or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple offers sneak peek at new cylindrical Mac Pro assembled in the USA
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple offers sneak peek at new cylindrical Mac Pro assembled in the USA - Page 7

post #241 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


From my perspective they had no choice no matter what the ultimate design of the new Mac Pro was or is. Flash on PCI Express would do more for a Pro workstation these days than extra cores. I could however see professionals literally wearing out the flash storage much faster than the average consumer. Thankfully the flash is on a plug in module. Apple should have offered two slots though as it looks like the machine can easily handle it.

As far as flash on PCI Express goes, what I wasn't expecting is this technology in the Mac Book Airs. That is a bold move on Apples part and makes for a very impressive Air upgrade.
Weight wise it might surprise you large extruded aluminum heat sinks can be surprisingly heavy. There is a lot of metal in this machine, it is a wonder of engineering.
I'm not sure why you continue to believe this. Apps take a big hit from the bandwidth limitations of PCI Express in many cases so going TB is a huge step backwards. In many cases the bandwidth issues of PCI Express coupled with data movement overhead leads to the realization that sometimes it is faster just to use the CPU.

Of course the exact nature of the computations impact this, in some cases you could trickle the data over to the GPU with no problem. Given that I think it is very informative that Apple built this machine to support two GPUs and one CPU. It says a lot about what they think is Important and where it is important to keep that hardware.

In other words it is no accident that Apple put two high performance GPUs inside this tube.
I'm hoping that before we get to the "up to" model we will have a more modest processor option. Also the 12 core model I believe is a dual chip in package implementation. That will likely cost big time.
OpenCL has had very strong industry acceptance. Of course some people seem to think that means instant software. It is interesting that more and more pro apps are coming to the Mac. I can actually see this new Mac Pro as encouraging even more software developers to the platform. It will be a well known performance computing platform.
I think many of the detractors just don't get this. If you look towards the past then sure this Mac Pro has limitations. If you look forward though this is a platform with staying power. Consider what this platform will be capable of with the next Process shrink, faster RAM and more internal storage.

Currently though I'm just hoping that the low end option is affordable. This is a big unknown. If Apple can't deliver a machine with this architecture, at a reasonable price, they should seriously think about a Haswell desktop variant. Maybe one of those Haswell 85 watt chips paired with one of AMDs Southern Islands GPUs. I just have this fear that this machine will be priced high and effectively out of reach.

I posted this in reply to you before, in the 'throws out the rulebook' thread…

 

http://cdn.thenextweb.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/06/IMG_8197.jpg

 


This image shows the two GPU boards; on the right hand one we see the SDD blade; on the left hand one we can see the pads where a second SSD blade could be added in…
 
And again from the same thread, but only to get your thoughts & also to rile up Tallest Skil…
 
Over on CGTalk, someone mentioned that the CPU & GPU cards seemed to be just that, cards… As in, connected to a backplane and from there the main logic board. Wondering about BTO configurations if this is true…

 

Single CPU, dual GPUs…

 

Dual CPUs, single GPU…

 

Single CPU, single GPU, dual 2.5" SSDs…

 

No matter the configuration, the boot flash is still in its socket on the GPU card, and if you look at some of the pics out there, you can see the pads where a second SSD Flash could be installed on the second GPU card…

 

And if Apple will do such a BTO, then they could also have consumer grade CPU cards, and consumer grade GPU cards…

 

Maybe a quad-core Haswell i7 CPU card (with 16GB RAM), nVidia Geforce GFX 700 series GPU card & dual SSD card with only a single SSD populated (and NO SSD Flash boot drive on the GPU card); giving us the mythical xMac…!!! Shipping by Christmas time, US$1,500.00…!!!

 

So, speculate…!

 

I cannot wait for these bad boys, I can see one of these, all pimped out with max CPU, max RAM, max SSD, max GPUs; hooked to two 31" 4K ThunderBolt 2 Cinema Displays & a Cintiq 24HD touch, with a huge honking HDTV off of the HDMI, a TB2 A/V I/O box & a TB2 RAID; the ultimate DCC workstation…!

 

Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #242 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Have you paid attention to Apple in the past few years?

 

Seriously though- I'd wait for a tear down before complaining or worrying.

1. Other GPU Card builders MAY have new GPU cards designed to fit inside of MacPro in the future that can be replaced from original GPU cards.

 

2. Thunderbolt2 GPU Card Express Port box peripheral.

post #243 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by LLIBSETAG View Post

1. Other GPU Card builders MAY have new GPU cards designed to fit inside of MacPro in the future that can be replaced from original GPU cards.

 

2. Thunderbolt2 GPU Card Express Port box peripheral.

 

At nearly 12.8 times less bandwidth than direct PCI-E 3.0 you won't be seeing stacks of GPGPU cards running via Thunderbolt 2. The PCI-E 3.0 bus is 32 Gigabytes/s bandwith. The Thunderbolt 2 is 20 Gigabits/s bandwith.

post #244 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


The other part might be incumbent software that might not run on a Mac without adjustment?

I'd think that the MP has plenty of display IO for that job.

Oh, no doubt but what a waste of money that would be. You don't need all that power to run what is essentially a dumb terminals job, it would be a monumental over kill.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #245 of 308

They should have liquid cooled that bullet instead of using a fan... it would have been quieter and more futuristic...

 

It would also feel a lot cooler if they had made it transparent or let the inner components stand out a bit with a circular light on the top/ laser etched white lighted apple logo... to have a dual use. an apple lamp that puts the apple logo on your ceiling.

 

A few members here and I had the idea that it would be a successor to the g4 cube and we were right... besides the cube being a cylinder instead

 

I actually thought this was worth waiting for... and it is. But I'll stick to making my own PC's.. knowing you've built your own computer is more rewarding than just paying someone to give it to you.

iTunes Radio - Apple TV with Wifi AC - Gold Anodized Aluminum iPhone - Mac Pro: September - November 2013

 

Reply

iTunes Radio - Apple TV with Wifi AC - Gold Anodized Aluminum iPhone - Mac Pro: September - November 2013

 

Reply
post #246 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

At nearly 12.8 times less bandwidth than direct PCI-E 3.0 you won't be seeing stacks of GPGPU cards running via Thunderbolt 2. The PCI-E 3.0 bus is 32 Gigabytes/s bandwith. The Thunderbolt 2 is 20 Gigabits/s bandwith.

There's no need for people to put GPUs outside when they have fast enough ones internally but comparing the theoretical maximums of both interfaces doesn't really mean much in practise. When this is tested in the real world, the difference is almost zero for both compute and real-time graphics:

http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/850/

This has been tested a number of times. They test the achievable bandwidth first and then start testing real apps. In every practical test, the difference all across the speeds is pretty much zero. If you wanted to run dual Radeon 7970s (the fastest desktop cards) for 3D OpenCL compute, you'd get the same score over PCI 1 x16 as you would PCI 3 x16.

Here's another company testing a Thunderbolt GPU box this week:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7040/computex-2013-thunderbolt-graphics-from-silverstone

450W PSU, aiming for $200-250 without the GPU. Taking these to market is a different matter because of drivers, mass production etc but if it didn't work, they wouldn't do it. Thunderbolt isn't the ideal place for a GPU but in cases where it's the only option such as having internal AMD GPUs but needing to use CUDA for a couple of things, it will work perfectly well. The bandwidth is a complete non-issue because people keep assuming that massive amounts of data is being shuffled back and forth over the interface. There's a reason that GPUs have GDDR5 memory and that has a bandwidth of over 260GB/s on the Radeon 7970, 480GB/s on the FirePro - even x16 PCIe 3 isn't close to that. The interface just needs to buffer data into the memory and that's it and you can fill 6GB of GPU memory in under 3 seconds over Thunderbolt 2.
post #247 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


I didn't expect the PCIe storage, which Wizard69 was quite keen on. I figured they might have issues with disk management tools but they must have it working ok, presumably under Bootcamp too. They even beat the 8" cube in size, which is amazing considering what's inside it. 8" ^ 3 = 512 cubic inches. The Mac Pro cylinder is π x 3.3 ^2 x 9.9 = 339 cubic inches - just 2/3 the volume of the cube and a smaller footprint than the Mini. I bet it's relatively light too with no heavy 3.5" drives inside.

I didn't see Apple necessarily pushing PCIe storage, although I could see its potential. I really didn't see them ditching SATA entirely, simply because the connections are there. It's a more radical form factor change than I expected, as I didn't expect them to push out all the drives when even the recent year mini and imac designs didn't go that route. Perhaps it's due to how long they maintain a constant "mac pro" case design? They redid the internals many times, but externally it was the same chassis. It changed very little in the past decade.

 

 

Quote:

Some people would point out that getting a score of 48 by using two of the chips is better but Apple wouldn't use two $1885 CPUs, it would likely be 2 x 8-core vs single 12-core. The Mac Pro scores 16 so assuming the same 30% boost and 8c vs 6c, that would mean 8-score x 8c/6c x 1.3 Ivy Bridge x 2 processors = 27-28 vs 24. Not that big of a deal IMO for the price difference.
One of the announcements today is that The Foundry's Mari is coming to the Mac, the following video shows it used on the dinosaur in Peter Jackson's King Kong:
http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/articles/2013/06/10/536/mari-is-coming-to-the-mac/

 

I'm curious if these are Xeon 1600 parts or Xeon 2400. Both are considered Xeon EP. 1600 parts tend to be clocked more aggressively, although I'm not sure they would chase high core counts. 2400 parts tend to mean more expensive logic board and cpu. It's not that cost effective if you're using just one. It also doesn't increase bandwidth if you only use one. Also to put this to rest, according to intel they use PCIe 3. PCIe 3 is obviously backwards compatible with PCIe 2.

 

 

Quote:

I still think Thunderbolt GPUs are a perfectly viable option but not for computer manufacturers. Nvidia might get no sales from Apple this year but could make up for it a little by allowing their GPUs to work over TB for CUDA apps. The performance is fine - there's very little performance hit for a GPU on x4 vs x16.

 

 

NVidia hasn't released anything directly. PNY did the Quadro 4000 Mac. EVGA did the 680. Consider that the 680 came in at $600. Thunderbolt drivers may take extra development time to pass certification. Add in the cost of the receiving chip and a case. The after market cases in that size cost at least $600-800 currently. Tom's hardware tested one a while ago. It required auxiliary power, and they had to work with the top off. That isn't really an ideal solution. As I've stated before if they went that route, it would make more sense to to sell a plug and play card, not various parts of an assembly kit. I also think it would end up cheaper. I don't think you would be looking at $1400 for something that must run lidless, but you would likely be at $700-900, quite possibly below native performance levels. Your market is basically notebooks. People can claim the imac represents a market, because they're tech illiterate. Imac owners would just upgrade more frequently and skip the weird extension. As for notebook owners, depending on where things go, they might do the same. Both integrated graphics and discrete notebook graphics don't have to be just as good to kill market potential there. They just have to be good enough that most users will not see the value in such a solution.

 

I don't like pushing things outside of the box in general. It's incidental in notebooks. In desktops it's a matter of solving a problem they just created. The Xeon chipset has something like 6 SATA connections, so you could feasibly dedicate 1 PCIe ssd to boot and application duty with an internal 18TB array left over. That's extreme, but if you don't have bleeding edge online storage requirements, you can pick drive sizes by cost effectiveness per GB. Needing to add DAS for primary storage is annoying unless they see this thing primarily selling into multi - user environments that rely primarily on centralized storage.

 

Quote:

Some people would point out that getting a score of 48 by using two of the chips is better but Apple wouldn't use two $1885 CPUs, it would likely be 2 x 8-core vs single 12-core. The Mac Pro scores 16 so assuming the same 30% boost and 8c vs 6c, that would mean 8-score x 8c/6c x 1.3 Ivy Bridge x 2 processors = 27-28 vs 24. Not that big of a deal IMO for the price difference.
One of the announcements today is that The Foundry's Mari is coming to the Mac, the following video shows it used on the dinosaur in Peter Jackson's King Kong:
http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/articles/2013/06/10/536/mari-is-coming-to-the-mac/

 

I'm aware of that. They usually skip some of the extreme price points. Pricing in general remains to be seen. Their strategy likely depends on how much they think entry pricing affected sales previously. I don't think they would do a complete redesign if they didn't expect it to sell.

 

Quote:

These are just high res screenshots done in-game. Apple isn't just designing the Mac Pro for today but for where things are going in a few years.

 

I suspect they expect an increase in GPGPU programming.

post #248 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post




450W PSU, aiming for $200-250 without the GPU. Taking these to market is a different matter because of drivers, mass production etc but if it didn't work, they wouldn't do it. Thunderbolt isn't the ideal place for a GPU but in cases where it's the only option such as having internal AMD GPUs but needing to use CUDA for a couple of things, it will work perfectly well. The bandwidth is a complete non-issue because people keep assuming that massive amounts of data is being shuffled back and forth over the interface. There's a reason that GPUs have GDDR5 memory and that has a bandwidth of over 260GB/s on the Radeon 7970, 480GB/s on the FirePro - even x16 PCIe 3 isn't close to that. The interface just needs to buffer data into the memory and that's it and you can fill 6GB of GPU memory in under 3 seconds over Thunderbolt 2.

That would fit into my predicted price point. I said $700-900. I was initially thinking at least $600, but EVGA charges that for a 680 Mac edition in standard card form. In this case it would be $850 with the case. It's a lot less than $1400, but this isn't what I would consider an ideal solution. It's again a response to the popularity of notebooks. I wanted to say mobile form factors, but I don't know of any tablets that could leverage it. The form factor is popular, which creates the problem solved by an external unit, but it's really more of a stop gap solution to me if even that.

post #249 of 308
I had a dream, where Apple would manufacture an extension chassis for the new MacPro, resembling the base of the Cray one. The cylindrical main unit would just be centered on top of this base and provide for the cooling. Room enough for loads of hard drives, PCI cards, etc.
Edited by VanFruniken - 6/12/13 at 4:18am
post #250 of 308

You can decorate the case or maybe it will be different when it's released, they said it's an early sneek peak, so there's hope!

post #251 of 308

There better be hope for this Mac Pro.
 

post #252 of 308
I'm enthousiastic and see many possibilities. Can't wait!
 iPad mini 3G 16GB  MacBook Pro Retina 15" (2012) 2,3GHz 8GB RAM 256GB Flash storage
Reply
 iPad mini 3G 16GB  MacBook Pro Retina 15" (2012) 2,3GHz 8GB RAM 256GB Flash storage
Reply
post #253 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkdefender View Post

They should have liquid cooled that bullet instead of using a fan... it would have been quieter and more futuristic...

 

It would also feel a lot cooler if they had made it transparent or let the inner components stand out a bit with a circular light on the top/ laser etched white lighted apple logo... to have a dual use. an apple lamp that puts the apple logo on your ceiling.

 

A few members here and I had the idea that it would be a successor to the g4 cube and we were right... besides the cube being a cylinder instead

 

I actually thought this was worth waiting for... and it is. But I'll stick to making my own PC's.. knowing you've built your own computer is more rewarding than just paying someone to give it to you.

 

 

I want mine to shoot lasers out of its hole when it gets excited...(CPU load increases)

 

That and a touch sensitive power button from the Cube please...

post #254 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It's simple. If you don't like it, don't buy one.
 

 

If you look at the Pre-WWDC threads I've been hoping for a Mac Mini Pro with a Haswell Xeon and GPU and 2x SSD blades.  The new Mac Pro isn't THAT much larger than the mini pro could have been given the internal PSU and more heat requirements.

 

So I got what I want, although it will likely be much more expensive than the Mac Mini Pro I was hoping for with an entry level Xeon and mid-grade GPU.  If they have and entry model at $2500 (which I'm thinking is no better than a 50-50 bet) then I'll get one.  If not, I'll get a Haswel Mini and bootcamp when I need a GPU unless Apple adds support for GPU over TB or TB2.

 

It's just not a replacement for the old Mac Pro which was the last mac with versatility and internal expansion.

post #255 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

You need to look at this machine again thinking more about the future than the past.

 

/shrug

 

You keep saying that but repeated assertion doesn't make something true.  It's a nice machine but as fast as it may be it's probably only somewhere in the top third when it comes to raw horsepower.

 

Fully specing out a Dell Precision you can have dual CPU, 512GB RAM (16 RAM slots), and dual high end GPU + compute card.  It's your usual ugly oversized workstation tower and probably noisy as hell when fully spec'd but when updated to the same Ivy Bridge Xeons it'll have 24 cores (vs 16 Sand Bridge today) and if you want the same ATI FirePros in the Mac Pro over the current dual 6GB Quadro 6000s that will be available too.  You can pick between a Xeon Phi over the current Tesla K20C by then too.

 

Yeah, that machine will run you 20K (less if you only want 128GB RAM) but it's going to be much faster...eh.

post #256 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The major differences in this design are two things:

1. PCI slots are replaced with Thunderbolt ports with PCIe2 x4 equivalent bandwidth each.

 

Which means one expansion card per port and only at PCIe2 x4 speeds.

 

If you can BTO nVidia Quadros that would be nice and solve some problems.  Or even BTO two of the GPUs with the SSD slot so you can have 2 SSDs.

 

Man I hope those SSDs are big because if they start with a single 256GB SSD in the base model that's pretty tight if you max out the RAM.

post #257 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

And every single effing specification of the machine. 

 

Are you just pretending to be this blind?

 

No you just can't read.  A spec bumped classic Mac Pro has up to double the CPU cores (24 vs 12), double the RAM slots (8 vs 4), higher GPU Compute capability (2 high end GPUs + Tesla/Xeon Phi/whatever), and more storage (even the ePCI SSD kind if you're willing to drop the number of TB2 ports to get some lanes back in addition to SATA/SAS storage).

post #258 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

No you just can't read.  A spec bumped classic Mac Pro has up to double the CPU cores (24 vs 12), double the RAM slots (8 vs 4), higher GPU Compute capability (2 high end GPUs + Tesla/Xeon Phi/whatever), and more storage (even the ePCI SSD kind if you're willing to drop the number of TB2 ports to get some lanes back in addition to SATA/SAS storage).

I just don't buy that. Can't really say that until we see the benches on the upper models.
post #259 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I just don't buy that. Can't really say that until we see the benches on the upper models.

 

You don't buy what?  That a spec bumped classic Mac Pro would have been a dual CPU, three slot tower with 8 RAM slots with the latest PCIe speeds and RAM speeds?

 

That's what a spec bump is.  Keep the same configuration and just use the latest motherboard, chips, etc.

post #260 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

That a spec bumped classic Mac Pro would have been a dual CPU, three slot tower with 8 RAM slots with the latest PCIe speeds and RAM speeds?

Well, this isn't even a complete sentence. I don't buy that your theory would be faster than what they've done.
post #261 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Which means one expansion card per port and only at PCIe2 x4 speeds.

The Mac Pro only had an x16 and two x4. This has six x4 and each port can have 6 devices. The main use given for the x16 was another GPU and this already has two.

I imagine the base spec will be (costs listed, not retail prices):

Quad Xeon $294
8GB RAM $100
dual FirePro W5000 $600 ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814195119 )
256GB SSD $200
Motherboard, PSU, peripherals = $300

Total = $1494 + 40% margin = $2490 so same starting price.

Top model:
12-core Xeon $2000
64GB RAM $500
dual FirePro W9000 $5000 ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814195116&Tpk=firepro%20w9000&IsVirtualParent=1 )
1.5TB SSD $1000
same extras = $300

Total = $8,800 + 40% margin = $14,667

AMD is struggling financially though so I reckon Apple will have some pretty good deals on the GPUs and this isn't really a higher price than before because you'd be able to get the 12-core with the entry FirePros, which would come out around $5k. They'll probably just let you spec it out however you want on a single page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

If you can BTO nVidia Quadros that would be nice and solve some problems.

The main problem is that nobody should be using CUDA because it doesn't run on the CPU. OpenCL runs on NVidia, AMD and Intel. The problem there lies with the developers so they should be getting the complaints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Or even BTO two of the GPUs with the SSD slot so you can have 2 SSDs.

Man I hope those SSDs are big because if they start with a single 256GB SSD in the base model that's pretty tight if you max out the RAM.

I think a single SSD would be ok internally, they'll at least allow up to 768GB. I think they'll have up to 1.5TB for $1500 retail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht 
A spec bumped classic Mac Pro has up to double the CPU cores (24 vs 12), double the RAM slots (8 vs 4), higher GPU Compute capability (2 high end GPUs + Tesla/Xeon Phi/whatever), and more storage (even the ePCI SSD kind if you're willing to drop the number of TB2 ports to get some lanes back in addition to SATA/SAS storage).

It wouldn't have had 24-cores because Apple doesn't use the most expensive chips in the dual models. It would have topped out at 16 and the performance improvement vs the single 12-core wouldn't be nearly as much as the GPUs. When it comes to the GPUs, the FirePro has a 274W TDP so you'd get one in the old Mac Pro and that's it. Everything else would be in a Cubix box, which costs over $2k:

http://www.sabrepc.com/p-1093-cubix-gpu-xpander-desktop-4-with-16-pcie-channels-and-4-double-wide-slots-retail.aspx
http://www.amazon.com/Cubix-GPU-Xpander-Desktop-Channels-Double-wide/dp/B004W50R70

You get a choice of GPUs but not two high-end ones, certainly not plus a Tesla or Xeon Phi card.
post #262 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Well, this isn't even a complete sentence. I don't buy that your theory would be faster than what they've done.

 

Jesus.  That's all you can come up with?  Which part of "spec bump classic Mac Pro" do you not understand?  A 2013 Mac Pro designed like the old one would have been dual CPU, have 8 RAM slots and more GPU and GP/GPU compute options.  How is double the CPU and 50% more GP/GPU capability not faster?

post #263 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


The Mac Pro only had an x16 and two x4. This has six x4 and each port can have 6 devices. The main use given for the x16 was another GPU and this already has two.

 

The old Mac Pro was limited by the chipset.  A spec bumped 2013 Mac Pro has the same number of PCIe lanes.  Lets count in the new Mac Pro:  Two x16 lanes + 6 x4 lanes.

 

Split that up into the spec bump Mac Pro and you can have thee x16 slots with 2 TB2 ports left over.  Or 2 x16 and one x8 and 4 TB2 ports.

 

Quote:

I think a single SSD would be ok internally, they'll at least allow up to 768GB. I think they'll have up to 1.5TB for $1500 retail.

 

Given that a 1TB SSD is only $600 retail that's not so great.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148696

 

The issue however is if you only have a 256GB in the base model then upgrading the 128GB RAM that 10.9 can handle means you lost half the available disk space to the sleep image.  128GB remaining is kinda tight with the size of apps. 

 

512GB really should be the minimum so you're not screwed because you added RAM later.

post #264 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Jesus.  That's all you can come up with?

Well, it was my original point so you should have been "outraged" at it back then.
Quote:
Which part of "spec bump classic Mac Pro" do you not understand?
 

The part where it wouldn't be faster than the one they did release.
Quote:
A 2013 Mac Pro designed like the old one would have been dual CPU, have 8 RAM slots and more GPU and GP/GPU compute options.  How is double the CPU and 50% more GP/GPU capability not faster?

We'll have to see when the benchmarks hit, huh. 1oyvey.gif
post #265 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The old Mac Pro was limited by the chipset.  A spec bumped 2013 Mac Pro has the same number of PCIe lanes.  Lets count in the new Mac Pro:  Two x16 lanes + 6 x4 lanes.

Split that up into the spec bump Mac Pro and you can have thee x16 slots with 2 TB2 ports left over.  Or 2 x16 and one x8 and 4 TB2 ports.

That seems to be mixing PCIe 2 and 3. Thunderbolt ports are PCIe 2 x4 equivalent but are driven by PCIe 3 lanes in the new MP. The GPUs may be on PCIe 3 x8 each and have an x4 per TB controller leaving 12 lanes free, some for PCIe storage. I don't really see the benefit of reducing the number of expansion ports in order to increase their speeds. I still haven't seen a single example of a PCI card that saturates an x4 slot so your setup is like having 3 slots free rather than 36. You'd never be in a situation where every one is maxing out in the same direction and worst case you get some slowdown in a transfer somewhere but it's hardly a problem being stuck at just 2.5GB/s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Given that a 1TB SSD is only $600 retail that's not so great.

This is PCIe SSD remember:

http://www.amazon.com/OCZ-Technology-RevoDrive-PCI-Express--RVD3X2-FHPX4-960G/dp/B0058RECRM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The issue however is if you only have a 256GB in the base model then upgrading the 128GB RAM that 10.9 can handle means you lost half the available disk space to the sleep image.

What sleep image? This isn't a laptop. Hibernation modes are disabled on the desktops. If for some reason they are enabled, you can disable them manually. Also, this will only go to 64GB RAM as it has 4 RAM slots. When DDR4 comes along next year, the 2014 Haswell model will probably manage 128GB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

512GB really should be the minimum so you're not screwed because you added RAM later.

I agree that 512GB is a good working size to go with for this type of machine but if someone is buying the entry model, they might be using it for photography so massive amounts of storage might not be needed. 128GB would let you store over 42,000 3MB images. They could take a $200 hit on the margins to get the 512GB in the $2499 model. This would make their gross margins about 33% instead of 40%. If they wanted to do that, it would be great but then some might wonder why not have an even cheaper entry point with 256GB. 256GB is the entry on the MBP so I reckon it's ok for that to be the starting point.
post #266 of 308
*Thunderbolt is great for expansion with the accessory ecosystem i.e. PCI expansion, Hard Drive arrays, networking, XGrid and Displays with thunderbolt will be Awesome! "Apple Thunderbolt to Optical Audio dingy? "

*U.S. assembly plant finally.

*I also can't wait to see the different holders and mounting brackets for it. There is going to be a Wine Rack for sure.

*Virginia Techs super computer would look really neat with these Mac Pro units.

"Parallel computing question" Could someone have two of these MPs and connect all of the thunderbolt together and make them run as one computer? 24cores 4 graphic cards.
post #267 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

I posted this in reply to you before, in the 'throws out the rulebook' thread…
I must have missed that. If that is in fact a supportable place for an additional SSD card then Apple needs to ship the machine with a socket there. This would immediately make for a far more versatile machine.
Quote:


This image shows the two GPU boards; on the right hand one we see the SDD blade; on the left hand one we can see the pads where a second SSD blade could be added in…
Excellent close up.
Quote:
 
And again from the same thread, but only to get your thoughts & also to rile up Tallest Skil…

 
Over on CGTalk, someone mentioned that the CPU & GPU cards seemed to be just that, cards… As in, connected to a backplane and from there the main logic board. Wondering about BTO configurations if this is true…
Of course they are cards, you need some way to assemble the machine.
Quote:

No matter the configuration, the boot flash is still in its socket on the GPU card, and if you look at some of the pics out there, you can see the pads where a second SSD Flash could be installed on the second GPU card…



 



And if Apple will do such a BTO, then they could also have consumer grade CPU cards, and consumer grade GPU cards…

This would be very nice indeed and would be close to the capabilities I want to see in an XMac.
Quote:


Maybe a quad-core Haswell i7 CPU card (with 16GB RAM), nVidia Geforce GFX 700 series GPU card & dual SSD card with only a single SSD populated (and NO SSD Flash boot drive on the GPU card); giving us the mythical xMac…!!! Shipping by Christmas time, US$1,500.00…!!!

That would be golden.
Quote:

I cannot wait for these bad boys, I can see one of these, all pimped out with max CPU, max RAM, max SSD, max GPUs; hooked to two 31" 4K ThunderBolt 2 Cinema Displays & a Cintiq 24HD touch, with a huge honking HDTV off of the HDMI, a TB2 A/V I/O box & a TB2 RAID; the ultimate DCC workstation…!



 


I doubt that I will be able to afford the dual work station GPU models unless Apple gets a very good deal from AMD. So a trimmed model would be very nice indeed. I really want a quad core machine for my next desktop.
post #268 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanFruniken View Post

I had a dream, where Apple would manufacture an extension chassis for the new MacPro, resembling the base of the Cray one. The cylindrical main unit would just be centered on top of this base and provide for the cooling. Room enough for loads of hard drives, PCI cards, etc.

I was literally thinking the same thing. The base mainly being a disk array and maybe that damn optical everybody whines about.

That is probably just my wild imagination but I do expect Apple to offer a complete solution when these ship. That includes a disk array of some sort and new high res displays. I just don't see them leaving launch success to third party suppliers.
post #269 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


I was literally thinking the same thing. The base mainly being a disk array and maybe that damn optical everybody whines about.

That is probably just my wild imagination but I do expect Apple to offer a complete solution when these ship. That includes a disk array of some sort and new high res displays. I just don't see them leaving launch success to third party suppliers.

Good point about the RAID array, although, this would probably be "side" offered by Promise.

Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
post #270 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

That seems to be mixing PCIe 2 and 3. Thunderbolt ports are PCIe 2 x4 equivalent but are driven by PCIe 3 lanes in the new MP. The GPUs may be on PCIe 3 x8 each and have an x4 per TB controller leaving 12 lanes free, some for PCIe storage. I don't really see the benefit of reducing the number of expansion ports in order to increase their speeds. I still haven't seen a single example of a PCI card that saturates an x4 slot so your setup is like having 3 slots free rather than 36. You'd never be in a situation where every one is maxing out in the same direction and worst case you get some slowdown in a transfer somewhere but it's hardly a problem being stuck at just 2.5GB/s.

 

TB2 ports are about 2.5 PCIe 3.0 lanes at 20 Gb/s.  Each 3.0 lane is 1GB/s.  Thinking about it the 6 TB ports would be about 15 lanes worth leaving only 25 out of 40. That doesn't seem quite right unless they don't expect all the TB2 ports to run full speed.

 

 

For GAMING performance PCIe x8 is fine today but not OpenCL performance.  A Radeon HD 7970 a year ago showed an 17.94% difference in OpenCL benchmark score between a x16 and x8 slot.

 

 

http://www.expreview.com/img/review/HD7970_PCIE3/p3_16vs8.png

 

That's only one benchmark but it depends on your actual GP/GPU workload behaviors.  If you're computationally heavy with little data transfer then yes, you can run in a x4 slot and not notice any difference.

 

Here's Anand:

 

"For GPU compute. Improving bandwidth and latency between the CPU and the GPU are both key to building a high performance heterogenous computing solution. While good GPU compute benchmarks on the desktop are still hard to come by, we did find one that showed a real improvement from PCIe 3.0 support on the 7970: AMD's AES Encrypt/Decrypt sample application. 

Simply enabling PCIe 3.0 on our EVGA X79 SLI motherboard (EVGA provided us with a BIOS that allowed us to toggle PCIe 3.0 mode on/off) resulted in a 9% increase in performance on the Radeon HD 7970. This tells us two things: 1) You can indeed get PCIe 3.0 working on SNB-E/X79, at least with a Radeon HD 7970, and 2) PCIe 3.0 will likely be useful for GPU compute applications, although not so much for gaming anytime soon."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5264/sandy-bridge-e-x79-pcie-30-it-works

 

I'd be surprised (and disappointed) that the new Mac Pro was running those FirePro cards in x8 mode.  But assume they are then 16 lanes for the two GPUs, 15 lanes for the TB ports and you have 9 left.  Given the performance of the SSD that's likely a 2 lane device.  Viable but I STILL don't believe that they are running both those GPU at x8. That's just shortsighted for a dual GP/GPU platform.

 

Hmmm...12x?  That's in the data spec and they control both GPU and MB completely.

 

Quote:
Also, this will only go to 64GB RAM as it has 4 RAM slots. When DDR4 comes along next year, the 2014 Haswell model will probably manage 128GB.

 

64GB max would be very small for a workstation class machine.  Guidance has been to have three times the system RAM as the GP/GPU boards.  Meaning that for two 6GB boards the recommended RAM was 36GB for the Quadro 6000 + Tesla C2075.

 

128GB is my expected max since there are 32GB ECC DIMMS. 

post #271 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

64GB max would be very small for a workstation class machine.  Guidance has been to have three times the system RAM as the GP/GPU boards.  Meaning that for two 6GB boards the recommended RAM was 36GB for the Quadro 6000 + Tesla C2075.

 

128GB is my expected max since there are 32GB ECC DIMMS. 

 

I always went with 4GB per core on desktop, or 2GB per core on a laptop.  Where did you get this guidance from, just interesting, not doubting or anything.

Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
post #272 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

What sleep image? This isn't a laptop. Hibernation modes are disabled on the desktops.

Huh? I put my MP5.1 with 10.8 to sleep instead of shutting down. That's hibernation, right? I'm missing something here...
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #273 of 308

You are missing what to do correctly.
 

post #274 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezwits View Post

I always went with 4GB per core on desktop, or 2GB per core on a laptop.  Where did you get this guidance from, just interesting, not doubting or anything.

The Maximus install guide
post #275 of 308

Unfortunately, this is for USB 3.0, but I expect some mfr. will make one for Thunderbolt.

 

Newegg.com - IVIEW Iview HF2-SU3 4 3.5" Drive Bays USB 3.0 / eSATA 4-Bay Storage Box

 

 

IVIEW Iview HF2-SU3 4 3.5" Drive Bays USB 3.0 / eSATA 4-Bay Storage Box

 

 

IVIEW Iview HF2-SU3 4 3.5" Drive Bays USB 3.0 / eSATA 4-Bay Storage Box

ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #276 of 308

D-Link Cloud Router 2000 (DIR-826L), Wireless N600, Dual-Band, Gigabit Ports, USB SharePort, mydlink enabled

 

 

D-Link Cloud Router 2000 (DIR-826L), Wireless N600, Dual-Band, Gigabit Ports, USB SharePort, mydlink enabled

 

$67.99

ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #277 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


Huh? I put my MP5.1 with 10.8 to sleep instead of shutting down. That's hibernation, right? I'm missing something here...


Indeed, you are missing something. In laptops, when the system boots for the first time, it will write a file on the hard drive having the size of the RAM. So, if you have 4 GB RAM in your system, a file of 4 GB will be written (like /var/vm/sleepimage, if I remember well). In this file the operating system stores its state so that it can be quickly recovered and restored after hibernation.

 

During normal sleep mode, available for both laptops and desktops, the operating system stores its state into the RAM. If the battery is drained while the machine is still in sleep mode and cannot keep the RAM in standby anymore, then the system will update the contents of the sleepimage with the current state and will shutdown the computer. In the next reboot it will read the content of sleepimage to restore the previous system state. As far as I know this is available only to laptops (which have a battery to begin with).

 

This means that in systems with much memory it may be beneficial to disable this feature in order to save storage room.

post #278 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Huh? I put my MP5.1 with 10.8 to sleep instead of shutting down. That's hibernation, right? I'm missing something here...


Indeed, you are missing something. In laptops, when the system boots for the first time, it will write a file on the hard drive having the size of the RAM. So, if you have 4 GB RAM in your system, a file of 4 GB will be written (like /var/vm/sleepimage, if I remember well). In this file the operating system stores its state so that it can be quickly recovered and restored after hibernation.

During normal sleep mode, available for both laptops and desktops, the operating system stores its state into the RAM. If the battery is drained while the machine is still in sleep mode and cannot keep the RAM in standby anymore, then the system will update the contents of the sleepimage with the current state and will shutdown the computer. In the next reboot it will read the content of sleepimage to restore the previous system state. As far as I know this is available only to laptops.

This means that in systems with much memory it may be beneficial to disable this feature in order to save storage room.

Ah, ok, thanks. I indeed don't have 'sleepimage' only 2 swapfiles (67MB each). And I presume since my MP is always powered, it doesn't need this image. Thanks.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #279 of 308
Quote:
I imagine the base spec will be (costs listed, not retail prices):

Quad Xeon $294
8GB RAM $100
dual FirePro W5000 $600 ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814195119 )
256GB SSD $200
Motherboard, PSU, peripherals = $300

Total = $1494 + 40% margin = $2490 so same starting price.

That's more than achievable.  (If they want Pro sales to increase! :P )

 

But I'd rather they take it outside into the car park.  If HP can have 'Workstations' starting at £700+?  Why can't we have a top end iMac config' monitor less price of £1295-iSH with 8 gigs of ram, SSD, 7xx Nvidia and an i7 quad?

 

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 #280 of 308

ie get those scale of economies moving...

 

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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple offers sneak peek at new cylindrical Mac Pro assembled in the USA