main thing is their shipping schedules are often a bit more aggressive. All signs point to Apple having axed the prior configuration without a replacement plan.

I agree we should be looking at the EPs but the problem is they are made on the same 22nm fabrication process aren't they? Again, if so, it wouldn't surprise me to see Haswell get priority given the relatively larger demand for those. To me that suggests that everything else gets pushed back a little bit.
post #109 of 516

We're over due a new Mac Pro.  Especially at a sane price and without a crap gpu.

 

Cube it.  Put a consumer processor in it.  Have two models.  1 single.  1 dual.  SSD.  Decent gpu.  Sales should fly.

 

Give us a consumer tower with the top end iMac's innards.  Sell it minus the £800 display.  You have an awesome consumer tower.

 

Next model up?  Dual it.  Add several hundred to price.  Two models.  Nice and simple.

 

Only Apple are making this difficult.  Consumer tower more Pro sales to justify having the tower.  Dual Processor model keeps the rump of what's left of Apple's tower base happy.

 

Price.  £1200 Consumer.  £1595 Pro.  (Add an Apple Monitor and it's more than an iMac.)

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #110 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

There are many things they could improve in its design. My guess is that they didn't devote any engineers to it before as it may have been up for cancellation. Having to release a redesigned imac and macbook pro line likely made reallocation of engineers to the mac pro a lower priority. It's possible that we'll see design improvements if they wish to have another go at it, but I think many of the predictions are a little unrealistic.

See I still see that as unrealistic in the current year. I think if they were going to try that, they would have done so while they could still capture customers who used the old Xgrid. Those people have either moved on or can accomplish their workloads on a much smaller array of hardware at this point assuming stagnant computational requirements.

I don't know about the design predictions.   I look at it this way the chassis is old and is simply bigger than it needs to be.   Given that and the introduction of a new architecture they might as well design a new case.  The question then becomes how big and what does that case look like.   I'm leaning towards a lower profile cube type machine.   

 

Your mention of XGrid is interesting because I was thinking about that while writing one of the other responses.   The thing is Apples handling of XGrid is a bit of a mystery.   I'm not convinced that it is completely dead and as such could come back to us in a slightly different form.  

 

You also mention workloads which ties in with XGrid.  Frankly most people's workloads don't require top end Mac Pros anymore.   However there is a core group of Mac Pro users that will never have enough and these are often the same users that could justify XGrid if it was refactored into a new platform.    In other words the people that most honestly need a high performance workstation are the same ones that may be able to leverage a new take on XGrid.  

post #111 of 516

Well said, especially the part about Apple making it more difficult than need be.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

We're over due a new Mac Pro.  Especially at a sane price and without a crap gpu.

 

Cube it.  Put a consumer processor in it.  Have two models.  1 single.  1 dual.  SSD.  Decent gpu.  Sales should fly.

 

Give us a consumer tower with the top end iMac's innards.  Sell it minus the £800 display.  You have an awesome consumer tower.

 

Next model up?  Dual it.  Add several hundred to price.  Two models.  Nice and simple.

 

Only Apple are making this difficult.  Consumer tower more Pro sales to justify having the tower.  Dual Processor model keeps the rump of what's left of Apple's tower base happy.

 

Price.  £1200 Consumer.  £1595 Pro.  (Add an Apple Monitor and it's more than an iMac.)

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

post #112 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

 

While I agree that those updates and improvements suggested above are important I see no reason for avoiding a design that can be easily rack mounted. Note I didn't say the design is a rack mount machine, just that it can be easily rack mounted when required. I think it Is silly for Apple to not consider this in the design. Frankly it is done in the electronics industry. All the time where a desktop instrument can be easily adapted for rack use with a kit.

Price is the big barrier.  We're worlds away from the G3 tower in pricing.

 

Having said that.  The Apple tower never sold as many units as an iMac.

 

The current Pro is a dinosaur priced into oblivion with each successive upgrade...over priced with crap gpus.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #113 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Well said, especially the part about Apple making it more difficult than need be.  

If you just 'doubled' the mini.

 

You'd have a £1000 entry tower.  That gets people in the game.  Include a consumer gpu and we're off and running.

 

Want a better model?  £1250.

 

Want a 'pro' dual?  £1500.  Or just include the forthcoming cpu with 8-10 cores in it.  F*ck dual.

 

Want an uber (low sales model?)  £2000+ for dual 8-10 core.

 

I have a beautiful top end iMac.  But I still yearn for a 'rational' cube/tower model from Apple.  

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #114 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Put a consumer processor in it.  Have two models.  1 single.  1 dual.  SSD.  Decent gpu.  Sales should fly.

I'm no expert in CPUs or chip sets but is it even possible to have dual i7s on a board?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #115 of 516

Don't we have a consumer 6 core from Intel?

 

Why not that in a consumer tower?

 

Don't we have Haswell cpus with more cores coming?

 

Put those in a higher end model.

 

*shrugs.

 

Billions to shareholders in dividends...  Would it even cost a billion to put out a new Pro?

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #116 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I don't know about the design predictions.   I look at it this way the chassis is old and is simply bigger than it needs to be.   Given that and the introduction of a new architecture they might as well design a new case.  The question then becomes how big and what does that case look like.   I'm leaning towards a lower profile cube type machine.   

 

Your mention of XGrid is interesting because I was thinking about that while writing one of the other responses.   The thing is Apples handling of XGrid is a bit of a mystery.   I'm not convinced that it is completely dead and as such could come back to us in a slightly different form.  

 

You also mention workloads which ties in with XGrid.  Frankly most people's workloads don't require top end Mac Pros anymore.   However there is a core group of Mac Pro users that will never have enough and these are often the same users that could justify XGrid if it was refactored into a new platform.    In other words the people that most honestly need a high performance workstation are the same ones that may be able to leverage a new take on XGrid.  

Yeah I'm not sure. If they're serious about it they'll likely make some kind of design improvements. I'm not bothered by case size. Its just the form factor was designed with different hardware in mind. The Xeons are still a bit hot. 130-150W must be considered. The gpus and hard drive airflow are certainly points I wish they'd consider unless they intend to move toward the imac gpu strategy. Other workstation vendors tend to use workstation gpus, which aren't clocked so high. The 5870 runs pretty damn hot, but what matters is what they intend to use going forward. I'd be surprised if XGrid came back. Those still running the old hardware were referred to other solutions. It's hard for me to imagine these things returning. I have a similar opinion with the Xeon Phi in the current year. Apple tends to be a bit conservative on changes in the Mac lineup. They were much less conservative last year, so I suppose that could change. I typically examine their past trends. If we see a redesign it's likely that it could be driven by the current lack of an updated product. I mean that they basically signaled nothing was on the way for a while. I'd be a little shocked if they couldn't come up with a basic refresh by now.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I'm no expert in CPUs or chip sets but is it even possible to have dual i7s on a board?

No it isn't. Sandy Bridge E i7s won't work in dual socket boards. You can't use E5-16XX cpus in dual configurations either. They're either the same or similar in design.

 

   Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Don't we have a consumer 6 core from Intel?

 

Why not that in a consumer tower?

 

Don't we have Haswell cpus with more cores coming?

So far they've only offered it in the "enthusiast" options. Sandy Bridge E has a hex model. It uses the same socket type as the Xeons. The pricing is the same. I guess it's just a different chipset, ECC ram compliance, and whatever else. I could do more reading in that area.

post #117 of 516
So is this there main spring release?
post #118 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Berends View Post

This is bullshit. I work in an Apple Premium Reseller as well and if there is one thing we don't know it's new product releases. Especially brand new design releases etc.

The APR is probably just telling this to keep their customers from not buying the current Mac Pro because it is hard to get in the current distribution channel (it's being faded out in Europe).

 

Agreed, Apple wouldn't tell one random reseller and no one else. 

 

This is a ploy to get attention.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #119 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

 

What do you shoot? I never hear of anyone using those these days given their somewhat cumbersome nature. I mean you need huge ballasts for lighting as opposed to strobes and the current quality of medium format digital. I figured Better Light was mostly relegated to digitizing old paintings and documents that can't be fit on a large Scitex without the risk of damage. Also what kind of problems are you having with Spectraview? Is it that thing where it sometimes spits out wacky Delta E validations? Do you allow the colorimeter and display to warm up first? Also are you using one of their i1 display bundles if you're using the PA series? I switched to Eizo a while ago mostly because they're quicker about bug fixes. I still like NEC though.

There are many of us still using the Better Light system for fine art reproductions.  Nothing else even comes close to capturing the details and the colors of a 40x60 inch painting.  We also have 36 megapixel Nikons - and Hasselblads - but the Better Light system captures "pure" RGB without a Bayer filter.  We use it with huge 900 watt North Lights - It is a very specialized setup and our artists appreciate the difference ... "Cumbersome" is not the word I would use --- it takes time and some skill to get the best possible results, but it's worth the effort. We do large-format Giclee reproductions and we also use the system to digitize damaged work that needs restoration.

 

The NEC Spectraview stopped working for most of us with OS 10.8 .. and I've updated the graphics cards in the MacPros trying to get a working profile.  NEC and Apple blame each other ... I reverted to my X-Rite i1 system but I preferred the NEC approach.

 

My fingers are crossed that a newer MacPro will solve some problems and speed things up.

Photoshop User 2
Reply
Photoshop User 2
Reply
post #120 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPhotos View Post

I have a large photo studio/digital printing company, and we have 2 maxed-out MacPros - 2007 and 2009.  I've been waiting for more that a year to spend the $$$ in my equipment savings fund on a new MacPro - with faster processors, expanded RAM, SSD, USB3, Thunderbolt, and improved speeds on an eSATA board for running external drives ... in other words, 2013 computing.

According to Tim Cook this is indeed the year that you'll be getting a 2013 Mac Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Yeah except it was only partially 64 bit when launched. It did not support 64 bit kernel until 2008.

It looked like they were the first with a consumer/professional desktop PC with 64-bit computing when the G5 launched, back in 2003. Staggered, small steps at a time. This AI article links to many more.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah View Post

So is this there main spring release?

No. This is coming from an Apple Reseller. In American courthouses, hearsay, therefore inadmissible.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple tells reseller new Mac Pro coming in spring 2013