or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro - Page 26

post #1001 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

You could be right, but the hope of a real midrange Mac alternative has been beaten out of me over the years.
You and me both. When I purchased my MBP some years ago it was because I really didn't have an option in my mind for a Midrange performance machine. Especially after fulling out the iMac. So I understand totally the frustration with Apples take it or leave it desktop lineup.
Quote:
I'd be totally happy if Apple just gave access to the 27" iMac's internal drive. Surely with SSDs an eject function can be added.
With Apples blade SSDs it ought to be easy to provide access. More so why wouldn't people want a machine that keeps repair costs low.
Quote:
I still say that Apple wants TB2 to debut on the Pro as a talking point, so the iMac will get it in the first 2014 rev, and the TB2-less Mini will get announced silently the week the Pro debuts.
I'm hoping that means a whole system of Apple supplied TB 2 solutions.
Quote:
Experience triumphs over hope for me, especially when discussing Apple and their hardware margins.

Yeah I know but maybe the Mac Pro will demonstrate a change of heart for Apple. It is the perfect box (tube) to cover a wide range of performance needs in.
post #1002 of 1290

I'm hoping for a Mac Pro with a baseline config that is not that much more than the top end spec'ed up imac 27" that offers a decent performance increase over it. Surely Apple can do that without the screen cost.

post #1003 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarky View Post

I'm hoping for a Mac Pro with a baseline config that is not that much more than the top end spec'ed up imac 27" that offers a decent performance increase over it. Surely Apple can do that without the screen cost.

That is actually the price I'm guessing they will start it off with. I don't care that the GPU costs several $1,000's; Apple prices their products seemingly 'as what works, what makes sense'. They can't kick off the Mac Pro as a 7k machine; the old one started at around $2800 (used to be 2500 with a slower, single-quad CPU). With a higher-end iMac with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD at around $2500 I'm guessing the Mac Pro with same RAM & SSD will be around $2750.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #1004 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


That is actually the price I'm guessing they will start it off with. I don't care that the GPU costs several $1,000's; Apple prices their products seemingly 'as what works, what makes sense'. They can't kick off the Mac Pro as a 7k machine; the old one started at around $2800 (used to be 2500 with a slower, single-quad CPU). With a higher-end iMac with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD at around $2500 I'm guessing the Mac Pro with same RAM & SSD will be around $2750.

 

I hope so, I'm just wondering what it's performance will be like and if it will be worth it over the iMac, I do love the look and screen of the iMac, not sure if i am getting a little greedy on spec, but i'd like to see a good performance gain.

 

I wouldn't like to see a crippled Mac Pro just to get the price lower when you would be better off with an iMac instead.

post #1005 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarky View Post

I hope so, I'm just wondering what it's performance will be like and if it will be worth it over the iMac, I do love the look and screen of the iMac, not sure if i am getting a little greedy on spec, but i'd like to see a good performance gain.

I wouldn't like to see a crippled Mac Pro just to get the price lower when you would be better off with an iMac instead.

Since they're offloading much of the processing power to the GPU I'd say it'll be way faster than the iMac, but this is highly 'opinionated'. I'm certain Marvin could give you a well-founded answer with facts to back it up, if he has the time...
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #1006 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarky View Post

I hope so, I'm just wondering what it's performance will be like and if it will be worth it over the iMac, I do love the look and screen of the iMac, not sure if i am getting a little greedy on spec, but i'd like to see a good performance gain.

I wouldn't like to see a crippled Mac Pro just to get the price lower when you would be better off with an iMac instead.

Since they're offloading much of the processing power to the GPU I'd say it'll be way faster than the iMac, but this is highly 'opinionated'. I'm certain Marvin could give you a well-founded answer with facts to back it up, if he has the time...

It depends which model is being compared and which software as the software has to be specially written to take advantage of GPUs. If the entry Mac Pro has a quad-core, 256GB SSD, 8GB RAM, dual W5000 GPUs for $2199-2499, it will perform quite close to the top spec iMac at the same price, same as the entry model did before and the iMac has a display as well as an NVidia GPU, which will handle CUDA too.

The highest-end 12-core Mac Pro should be about 2-2.5x the CPU performance of the iMac. Normally it would be 3x but the Mac Pro is on Ivy Bridge while the iMac is on Haswell.

The AMD GPUs are better for OpenCL than NVidia so software that takes advantage of this will run faster. Here is an OpenCL raytracing test:

http://compubench.com/result.jsp

The W5000 on page 2 isn't much below the 780M in the iMac and the entry Mac Pro would have two.
post #1007 of 1290

This talk about a mini or mid range computer in the new Mac Pro case does sound intriguing.

Then (for those of us that do use them or at least want everything looking like it matches and goes together) someone could build an external case that is designed to fit under the computer.

 

Think square on the bottom curving into a round shape at the top.

Kind of like the base on a kitchen blender.

post #1008 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post
I'm guessing the Mac Pro with same RAM & SSD will be around $2750.

 

That's my guess as well, since the system is a single CPU and working on the notion that Apple will provide graphic choices, that price seems to be very doable. We have just one more month left before we start selling our bodies in front of truck stops to afford this beauty. So I'm now off to bid on a pair of authentic, authorized, signed, reproduction pair of black Olivia Newton John's spanx and purchase a blonde wig from the store, "So You're Bald Now" in preparation of the big day. I hope they take Discover.

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 #1009 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTac View Post

This talk about a mini or mid range computer in the new Mac Pro case does sound intriguing.
Then (for those of us that do use them or at least want everything looking like it matches and goes together) someone could build an external case that is designed to fit under the computer.

Say for example the new entry Mac Pro comes with a Xeon E5-1620v2:

http://ark.intel.com/products/75779/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1620-v2-10M-Cache-3_70-GHz

and the dual W5000 GPU. If Apple was to use an entry model with a fast Core-i7 CPU:

http://ark.intel.com/products/75123

the CPU wouldn't save money. They likely wouldn't leave one side of the machine empty so they'd use two Radeon 8970s, which would likely not be much cheaper to buy from AMD than the W5000s.

Then comes the biggest problem, which is the PCIe lanes. The Core-i CPUs have 16 lanes, the Xeons have 40. They need to support dual x16 GPUs + 6 Thunderbolt 2 + PCIe storage. They can add a PLX chip:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6170/four-multigpu-z77-boards-from-280350-plx-pex-8747-featuring-gigabyte-asrock-ecs-and-evga

but that's still not enough for the Mac Pro setup. This may be why the iMac didn't get TB2. If the MBP doesn't get it, that will be clearer. It's not that big of a deal because peripheral manufacturers can use TB2 no problem and the devices will work with both.

The Mac Pro's price is because of higher margins. Tim Cook said that the average gross margins on the Macs are lower than the iOS devices so that has to be around the 30% mark. The Mac Pro is an exception because the target audience allows it to maintain high margins - this is true for all the workstation manufacturers. I doubt the new model has higher build costs than the iMac but the iMac doesn't ship with an SSD.

Say that the iMac has 30% margins, the model with the core-i7 and 780M with 256GB SSD at $2550 would cost $1785 to build.
Let's say that the $999 Thunderbolt Display has 30% margins and costs $699, deduct the cost of the casing, PSU etc to get a panel cost of about $500. Remove that from the iMac cost to get $1285. Now add in the second GPU to get $1485. Slap on 40% gross margins and you get an i7 Mac Pro to be $2475. It's no cheaper than the Xeon model.

They could build a machine to sell at whatever price and margins they wanted but for a headless machine with the iMac parts to be cheaper than the iMac, it has to sell more units to be worthwhile and the market volume just isn't in the $1000-2000 price range. When you look at PC tower manufacturers, the average selling prices are way down around $500 and the gross margins are terrible - 15% or less with net margins below 5%.

The best hope that people have of a cheap tower is with used models. Someone that buys the new model this year would sell it for about $1400 in a couple of years. There is a chance they can sell the new Mac Pro at a $2199 entry point by reducing margins but they just have no reason to do this. Realistically, what will happen is a $2499 entry price for a quad-core E5-1620v2, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD and dual W5000 GPUs.
post #1010 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
 Realistically, what will happen is a $2499 entry price for a quad-core E5-1620v2, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD and dual W5000 GPUs.

 

Oh gosh, I would take the 8970 over the W5000 any day of the week, there just isn't any comparison between the two. Need that FireGL support, no problem, just flash the 8970 into a FireGL card. Yes, this works, quite well actually, now there are differences, small differences in the hardware, mainly the ECC memory but the differences is mostly in the bios and drivers. The 8970 hasn't been released yet but people have been doing it to their 7970's for a while now, a flashed 7970 becomes a w8000, it's not as fast but it's very, very close, mainly because the W8000 has more memory, and it's ECC. There is no doubt though a flashed 8970 would destroy the W5000 every which way till Sunday, especially if you overclock it. The kicker, OSX supports these flashed cards, comes up as a W8000 and will even show the extra overclocked Ghz if you go that route as well.

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 #1011 of 1290
I feel that a 256GB SSD would be an insult in a supposedly "professional" machine.

I still cringe when I think of the last radical Mac desktop, the Mac Pro G5. It was the worst Mac I've owned dating back to the SE. I hope they've done a better job this time.

Question, how well do the TB to FireWire adapters that Apple has on its website work?
post #1012 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post

I feel that a 256GB SSD would be an insult in a supposedly "professional" machine.

I agree, this ought to start of with 512GB. And 16GB RAM, as the iMacs start off with 8GB
Quote:
I still cringe when I think of the last radical Mac desktop, the Mac Pro G5. It was the worst Mac I've owned dating back to the SE. I hope they've done a better job this time.

I've owned a few, including the very first one, single 1.6GHz (with 10.2.7) I think it was a fantastic machine, back then. Became even better when they kept on innovating the hardware design.
Quote:
Question, how well do the TB to FireWire adapters that Apple has on its website work?

If they're selling it, it has been tested, no doubt about that one. So I'd say they work, and max out at 800Mb/s. Really, I don't understand the question. Have there been adapters like this one that they've sold before but didn't work?
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #1013 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Oh gosh, I would take the 8970 over the W5000 any day of the week, there just isn't any comparison between the two.

It might be a 2013 equivalent of the W5000 but the 8970 would probably still be higher raw performance. The FirePro is designed for certain workloads though, even if a lot of it is on the software level:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Need that FireGL support, no problem, just flash the 8970 into a FireGL card. Yes, this works, quite well actually, now there are differences, small differences in the hardware, mainly the ECC memory but the differences is mostly in the bios and drivers.

People don't expect to flash firmwares or switch drivers in an expensive machine they rely on for work. Macs are meant to work as intended out of the box for every user. You're still talking about dual W5000 (or 2013 equivalent) so the performance will be high. There's a habit of pointing at what Apple's using and suggesting there's a much better value alternative but this will probably happen until the end of time. They are a premium manufacturer and charge more for what you get spec-wise, this isn't news. Raw spec is not why Apple customers keep buying and hasn't been for the past 30 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 
I agree, this ought to start of with 512GB. And 16GB RAM, as the iMacs start off with 8GB

The base model on the store right now has 6GB RAM, a 1TB HDD and a single Radeon 5770. They are adding a second GPU and an SSD. They are removing some things too, which will lower some build costs and they will probably cut down on shipping charges. If they can pull off 512GB + 16GB, that would be great but people might then wonder why not offer a 256GB model with 8GB RAM for a lower price.

A 256GB SSD would be an ok amount for photographers and designers. 8GB RAM would be ok for video editing. 8GB + 256GB is the base spec of the 15" Macbook Pro. The one with 16GB + 512GB is $2799. There's a CPU bump on the higher model too but that's $100. The extra 8GB and 256GB SSD adds $500 to the retail price. If they are happy with the margins on a $2499 machine with 512GB + 16GB, they'd be able to offer a 256GB + 8GB for $1999. Either way, I think 256GB + 8GB will be the base spec.

I would say 256GB is cramped but it's not an issue if it's to be supplemented with bulk storage anyway. If you put video on a external drive like a 4TB and higher USB3, ethernet or Thunderbolt drive then very little will be going on the internal.
post #1014 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The base model on the store right now has 6GB RAM, a 1TB HDD and a single Radeon 5770. They are adding a second GPU and an SSD. They are removing some things too, which will lower some build costs and they will probably cut down on shipping charges. If they can pull off 512GB + 16GB, that would be great but people might then wonder why not offer a 256GB model with 8GB RAM for a lower price.

Valid point, but I also think of the following:

That spec is for the 'current' MP, which is 'a bit outdated'. The iMacs might be a better comparison, not only because it's also a desktop but it's more current. Those start off with 8GB RAM + 256GB SSD (if not choosing a HDD). I guess people will compare the new MP to that config, seeing how much the iMac costs compared to a MP + screen. Which will be difficult once people do not choose an Apple screen, but that's another discussion.

As to people wondering why there wouldn't be a possible 256/8 option I think Apple will want this MP to be considered a beast from the get go. The current MP was also considered a lame config many years before with their base config. Many articles pointed out that 'it really doesn't cost 2-2.5k but...such and such because 'one needs to upgrade the base model anyway'
Quote:
I would say 256GB is cramped but it's not an issue if it's to be supplemented with bulk storage anyway. If you put video on a external drive like a 4TB and higher USB3, ethernet or Thunderbolt drive then very little will be going on the internal.

I agree that it would make a 'sellable' machine if the base model is 256/8. One thing though: using external drives for larger projects: wouldn't that negate the whole SSD config thing? I'm using SSD PCIe for OSX, Apps & ~. All video's currently are on HDD, but I'm not doing much video right now anyway. All my photos are on SSD and it shows (don't even need Apertures' previews as everything is fast anyway). Will spend vast amount of time in FCPX once the winter starts and I post less on AI...
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #1015 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarky View Post

I hope so, I'm just wondering what it's performance will be like and if it will be worth it over the iMac,
It would be very easy to exceed iMacs performance by using a six core Haswell desktop chip or simply using a 4 core at a high clock rate. The question becomes price. Chips faster than the iMacs are possible in 4 core variants at reasonable prices, the six core chips are however very expensive.

I still think Apple could hit the $1500 mark with a base line machine that outperforms the iMac. This would be a machine using desktop chips with possibly Iris graphics. They might not call it a Mac Pro though. Apple apparently likes to equate the Pros with XEON engines.

Frankly if Apple doesn't have a plan for a Mac Pro baseline machine that comes in at well,under $2000 they are nuts and out of touch with their users. The number one issue with the Mac Pro has always been performance for the dollar especially in the entry level machine.
Quote:
I do love the look and screen of the iMac, not sure if i am getting a little greedy on spec, but i'd like to see a good performance gain.
Nothing wrong with wanting performance. Right now it looks like it would be easy for Apple to offer an entry level model that is a very good performer at a decent price. That is if they wanted too.
Quote:
I wouldn't like to see a crippled Mac Pro just to get the price lower when you would be better off with an iMac instead.

Err you would never be better off with an iMac. At least not if the current design trend continues.
post #1016 of 1290

Regarding a 256GB SSD: the whole point of fast SSD storage is speed. Why handicap the machine with having to off load data when you're working. I'd want enough room on the SSD for system, applications, data, a scratch disk, a working file large enough to accommodate photo projects I'm currently working on plus music. Photo projects that I'm not currently working with can go in bulk storage. In my mind, 768GB should be the minimum although I could get by with 512GB I suppose.

 

I'm hoping for a robust machine that meets my expectations priced around the current entry amount for the existing Mac Pro. A lesser price would be nice as long as the computer isn't compromised in performance. Those people who want an under $2000 machine probably should look long and hard at an iMac. Just my $.02.

post #1017 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post

Regarding a 256GB SSD: the whole point of fast SSD storage is speed. Why handicap the machine with having to off load data when you're working. I'd want enough room on the SSD for system, applications, data, a scratch disk, a working file large enough to accommodate photo projects I'm currently working on plus music.

It depends on how much data people have. The entry 15" Macbook Pro isn't handicapped if you only need 256GB. You still benefit hugely from the fast performance. OS and apps will typically be under 50GB. You could then have 100GB for active projects, 50GB for consumption data (iTunes, holiday photos etc) and 50GB free for working with. It's cramped these days but would still be usable. People who can't fit everything they want on that would just pay $300 extra.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post

768GB should be the minimum although I could get by with 512GB I suppose.

Apple has to buy components from suppliers and then they add a markup. Their pricing is limited by the supplier prices. Their SSD prices seem a bit high - they are still quite far above $1/GB when you look at the upgrade prices. Retail SSDs are now below $0.60/GB:

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electronics-EVO-Series-2-5-Inch-MZ-7TE1T0BW/dp/B00E3W16OU/

Those SSDs are sold directly by the manufacturers and the memory parts would sell at lower wholesale prices to Apple but probably not much lower than those prices. It also depends on which NAND is used:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5067/understanding-tlc-nand

TLC is getting prices down to $0.60/GB wholesale (from OCZ and possibly cheaper elsewhere). Apple is still using MLC NAND, which is better quality but more expensive. The Samsung 830 used MLC and was more expensive:

http://www.amazon.com/SAMSUNG-2-5-Inch-Internal-MZ-7PC512B-WW/dp/B0077CR6B0/

The wholesale prices for the parts would be something like the following:

E5-2609v2 4-core ($294) or E5-1620v2 ($294)
8GB RAM (4x 2GB) $100 ( http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/85MP3E2M08GK/ )
256GB SSD = $230 @ $0.90/GB MLC
Dual W5000 - $200-500 for both together (depends on how good a deal they got from AMD)
Enclosure, PSU, motherboard, wifi, bluetooth etc probably around $300

Minimum build cost is $1124, add 40% margins and it can be $1899. I highly doubt they got entry FirePros for $100 each though. I reckon it'll be $200 each, which takes the price up to $2199. This was the original price of the entry Mac Pro.

A further 8GB RAM should be $170 retail (I say 'should be' but it's not, as Apple charges $300 for this just now) and 256GB $380, taking it to $2749.

If Apple's Mac Pro RAM was cheaper, they could do 16GB for $2499 but I don't see how they can do 512GB SSD at that price and like I say, they don't charge $170 for 8GB, they charge $300. Given that 3rd party RAM is so cheap, if they are nice about the bundled RAM prices and hit $2199 with 8GB and 256GB, you'd be able to buy a 512GB SSD for a further $300 at $2499 and then because it has replaceable RAM, you'd be able to get 16GB from OWC for $150.

Compared to the old model, that wouldn't be too bad. $2649 for 512GB 1.25GB/s SSD, 16GB RAM, quad-core, 2GB dual FirePros (which is somewhere between a single 7870 and 7970 or the 2013 equivalents).
post #1018 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post

I feel that a 256GB SSD would be an insult in a supposedly "professional" machine.
It may be a bit on the small size but that doesn't make it any less of a professional machine. Your image of a professional machine isn't the same as the guy next to you, the guy next to you may have dreams of speeding up a disk intensive task, compiling large programs or engineering a fine machine. Non of these require huge local storage. Further in many professional settings assists don't get stored on a local machine.

Personally I'd like to see a larger "drive" but I know I can get buy nicely on one that size.
Quote:
I still cringe when I think of the last radical Mac desktop, the Mac Pro G5. It was the worst Mac I've owned dating back to the SE. I hope they've done a better job this time.
I'm very optimistic. That doesn't mean we will see a completely trouble free machine or Mavericks debut. However the new Mac Pro confirms what I was promoting sometime ago in that the next Mac Pro would be far smaller. The idea of a the never crossed my mind though.

However I don't like the idea expressed that the Mac Pro is radical, it is a natural evolution and reflects what happens when you squeeze a tremendous amount of transistors on to a chip. These chips are incredibly powerful right now but the future looks pretty bright for at least a couple of more nodes shrinkage. This effectively means transistor counts could double in the 2014-2015 time. That is a lot of power to put into a tube.
Quote:
Question, how well do the TB to FireWire adapters that Apple has on its website work?

Haven't tried one but there have been mixed reports. I'd suggest searching for first hand info.
post #1019 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It might be a 2013 equivalent of the W5000 but the 8970 would probably still be higher raw performance. The FirePro is designed for certain workloads though, even if a lot of it is on the software level:
Note though that the software split personality that is seen in the Windows world doesn't really apply to the Mac world. We get one set of driver for a given bit if hardware. I doubt we will ever see game optimized drivers come to the Mac lineup or example, instead drivers will be built to optimize performance across a range of uses while keeping an eye on stability.
Quote:
People don't expect to flash firmwares or switch drivers in an expensive machine they rely on for work.
Yet people do it insisting that they are "pros". I find this one of these things that I have mixed feelings with as I mess with that stuff on Linux often. I bought a MBP to get away from that on my primary machine. The idea of just working and trouble free updates put a Mac in my house well that and a little iPhone lust.
Quote:
Macs are meant to work as intended out of the box for every user. You're still talking about dual W5000 (or 2013 equivalent) so the performance will be high. There's a habit of pointing at what Apple's using and suggesting there's a much better value alternative but this will probably happen until the end of time. They are a premium manufacturer and charge more for what you get spec-wise, this isn't news.
Yet it is really hard to find a competitive machine to compete against the MBA.
Quote:
Raw spec is not why Apple customers keep buying and hasn't been for the past 30 years.
The base model on the store right now has 6GB RAM, a 1TB HDD and a single Radeon 5770. They are adding a second GPU and an SSD. They are removing some things too, which will lower some build costs and they will probably cut down on shipping charges. If they can pull off 512GB + 16GB, that would be great but people might then wonder why not offer a 256GB model with 8GB RAM for a lower price.
Their first priority should be an entry level model at a decent price point. How they will go about that is unknown but I don't think the Mac Pro has a chance in hell if the only options are high end configurations few buy. I see this refactored Mac Pro offering some pretty huge savings over the old models. Even the power supply should be far moe streamed line as high power demands are processor related with zero high current mechanical drives.
Quote:
A 256GB SSD would be an ok amount for photographers and designers. 8GB RAM would be ok for video editing. 8GB + 256GB is the base spec of the 15" Macbook Pro.
That base spec for the Mac Book Pro is probably why the Mac Pros minimal configuration will be a bit more. In any event people seem to forget real fast that the SSDs in this machine are real fast PCI-Express based units. The pay off for many users will be huge and likely a surprise to many coming from machines with mechanical drives.
Quote:
The one with 16GB + 512GB is $2799. There's a CPU bump on the higher model too but that's $100. The extra 8GB and 256GB SSD adds $500 to the retail price. If they are happy with the margins on a $2499 machine with 512GB + 16GB, they'd be able to offer a 256GB + 8GB for $1999. Either way, I think 256GB + 8GB will be the base spec.
This will depend some upon what is the base processor in the machine. In any event if the processor supports four channels of memory then that is only 2GB sticks which are dirt cheap.
Quote:
I would say 256GB is cramped but it's not an issue if it's to be supplemented with bulk storage anyway. If you put video on a external drive like a 4TB and higher USB3, ethernet or Thunderbolt drive then very little will be going on the internal.

I've struggled in the past to free up space on my MBP drive so cramped it is. Saying that I understand both sides of the equation, in a laptop I especially want as much storage as possible internal. In a desktop it is a different ball of wax.
post #1020 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Valid point, but I also think of the following:

That spec is for the 'current' MP, which is 'a bit outdated'. The iMacs might be a better comparison, not only because it's also a desktop but it's more current. Those start off with 8GB RAM + 256GB SSD (if not choosing a HDD). I guess people will compare the new MP to that config, seeing how much the iMac costs compared to a MP + screen. Which will be difficult once people do not choose an Apple screen, but that's another discussion.
The current Mac Pro was outdated 3 years ago.
Quote:
As to people wondering why there wouldn't be a possible 256/8 option I think Apple will want this MP to be considered a beast from the get go. The current MP was also considered a lame config many years before with their base config. Many articles pointed out that 'it really doesn't cost 2-2.5k but...such and such because 'one needs to upgrade the base model anyway'
What was lame was the pricing or value you got which is or was perhaps the worst of any of Apples products. 256/8 doesn't mean squat if the pricing along with the rest of the machine grabs people's interests. That being said 256/16 would be very easy for Apple to do and would make a lot of sense for many users. I can see Apple wanting to address the perception that the desktop Macs have been ripoffs as far as installed RAM goes and have been for years. Plus they will want to put at ease people's concerns about the maximum RAM capacity.
Quote:
I agree that it would make a 'sellable' machine if the base model is 256/8. One thing though: using external drives for larger projects: wouldn't that negate the whole SSD config thing? I'm using SSD PCIe for OSX, Apps & ~. All video's currently are on HDD, but I'm not doing much video right now anyway. All my photos are on SSD and it shows (don't even need Apertures' previews as everything is fast anyway). Will spend vast amount of time in FCPX once the winter starts and I post less on AI...

I don't think it negates anything if you can keep your eye focused on what is important and keep it on the fast drive. The issue of cheap bulk storage will never go away so if magnetic drives provide that people ill use them until something better comes along.
post #1021 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It might be a 2013 equivalent of the W5000 but the 8970 would probably still be higher raw performance. The FirePro is designed for certain workloads though, even if a lot of it is on the software level:

 

Oh I am aware of the advantages and disadvantages of a workstation card but thanks for the video.


Edited by Relic - 10/12/13 at 6:11pm
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 #1022 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I still think Apple could hit the $1500 mark with a base line machine that outperforms the iMac. This would be a machine using desktop chips with possibly Iris graphics.

 

 

I would be all over that type of Mac. I do not want an all in one but I want more oomph than the mini.

A headless iMac with an easy open case with enough room for an optional drive (HDD, SSD, Optical) whatever the user wants or needs.

 

$1500 and I'll camp outside an Apple Store for that.

post #1023 of 1290
Originally Posted by MacTac View Post

A headless iMac with an easy open case with enough room for an optional drive (HDD, SSD, Optical) whatever the user wants or needs.


Go build a freaking Hackintosh and give it up already.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #1024 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 


Go build a freaking Hackintosh and give it up already.

What he said, no seriously I think you would be much happier. Apple is going in a completely different direction than what you want, you are not going to get what you wish for. A Hackintosh at least gives you a working OSX machine with the changeable components you are looking for and it works, you can even update your machine via the System Update program. It's not a Apple but maybe you will be happier.

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 #1025 of 1290

A little off-topic, but this was created on a (pre-2013) MacPro:

 

http://lightbox.time.com/2013/10/14/space-shuttle-endeavour-exclusive-timelapse/

 

Shows why we need MacPros!
 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #1026 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

A little off-topic, but this was created on a (pre-2013) MacPro:

http://lightbox.time.com/2013/10/14/space-shuttle-endeavour-exclusive-timelapse/

Shows why we need MacPros!

 

Great video! Thank for that.

Funny I never gave this a thought:
Quote:
Most of the work was done on a MacPro processor that consumes 700 watts when it’s really cranking — not counting the power the two 30-in. monitors burn. Jirman estimates that paying a Pacific Gas & Electric rate of $0.38 per kilowatt hour, he ran up a $178 electric bill just to keep the computers running

I use a MP with one ACD where the Mac PSU supposedly can use up to 950W but I never really 'seen' an increase on my electricity bill. No idea what I'm paying though, but the US rate seems likely.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #1027 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post
 

A little off-topic, but this was created on a (pre-2013) MacPro:

 

http://lightbox.time.com/2013/10/14/space-shuttle-endeavour-exclusive-timelapse/

 

Shows why we need MacPros!
 

Coooooolllll!!!!!

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 #1028 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

A little off-topic, but this was created on a (pre-2013) MacPro:

http://lightbox.time.com/2013/10/14/space-shuttle-endeavour-exclusive-timelapse/

Shows why we need MacPros!

I suspect the Mac Pro would have mainly been helpful for the internal storage as 6TB of data wouldn't fit on any other Mac's internal drives and the same will be true with the upcoming Mac Pro. With a large enough external though, stitching photo frames together could be done with any modern Mac. The process is faster with a faster machine of course. The frames would have been over 15MB each so at 24p would be 360MB/s to avoid dropping frames, which needs a RAID. A Pegasus would cope with this though.

Stan Jirman there is noted as being an ex-Apple software engineer. A profile here says he worked at Apple for 14 years:

https://www.lytro.com/about/leadership/stan-jirman/

"Prior to Lytro, Stan spent 14 years at Apple in a variety of senior engineering roles. He was one of the founding members of the Aperture image processing and management software team, on the iOS team from the inception of the iPhone all the way to iOS 5, and most recently in charge of the Camera and Photos applications."

Looks like he left in October 2011:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/phototrek

I wonder if he was one of the engineers that people were surprised to see leaving the company as the timing there coincides with the change of management.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 
I use a MP with one ACD where the Mac PSU supposedly can use up to 950W but I never really 'seen' an increase on my electricity bill.

It would only increase the electricity bill if it was running at peak for long periods of time. The idle power is much lower:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2836?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
post #1029 of 1290
Thanks Marvin! So, only 2 lightbulbs then. Oh, plus 2 more for the ACD.

I think the Lytro camera seems cool, but most likely will end up in a drawer as it turns out to be just gimmicky.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #1030 of 1290

Now that we know what it is and at least the starting price...  How do you all feel? 

post #1031 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post
 

Now that we know what it is and at least the starting price...  How do you all feel? 

All things considered, I feel that the pros outweigh the cons.   If it performs the way the benchmarks are looking, I think it's going to be a screamer.   I think using the faster SSD is far faster, more reliable than using a hard drive which the PCs mfg are still using.   Having Thunderbolt 2 expandability makes it far more attractive given the expanding number of products available. There's PCi slot/RAID boxes to choose from by various mfg, there are more TB related processing devices for the audio and video markets like AD/DA converters and Video capture/conversion.  Then instead of only getting one GPU, they leverage 2 as standard.  Having a small box makes it very easy to handle.  No more cracking open a box to install and install cards and drives when upgrading from one computer to the next when it comes to upgrading the computing portion.  So, there might be that initial investment of buying an external chassis, but you retain that chassis investment when it comes to upgrading the main box for the next version.   The only cons are you only have choices of what GPU you can order, and it's not rack mountable.  I think most people may not actually need more than 64 G of RAM, but it would be nice if they support higher density RAM modules to kick up the max RAM to higher than 64 G.  Maybe that will come later as higher density modules come to market.  If it could support 32GB RAM, then it could go to 128GB of RAM, which might be overkill for most, but there might be some that would prefer that.  Due to the fact that the GPU boards on the MacPro have to be attached to the heat sink with thermal paste, it would have been cool for Apple to have even higher end GPU options to be able to use when available since there are at least 2 different GPU mfg that always seem to leapfrog each other with newer chips.  If Apple could have produced a fan-less XEON system, that would be even better, but I think it actually might be impossible without using one HUGE and HEAVY heatsink requiring a much bigger case. But it would've been interesting if they could have stuffed that much power in a 2, 3 or 4 U Rack design.

 

The only area Apple needs to focus on other than updating the MacMini to Haswell is creating a higher end Hasell headless box catering to the $1500 to $3000 market since some people don't need XEON, but they do need higher level i7, with better GPU, more RAM, TB2, and optional monitor since some prefer headless computers vs AIO.

post #1032 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post
 

Now that we know what it is and at least the starting price...  How do you all feel? 

 

Poor.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1033 of 1290

As long as you are in good health in life that is what counts not computers so much.

post #1034 of 1290

Shame about the access to get on the Mac Pro ladder.

 

I'm even more happy with my iMac now. 

 

£2500 to get on the Mac Pro ladder is...gulp.  You get...a 'quad core.'  Well, at least the dual GPU and SSD+ is break through.  It's a decent product.  Thought they'd be more aggressive on price.

 

They could put the BTO i7 and Nv GPU in a 'Pro' case and sell it sub' £2k.  Easy.

 

We'll see how many of the Mac Pros they sell.

 

For 'mid tower' performance (Apple style) the iMac is till very nice.

 

But it's not as if anything Apple sells is 'cheap' and I mean as in reasonable.  Most of their kit is over priced.

 

Think the entry iPad Air is the best value they do.

 

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 #1035 of 1290

They could easy give the pro chassis a space grey 'mini' consumer colour and put in iris, mid range gpu and a high end gpu and give 'tower' customers some value.  i.e.  an iMac without a monitor prices.

 

It would offer a premium over the mini...but give those non iMac fans what they want.

 

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 #1036 of 1290

Good suggestion you have I agree 100% with you.I doubt though if Apple will do this at all.

post #1037 of 1290

I like the iMac.  Some don't.  People want what they want.  vs What Apple will give them.  There's no need to limit their desktop market this way.

 

Just put in desktop cpus and gpus in the Mac Pro chassis with a different 'consumer' colour.

 

Or even a '5C' style plastic enclosure to funky up their desktop line.

 

Either way, they could offer something a bit more flexible than either the current Mini or iMac for 'those' people who want neither.

 

Instead of playing the constant artificial creaming and reaming up sell game.

 

I remember when the iMac used to be about value...the G3 Tower too.

 

Now it's about screwing people.

 

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 #1038 of 1290

Different consumer "color"?  What does that mean?  


I don't think Apple would even need a fan for a headless IMac, if they did, it might not have to be as big, same with the power supply.  I know they have a fan inside, but it's a LOT smaller than the MacPro fan.  Plus, it's dead quiet.  I have a 27inch faster i5 and i can't even hear the fan, so I don't even know if the thing actually even turns on.  If it does, I can't hear it.


I think Apple can stick the iMac guts into a smaller box that's a little bigger than the MacMini and be able to charge less than if they used the MacPro case.  The MacMini has a tiny little fan.  I'm sure a headless iMac might be a case that's about 2x the size of a Mac mini with a smaller power supply/fan than a MacPro.


That's probably what they would come out with, if they did a headless iMac.

 

Maybe Apple's going to release it next year, since they didn't refresh the MacMini this year.


Edited by drblank - 11/5/13 at 9:49am
post #1039 of 1290
Sorry Lemon bit the Mac Mini is as good as you are going to get when it comes to a consumer headless Mac. The G4 Cube was the last one and Apple learned its lesson with that failure. What's wrong with the Mac Mini anyway, its just as fast as the iMac CPU and IO wise, yea the iMac has a better graphics processor but with the new Intel GPU in Haswel it should be a lot better. Who uses their Macs to play games anyway, their not the best gaming machines. You can build a much cheaper Wintel machine with better graphics then what's available in the iMac if that's your thing. Dell has a really cute and Small XPS machine that wipes the floor with the iMac and Mac Mini in the the graphics and price department for gaming. Just buy one of those for playing and use you Mac for work.
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 #1040 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Sorry Lemon bit the Mac Mini is as good as you are going to get when it comes to a consumer headless Mac. The G4 Cube was the last one and Apple learned its lesson with that failure. What's wrong with the Mac Mini anyway, its just as fast as the iMac CPU and IO wise, yea the iMac has a better graphics processor but with the new Intel GPU in Haswel it should be a lot better. Who uses their Macs to play games anyway, their not the best gaming machines. You can build a much cheaper Wintel machine with better graphics then what's available in the iMac if that's your thing. Dell has a really cute and Small XPS machine that wipes the floor with the iMac and Mac Mini in the the graphics and price department for gaming. Just buy one of those for playing and use you Mac for work.

For some reason, I don't think so.  I think there is a very good likelihood that they'll release a headless iMac.  The Cube was underpowered and it wasn't that great of a design.  Things have changed a LOT since then. They got away from polycarb desktops/laptops.

 

The iMac compared to other AIOs kicks them senseless.  I just checked Dell and Lenovo and it's not even a contest for the AIO.

 

The Mac Mini is great for an all purpose budget computer, but to do other things that don't require Xeon, and the i7 with lots of memory, storage and I/O, I think a MacMiniPro would fit just nicely.  I would gladly buy one and ditch the iMac.  The biggest problem with the iMac is if you want to cart it around, It's just not the way to go.

 

The other problem is using it with two monitors.  The Thunderbolt and the iMac monitors don't line up.  One sits higher than the other.  I would rather get a stout headless unit and connect two identical monitors for two monitor use.

 

A lot of people want something more in the $2000 to $2500 range  for a high end i7 based system because if they want to use a cheaper monitor, it saves money ultimately, OR it's just nicer to replace the base unit rather than the whole thing.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro