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 7

post #241 of 1290
spacerays View Post
SpamSandwich View Post

If you don't like it, you have the choice not to order it. Personally, I think it looks fantastic and is specced up the yin yang.

Another dont-buy-if-its-bad comment. Listen, many Apple users (incl me) are fond of the UI in the OS and the beautiful form of the hardware. This, here is a big letdown. And when one does say it out (memes and above analogies included), all the neo-apple fans here just cry, heckle and abuse the hell out of him. Really primitive exclusivist behavior. Pathetic.

We all have our own preferences and computational needs, but some people can't see past their own brain-meat and try to impose their needs on everyone. It happens in politics, humanist sciences, and everywhere else. Just look at the current-gen console debate. Neither console is superior on all fronts; they are based around different people's needs. Some people don't have reliable internet (hello, deployed military!) and others feel "invested" in the meaningless achievement points they "earned." But you will always see people imposing their needs on everyone.

 

Frank777 View Post

On the other hand, the power supply is internal, which is a significant problem for server farms.

Why? Are rack-mounted power supplies particularly fail-prone? I doubt this would have the same reliability issues.

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply
post #242 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post

The level of stupid at Apple these days is overwhelming.

 

That has to be the worst possible design for a pro machine that I could imagine.  Pros don't want cutesy cylinders, they want EXPANSION.  Things like slots, lots of RAM slots, lots of PCI Express slots, and multiple hard drive bays, at least 4 of them.  Pros still need optical drives.  Pros want to be able to upgrade their graphics cards.  Pros want multiple processors.

 

Think about what they could have done with this in the existing case:  Dual 12 core processors.  Up to 128GB RAM.  2 solid state drives AND 4 hard drives.  And two Blu-Ray drives.  And 4 PCI Express slots.

 

And the design is terrible too.  This thing looks like a black aluminum can.  Oh, wait, that's what it is.

 

This is where Apple as revolutionise the desktop PC imo, all this can be done with the thunderbolt ports, which is easier to do for consumer than popping up the hood. So the spaces needed for the setup will depend on youre expansion needs, while maybe a lot of users wont feel to need to upgrade anything.

 

That being said, this is NOT a server and it is not design for this use. There is no debate about it, companies dont spend $ on GPU in servers and those machine need to be rack mountable.

 

Since this is an high end desktop PC, I hope they will have an entry model price below 3K. I am personnaly hoping for something around 2k since there are no monitors.


Edited by herbapou - 6/12/13 at 6:05am
post #243 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

 

I think a lot of that is the point -- and other stuff -- is the point for Apple though, don't you?  They want to make how people think about solutions change, while at the same time drag the industry into the New World by pushing them to come up with reasonably priced, reliable Thunderbolt solutions.  IOW, making Thunderbolt the new USB.  There will be gnashing of teeth and pain, but eventually it will become the standard way you do things.

 

At least, that's how I see it.  Now, whether it will be successful, that's a different question.  But that does seem to me -- with my limited understanding of these things -- to be the gambit Apple is playing.

You say this. I wonder if you get your own words. To me the iPad is far more forward thinking. Tablets in general are. Phones are very forward thinking. Look at how many things they've brought together in a cohesive manner. Most of the time you bring one piece of electronics with you. It's not that great for heavy use, but you can take your computing device with you, and it fits in your pocket. Generally I like to see things integrated if they can be integrated well. I won't get into the imac screen argument here as I haven't seen the new ones. I did have a number of experiences with the older ones. The gnashing of teeth is usually when things go in the opposite direction. As for thunderbolt being the new USB, that is unlikely at this point in time. It lacks the same licensing terms and integration. Adoption has been slow so far, and moving one of the decidedly niche lines to it isn't really going to change that.

 

It's not 100% good or bad. I just don't think you're really considering everything equally. I'm only comparing based on what I know so far. When the new machine has been out for 5 or 6 months, I'll have a much better idea what the matrix of configurations and available peripheral devices looks like in both structure and price. Like I said if thunderbolt does take off (which it should), it won't be due to this, when every other machine is better aligned. I think the reason for 3 chips was due to a desire to support multiple 4K future displays without killing all available bandwidth. Even one of those sucks up quite a bit. The last thing I will point out is that just typical displayport 1.2 has much of the functionality offered by thunderbolt, and it came out earlier. It has specs for daisy chaining and display based usb hubs. Thunderbolt is mostly good for data. It was designed for notebooks as I said. Notebooks have a limited number of PCI lanes and historically lacked any practical form of IO that delivered that level of bandwidth unless you use 10Gb/s usb3 + displayport 1.2 out.

 

Quote:

I wish people would stop comparing this to the Cube.  I see why they do it, but they aren't really comparable.  The problem with the Cube was that there were better Macs available for less money at the same time.  So, the Cube was a really cool, but highly underperforming (with some problems, to boot) machine that someone would buy only for its coolness.  I think if anything, it would be compared to a hypothetical unsuccessful iMac -- a machine with a different approach (completely enclosed) pushing a new technology (USB).

 

This isn't the Cube, from what I can see.  There's nothing in the 7 TFlop range that is a Mac, with this sort of GPU power, etc.  The only similarity to the Cube is that it's a radical new design.  But it's not like you can build an iMac that would be just as good.

You're still getting sucked into marketing. This isn't 7TFlops of X86 power. Your software has to be able to take advantage of it. As for the cube, I never got caught up in that stupid Cube comparison anyway. In fact I called that prediction "fan fiction shoehorned into a troll post".

 

 

Quote:

 

As to pricing, let's face it: None of us really knows.  But I STRONGLY suspect that people looking for something under $2k are dreaming.  Heck, my iMac was $2700 (27", 3.2GHz i5, GTX 675MX 1GB, 3TB Fusion).  And that's a consumer machine.

 

Anyone who is going to need the Pro is going to be able to spend (or should be) a lot more than $2k.  

 

I don't think it will be sub $2k, but you are likely to have overlap in comparing cto configurations on one to the base on the other. Typically they require some minimum volume for it to remain viable. It has to cover engineering costs and whatever lease assuming dedicated facilities. They likely have some idea how many they can sell at different starting prices, and typically cheaper configurations will carry a significant portion of the volume in any line, as price is relative to that line. I wouldn't call the imac a 100% consumer machine. The real consumer machines these days are notebooks, phones, tablets. Even those reach a wide market, but just going for a 27" with cto options brings you well into the minority of users like myself. The difference there is that the imac line has remained healthy and viable. I wouldn't buy into the silly marketing and bastardized monikers though. Apple's management team would have some idea who will buy what, but in the end they just want people to buy Macs rather than Windows or Linux boxes.

post #244 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, "pros" want a 4x4 diesel truck to haul tons of product.

Apple delivers a solar powered hovercraft that can haul tons of product. Twice as fast. In 1/8th the space.

What's the problem?

Your forced to use a trailer hitch if you want to haul more crap.1smile.gif

road-train.jpg
Edited by Relic - 6/12/13 at 7:01am
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 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Your force to use a trailer hitch if you want to haul more crap, which drags down the truck.1smile.gif

If that hitch is TB v2 and the trailer is an equally attractive external, matching case ... compared to my two ton Mac Pro I'm all in.

I wonder if Apple will have such things that stack on top and use the central air duct as a shaft for all ... you could have a ten foot tower with ann external vent in the corner of the room and hardly notice it . 1biggrin.gif

"Is that a black drain pipe in the corner?"

"NO, it's my Mac Pro stack!"
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #246 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


If that hitch is TB v2 and the trailer is an equally attractive external, matching case ... compared to my two ton Mac Pro I'm all in.

I wonder if Apple will have such things that stack on top and use the central air duct as a shaft for all ... you could have a ten foot tower with ann external vent in the corner of the room and hardly notice it . 1biggrin.gif

"Is that a black drain pipe in the corner?"

"NO, it's my Mac Pro stack!"

No, It's my dual CPU stripper pole, you know for graphic work and spicing up my marriage.

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 #247 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzz_ball View Post

Anyone remember the Cube? Hopefully they don't saddle this with a ridiculous price like they did to the cube (RIP). Price for design is not what pros want: they want power. If they premium charge this because of their aesthetic design they are going to see poor sales-through indeed.

 

They aren't going to premium charge this for the aesthetic design changes, they are going to premium charge this because it's a premium piece of hardware.  I mean just take a look at the hardware and try to price out some of these components.  I bought a Mac Pro 5 years ago and it was almost $3000 and that was for a very much low end model.  I figure the starting price on this is going to be in the same $3000 neighborhood and that's not going to have anything to do with the aesthetics.

 

This thing is going to be blow your pants off fast though!!!

post #248 of 1290
Brilliant! And revolutionary...Apple has designed another icon. Watch for bad copies in the near future...
post #249 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post

The level of stupid at Apple these days is overwhelming.

 

That has to be the worst possible design for a pro machine that I could imagine.  Pros don't want cutesy cylinders, they want EXPANSION.  Things like slots, lots of RAM slots, lots of PCI Express slots, and multiple hard drive bays, at least 4 of them.  Pros still need optical drives.  Pros want to be able to upgrade their graphics cards.  Pros want multiple processors.

 

Think about what they could have done with this in the existing case:  Dual 12 core processors.  Up to 128GB RAM.  2 solid state drives AND 4 hard drives.  And two Blu-Ray drives.  And 4 PCI Express slots.

 

And the design is terrible too.  This thing looks like a black aluminum can.  Oh, wait, that's what it is.

 

The Mac Pro is for forward-thinking people.

post #250 of 1290

The new Mac Pro is a brilliant and deceptively simple design. Of course it's not for everyone, but Apple is very wise here... they designed a Mac Pro that is for the vast majority of pro users. What this means is that the new Mac Pro is not designed for those who need it to be rack mountable. It's not designed for someone who needs 24 cores of dual CPU power because 12 cores are more than enough for 99% of professionals who buy Mac Pros. Apple has certainly done its homework, and judging by the outcry from people who are embedded in their tower mentality, Apple has done a good job because they are getting an emotional reaction from almost everyone.

 

I am a photographer and personally welcome this new, smaller design. For over 90% of customers, this Mac Pro will most likely not ever get "upgraded" and will be sufficient to satisfy the vast majority of computing needs. Apple will sell a ton of these to people like me, who I think represent the more "mainstream" pro user - not a niche user who needs to rack mount, or needs to run a server with 24 cores, etc. The last rack mountable computer Apple sold was the X Serve, and as I recall that was discontinued several years ago. So those who are crying foul because this new Mac Pro is not rack mountable must not really need that because there has been no rack mountable Mac Pro in years.

 

So many straw man arguments from people who can't embrace change and use hypothetical, theoretical arguments to prove a point that is completely irrelevant.

post #251 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

I used to think that way too, but not anymore.

 

Our existing Pro has a slot into which we can drop an upgraded video card. We never have. We bought the best the machine could support at the time and have never changed it.

 

We already have an external Blu-Ray drive (for the two or three times a year we use it) so that's not an issue.

 

Thunderbolt pretty much solves the last of the cases we had for slots. The Blackmagic Design cards we use for HD-SDI I/O are now available in Thunderbolt versions, as is our Pro Tools controller. There may be a brief awkward period as manufacturers migrate from cards to outboard devices, but it's clear that's the direction things are going.

 

Storage is via outboard RAID, so lots of slot for conventional drives are no longer necessary. Besides, this thing completely dumps SATA in favor of a storage system that links directly to the PCIe bus. That's why it's so freakin' fast.

 

The design does LOOK goofy, but it allows for the most ingenious cooling system ever. It's hard to argue just because it ain't pretty.

 

If an old fart like me can adapt, or more accurately recognize the way the industry is going, you can too! 1smile.gif

 

The Mac Pro video card market is thriving.  Those FirePros may be teh awesome today, but in 5 years many Pro users will benefit from newer video cards.  That's great that you can do fine with your old video card, but especially with OpenCL advances, video cards are going to be even more vital to pros.  

 

TB solves most cases for slots, but it's an expensive solution.  Adding a PCIe card to the iTube entails an expensive PCIe breakout chassis connected with a $50 cable.  Much easier to drop a PCIe card into the current Mac Pro.  And note that TB2 is not fast enough for all PCIe cards.  Most of them, yes, but not all.  Also note that many pros have thousands of dollars invested in PCIe cards. New PCIe cards will be developed to exploit the new PCIe 3.0 speeds, making new cards even less compatible with Thunderbolt.   

 

The internal PCIe storage is awesome, but one slot?  Why?  Because nobody ever needs more solid state storage?  The decision to go with ONE SSD blade slot is inexplicable.  Somebody should be fired for it.

 

That's your opinion that it looks goofy, some people dig the design.  This would make a great headless iMac:  swap in an i7, swap in a desktop GTX 780, remove one video card and use the space for more PCIe blade SSD slots.  It would be a killer prosumer machine if Apple priced it as the disposable computer that it is.  In my opinion despite the glaring design flaws it's a beautiful machine inside and out.  

 

As a pro machine, it may succeed depending on the price.  It had better be damn cheap if Apple expects users to buy more crap just to add a HDD, then throw the whole thing out when next generation video cards are released a few years from now. Somehow I have a sneaky suspicion that Apple will price this thing in a range that destines it to doom, giving them a convenient excuse to bug out of the pro market.

post #252 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambo View Post

Brilliant! And revolutionary...Apple has designed another icon. Watch for bad copies in the near future...

What, like a triangle.

 

This is still my favorite case;

 


Edited by Relic - 6/12/13 at 11:34am
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 #253 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

 

The Mac Pro video card market is thriving.  Those FirePros may be teh awesome today, but in 5 years many Pro users will benefit from newer video cards.  That's great that you can do fine with your old video card, but especially with OpenCL advances, video cards are going to be even more vital to pros.  

 

TB solves most cases for slots, but it's an expensive solution.  Adding a PCIe card to the iTube entails an expensive PCIe breakout chassis connected with a $50 cable.  Much easier to drop a PCIe card into the current Mac Pro.  And note that TB2 is not fast enough for all PCIe cards.  Most of them, yes, but not all.  Also note that many pros have thousands of dollars invested in PCIe cards. New PCIe cards will be developed to exploit the new PCIe 3.0 speeds, making new cards even less compatible with Thunderbolt.   

 

The internal PCIe storage is awesome, but one slot?  Why?  Because nobody ever needs more solid state storage?  The decision to go with ONE SSD blade slot is inexplicable.  Somebody should be fired for it.

 

That's your opinion that it looks goofy, some people dig the design.  This would make a great headless iMac:  swap in an i7, swap in a desktop GTX 780, remove one video card and use the space for more PCIe blade SSD slots.  It would be a killer prosumer machine if Apple priced it as the disposable computer that it is.  In my opinion despite the glaring design flaws it's a beautiful machine inside and out.  

 

As a pro machine, it may succeed depending on the price.  It had better be damn cheap if Apple expects users to buy more crap just to add a HDD, then throw the whole thing out when next generation video cards are released a few years from now. Somehow I have a sneaky suspicion that Apple will price this thing in a range that destines it to doom, giving them a convenient excuse to bug out of the pro market.

 

 

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…

 

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…!!!

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 #254 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist View Post

...Judging by the outcry from people who are embedded in their tower mentality, Apple has done a good job because they are getting an emotional reaction from almost everyone.

 

I am a photographer and personally welcome this new, smaller design. 

 

Towers are popular with Pros because of their practicality, not because of some weird embedded mentality.  It's about function, which is why the current Mac Pro is so amazingly awesome.  It's why when most pros set up their first Mac Pro tower, there is a moment of silence while they pause to admire the internals before they replace the side panel and boot it up for the first time.

 

As for photography, you don't need a Xeon CPU, and FirePro video cards are an utter waste for you.  If you're buying this new Mac Pro for photography, it's only because of an embedded mentality.  About the only thing a photographer would need the current Mac Pro tower for is the internal storage expansion, but now that Apple ditched that a Mini is a better solution since you can add a second HDD for more storage, lol.  Seriously, you could save yourself thousands of dollars by rexamining your computing needs.  An iMac is probably Apple's best solution for now, and you don't even need expensive TB storage, plain old USB drives are fine.  The upcoming Haswell Mini will probably be an even better fit if it can drive enough displays (questionable).  

 

You're stuck in 2001 if you're buying bleeding edge pro computers for photography.  Or maybe you're trying to compensate for the lack of something else.  

post #255 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

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…

Could have sworn the GPU boards were the two exposed ones and the CPU is the one with the SSD behind it. Apple.com had something like that, but I guess they changed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

It's why when most pros set up their first Mac Pro tower, there is a moment of silence while they pause before replacing the side panel and booting it up for the first time.

SO. YOU WERE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT YOUR FUTURE OF THE MAC PRO POST, HUH. THAT'S GOTTA FEEL GOOD, LYING TO EVERYONE.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #256 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

This is more unifying the older format to a newer solution that was only warranted due to the popularity of mobile formats which lack the internal room. Forward thinking would have been more like Wizard's concept of arrays of PCI storage, not a move from external (G5 2 bays) to 10TB + possible internally back to external. That is just backwards.

It's not backwards because it's not a good idea to have 10TB+ internally. If you need to move to a new machine, you can't migrate the data easily. You also can't setup a proper hardware RAID internally very easily and you can't hot-swap the drives.

If you need to upgrade the Mac Pro, this is as simple as unplugging the mass storage, migrate the smaller internal at 1.25GB/s and plug the storage into the new machine. Some people have two computers so if you needed to copy something from the storage, again you just unplug it from one and plug it into the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm 
Look at the Pegasus raid box. They sell it in the Apple Store with whatever brand of drives. They are using standard drives, which have longer error recovery timings

Do you notice that you keep doing the same things with everything Apple related? You start with the conclusion that you don't like anything besides what you're accustomed to, whether it's internal storage, Eizo/NEC displays, PCI slots, networking or whatever else is a part of the standard tower format + professional display and then try to dismiss anything that differs from it under a cloud of doubt by saying it's 'less than ideal' or 'might have problems' or 'seems to have negative reviews'. People are using these solutions with no problems at all and have been for a while.

If you want to pick your own drives, then pick a RAID box (USB 3 or Thunderbolt) and put them in it. The Pegasus gets much better speeds than you would with internal drives:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4489/promise-pegasus-r6-mac-thunderbolt-review/6

This Mac Pro makes the right compromises going forward:

- SSDs will scale up in size over time to as much as 20TB or more
- it focuses on GPUs and OpenCL for compute power; it doesn't matter if software isn't ready yet, the software that uses it will outperform the software that doesn't and they'll get the sale
- focusing on GPUs allows them to offer more compelling upgrades year after year even when Intel is lagging behind
- the storage default means that people buying these machines get the best performance without thinking about it and bulk storage can be handled by people who do it best like the server guys e.g HP:

http://www.amazon.com/HP-658553-001-ProLiant-Server-System/dp/B005KKJPCO

If you need the speed for a project, move the data to the 1.25GB/s SSD, when you are done with it, dump it onto the RAID.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ 
I wish people would stop comparing this to the Cube. I see why they do it, but they aren't really comparable.

They are a similar size (this new one is smaller) and I'd say follow similar design guidelines but there are a few important distinctions with the old Cube. The performance of the hardware back then was far from future proof and there were no external ports like Thunderbolt that could make up for the lack of slots. I think they are very similar besides that in the sense that they are taking the important core elements of the Pro and applying the design philosophy of their other products. The G4 Cube was marketed as a 'super-fast, super-quiet, supercomputer in an 8" Cube' with heat expelled out the top, that's pretty much what this is. This new Mac Pro is a cylinder that fits perfectly in the cube-shaped hole that existed at Apple for a long time. It could easily have been shaped like a Cube if they wanted but it would have wasted space that way and it's best not to recycle hardware designs when it's a new model, especially if the design isn't beneficial.
post #257 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist View Post

 

I am a photographer and personally welcome this new, smaller design. For over 90% of customers, this Mac Pro will most likely not ever get "upgraded" and will be sufficient to satisfy the vast majority of computing needs. Apple will sell a ton of these to people like me, who I think represent the more "mainstream" pro user - not a niche user who needs to rack mount, or needs to run a server with 24 cores, etc. The last rack mountable computer Apple sold was the X Serve, and as I recall that was discontinued several years ago. So those who are crying foul because this new Mac Pro is not rack mountable must not really need that because there has been no rack mountable Mac Pro in years.

 

So many straw man arguments from people who can't embrace change and use hypothetical, theoretical arguments to prove a point that is completely irrelevant.

 

Even assuming that your 90% isn't pulled out of thin air that leaves 10% of Mac Pro users without a replacement machine.  But hey, as long you YOUR needs are met I guess we're cool and forward thinking.

 

You can rack mount the old Mac Pro, it just wasn't very space efficient without using a hacksaw.

post #258 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

 

 

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…

 

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…!!!

The two video cards are the same because it's cheaper to manufacture identical cards and then solder the PCIe slot onto one of them.  There is only one slot, Apple made that clear.  They also made it clear that there is NO internal expansion.  Then they insinuated that the problem is not with their hardware, but with Mac users.    

 

Your BTO ideas are awesome, but I'm afraid Apple will never execute them.  Still, we can dream.  It's not like we haven't gotten plenty of practice dreaming about an xMac since around 2001.

post #259 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


- focusing on GPUs allows them to offer more compelling upgrades year after year even when Intel is lagging behind

 

Asking pros to throw out their $5000 iTubes to upgrade the GPU isn't what most people would call "compelling".  I agree that Apple should focus on Mac Pro GPUs, but using proprietary non-upgradable GPUs is frankly quite insulting to Mac users.  

post #260 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

This new Mac Pro is a cylinder that fits perfectly in the cube-shaped hole that existed at Apple for a long time. It could easily have been shaped like a Cube if they wanted but it would have wasted space that way and it's best not to recycle hardware designs when it's a new model, especially if the design isn't beneficial.

 

Yes, it is the Cube v2.  It would have been nice if it had been marketed as the Mac Mini Pro and kept a Mac Pro at the high end with dual CPUs and slots but I guess it might have been more likely to meet a Cube like fate.

 

By nixing the Mac Pro tower it prevents that.  I was hoping for this:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

A nice mac mini addition would be a Mac Mini Pro with E3 haswell Xeon 1265L v3, a 750M, 2 SSD stick slots and 4 ECC RAM slots for $1999.

 

If the base model is a 4 core Xeon CPU (hopefully Haswell vs Ivy) and a single mid grade consumer GPU then essentially I got what I asked for...I just wanted it to be an addition to the lineup rather than a replacement.  Heck, maybe we'll even see a $2K price tag.  I like the shape...if it HAD been a cube there would have been far worse comparisons to the ill fated Cube.

 

/shrug

 

That the reaction here has been very positive that's not unexpected given it's an Apple fan site.  The top model should be very fast though not as fast as an Ivy Bridge Mac Pro tower would have been.

post #261 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

It's not like we haven't gotten plenty of practice dreaming about an xMac since around 2001.

And it's all you're ever going to be doing. So give it a rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

...$5000...

Stop the FUD, please.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #262 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

The two video cards are the same because it's cheaper to manufacture identical cards and then solder the PCIe slot onto one of them.  There is only one slot, Apple made that clear.  They also made it clear that there is NO internal expansion.  Then they insinuated that the problem is not with their hardware, but with Mac users.    

 

Your BTO ideas are awesome, but I'm afraid Apple will never execute them.  Still, we can dream.  It's not like we haven't gotten plenty of practice dreaming about an xMac since around 2001.

I see nothing on the Apple Mac-Pro website that indicates there only being one PCIe SSD slot… Nor anything really indicating there could be two of the aforementioned slots either… I guess only time will tell, but the pads ARE there, and adding in a second slot would only be a Good Thing for the end user… Heck, for a lot of users, two PCIe SSDs might be all they ever need…! One for OS & apps, the other for files & scratch…

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 #263 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

 

Asking pros to throw out their $5000 iTubes to upgrade the GPU isn't what most people would call "compelling".  I agree that Apple should focus on Mac Pro GPUs, but using proprietary non-upgradable GPUs is frankly quite insulting to Mac users.  

The GPUs are connected to a backplane, so who is to say they are not replaceable in the future…?

 

Or, maybe Apple does have something 'Galaxy-esque' lined up, and that 'old Mac Pro' becomes the first node in your new ever-growing compute cluster…!

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 #264 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The top model should be very fast though not as fast as an Ivy Bridge Mac Pro tower would have been.

Why stop there…? Why not say Apple should have made an even larger chassis and given us a four socket main logic board, 16 RAM slots, 8 PCIe slots & 8 or more HDD slots…!?!

 

Yeah, I am being facetious, but the point is, it is a faster machine than WHAT IT IS REPLACING… It will NEVER be a faster machine than what someone might DREAM UP for Apple to do…

 

It is what it is, and what it is looks pretty damned nice…!!!

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 #265 of 1290

So far we mostly have speculation based on the limited information Apple has supplied. I have some assumptions, which may or may not be correct. I'm assuming what was shown was the high end model and may not be in its final internal form; there will be other less powerful models in the line up; the entry model will be priced similar to today's entry level Mac Pro; that it will only run Maverick; configurations and prices will be announced in late July, early August; and the machine will appear at the same time Maverick is released with limited availability until November-December. But who knows.

 

The new Mac Pro isn't what I expected but the more I think about it's sounding better and better. If the entry level price does come in around $2500 I think I'll go that route to replace my long-in-the-tooth 2006 Mac Pro.

post #266 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

 

Yeah, I am being facetious, but the point is, it is a faster machine than WHAT IT IS REPLACING… It will NEVER be a faster machine than what someone might DREAM UP for Apple to do…

 

Almost every machine is faster than the machine it is replacing.  Especially given that the current one has gone without an update for so long.

 

It's not "dream up" but simply looking at the same technology applied to a simple spec bump.  Same hardware chassis and design, just updated to 2013 specs instead of 2010.

 

This isn't a hard concept.  When you go from a dual CPU design to a single CPU design it's going to be slower than it could have been at the same generation CPU.  The competing workstations will be much larger but also much faster from a CPU perspective, handle more RAM and have equivalent or better GPU and GP/GPU compute capabilities or much cheaper using non-ECC RAM and a Core-i7 but with the same high end GPU and GP/GPU options.


Edited by nht - 6/12/13 at 12:37pm
post #267 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

I see nothing on the Apple Mac-Pro website that indicates there only being one PCIe SSD slot…

This image doesn't?

Quote:
I guess only time will tell, but the pads ARE there...

No, one is.
Quote:
...two PCIe SSDs...

RAID them. 1cool.gif

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #268 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post

 that it will only run Maverick;

 

Doesn't seem like there's anything that would work in Mountain Lion if Apple wanted to do that. For business users they typically need the ability to wait a few months before updating to the newest OS for a variety of reasons.

post #269 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


This image doesn't?

No, one is.
RAID them. 1cool.gif

That would be the PhotoChopped Apple website poc; I am talking about the pic from the Mac Pro on display at WWDC MMXIII…

 

You know, the one I clearly linked…

 

http://cdn.thenextweb.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/06/IMG_8203.jpg

 

But here it is again…

 

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 #270 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

I am talking about the pic from the Mac Pro on display at WWDC MMXIII…

Still no second socket, so my point stands. Pins for it, but good luck being the one to solder on your own and try to get software to work with it.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #271 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Still no second socket, so my point stands. Pins for it, but good luck being the one to solder on your own and try to get software to work with it.

No second socket now, but who knows what Apple will decide when it comes shipping time…

 

I personally think a second socket would make sense; say I want to increase my storage space, but I still want the blazing speed of the internal PCIe SSD stick…

 

Well, if only a single socket, then i have to buy a more expensive stick, shuffle all my data off of the current one to an external drive, switch sticks & then shuffle all the data to the new stick… Then I am left with a still expensive PCIe SSD stick with nothing to put it in… Wasteful…!

 

Two sockets makes better sense for end user convenience, and it is an upsell whe one is perusing the Apple Store for a new BTO Mac Pro…

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 #272 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

Asking pros to throw out their $5000 iTubes to upgrade the GPU isn't what most people would call "compelling". I agree that Apple should focus on Mac Pro GPUs, but using proprietary non-upgradable GPUs is frankly quite insulting to Mac users.

It's insulting to you because you bought a second hand 2009 Mac Pro and upgraded it with a 6870 yourself and Apple made zero dollars from you so they owe you the same amount. When you say 'throw away', you mean sell second-hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht 
The top model should be very fast though not as fast as an Ivy Bridge Mac Pro tower would have been.

It depends on how you measure speed. You couldn't get two FirePros in the old Mac Pro and Apple has never gone up to the fastest CPUs in dual configs. What you would be comparing is:

2x 8-core Xeon ($1440 x 2) + 1x FirePro
vs
1x 12-core Xeon ($2k) + 2x FirePro

For CPU-bound tasks, the first one is faster but not as much as you'd think because the single CPU models are faster relative to the price. This is really making the point that having a second GPU is more value computationally than a CPU. While that's only true for things that use it, the things that need the power need to start using OpenCL.
post #273 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

 

We will have to wait to hear if Mavericks supports CPU sharing across Thunderbolt 2. I don't believe TB-1 does. If it does, then one rack of 36 MPs could conceivably run at 1/4 petaflop. That's cooking!

+1 Beautiful. Rack em'up.

post #274 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It depends on how you measure speed. You couldn't get two FirePros in the old Mac Pro and Apple has never gone up to the fastest CPUs in dual configs. What you would be comparing is:

2x 8-core Xeon ($1440 x 2) + 1x FirePro
vs
1x 12-core Xeon ($2k) + 2x FirePro

For CPU-bound tasks, the first one is faster but not as much as you'd think because the single CPU models are faster relative to the price. This is really making the point that having a second GPU is more value computationally than a CPU. While that's only true for things that use it, the things that need the power need to start using OpenCL.

 

There was a 10 core Ivy Bridge Xeon on the roadmap so it could be anywhere from 16 to 24 cores.  Also it is 2x FirePros in the spec bumped Mac Pro unless you think that Apple would simply leave a bunch of lanes unused.  Why would there not be two x16 slots?  None.

 

So it is:

 

2x 8+ core Xeon + 2x FirePro

vs

1x 12 core Xeon + 2x FirePro

 

If you make that last slot x8 then you can have 4 TB2 ports vs 6 TB ports.  More importantly if you didn't want two FirePros but two faster K20 cards (faster than the current FirePro S9000s anyway) you could do that with a cheaper GPU running in x8 mode on the third slot or if you needed accelerate X86 code vs OpenCL or CUDA code you could put Xeon Phi's in there at full speed rather than two FirePros.  It's slower than both the K20 and S9000 but has it's own advantages from a code perspective.

post #275 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

No second socket now, but who knows what Apple will decide when it comes shipping time…

 

I personally think a second socket would make sense; say I want to increase my storage space, but I still want the blazing speed of the internal PCIe SSD stick…

 

Well, if only a single socket, then i have to buy a more expensive stick, shuffle all my data off of the current one to an external drive, switch sticks & then shuffle all the data to the new stick… Then I am left with a still expensive PCIe SSD stick with nothing to put it in… Wasteful…!

 

Two sockets makes better sense for end user convenience, and it is an upsell whe one is perusing the Apple Store for a new BTO Mac Pro…

 

Might not have the lanes.  The Micron  P320h PCIe SSD is an x8 card.  Figure each SSD slot is at least 1 TB2 port and maybe even 2 and you can see why there might only be one.

 

Edit:  Now I'm wondering if the GPUs are running at x16...32 lanes for the GPUs, 6 lanes for the TB leaving only 2 lanes for the SSD and everything else?  My math must be off...because that seems really tight.  Running the GPUs at x8 gives you a lot more flexibility but I guess that might be why only 1 SSD slot.


Edited by nht - 6/12/13 at 4:49pm
post #276 of 1290
It will be expensive, but pros can afford it. Same goes for going all external for expansion, the aftermarket will take care of that, it won't be cheap, but not a biggie for pros. Added value: clients coming to the studio will be stunned by the machine's design, an extra plus point for the pros.

For everyone else who can't afford it, there will be tower-shaped (a la Airport Extreme) Mac Mini. 1smile.gif
post #277 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by createrio View Post

For everyone else who can't afford it, there will be tower-shaped (a la Airport Extreme) Mac Mini. 1smile.gif

Why would they do that?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #278 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Also it is 2x FirePros in the spec bumped Mac Pro unless you think that Apple would simply leave a bunch of lanes unused.  Why would there not be two x16 slots?  None.

So it is:

2x 8+ core Xeon + 2x FirePro
vs
1x 12 core Xeon + 2x FirePro

It's not the lanes in that case but the TDP. The TDP of a single FirePro is 274W so two is 548W. The PCIe slot power allocation was 300W. They could have put in a bigger PSU but they'd also need two double-wide slots and the two power-hungry GPUs would be sitting side by side, which the old cooling system might not cope with easily. It doesn't matter what the MP could have been modified into, we are comparing what it was then and what it is now. If they had stuck with the old design, it wouldn't have been as good as this one. They certainly couldn't have had an intro like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpu-eYVNGLo#t=89s
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

More importantly if you didn't want two FirePros but two faster K20 cards (faster than the current FirePro S9000s anyway) you could do that with a cheaper GPU running in x8 mode on the third slot or if you needed accelerate X86 code vs OpenCL or CUDA code you could put Xeon Phi's in there at full speed rather than two FirePros.  It's slower than both the K20 and S9000 but has it's own advantages from a code perspective.

It can't be the S9000, they mentioned the GPUs have over 500GB/s memory bandwidth so it has to be the s10000 and custom versions because normally they are 480GB/s, which is the fastest you can get:

http://fireuser.com/blog/comparing_the_amd_firepro_s10000_to_the_tesla_k10_k20_and_k20x/

This is just going to get back into the theoretical spec thing again. Very few people can afford the top end models and it really doesn't matter if there's a few percentage points difference between one model or the other. Two FirePros in Crossfire is going to offer amazing performance.
post #279 of 1290
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It's not the lanes in that case but the TDP. The TDP of a single FirePro is 274W so two is 548W. The PCIe slot power allocation was 300W. They could have put in a bigger PSU but they'd also need two double-wide slots and the two power-hungry GPUs would be sitting side by side, which the old cooling system might not cope with easily. It doesn't matter what the MP could have been modified into, we are comparing what it was then and what it is now.

 

The same thermal and power requirements exist for both machines for the FirePros.  Given that Dell Precision workstations regularly run with dual high end GPUs it is a huge stretch to state that the Mac Pro case would not have been able to handle the same thermally.  

 

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpu-eYVNGLo#t=89s
It can't be the S9000, they mentioned the GPUs have over 500GB/s memory bandwidth so it has to be the s10000 and custom versions because normally they are 480GB/s, which is the fastest you can get:

http://fireuser.com/blog/comparing_the_amd_firepro_s10000_to_the_tesla_k10_k20_and_k20x/

This is just going to get back into the theoretical spec thing again. Very few people can afford the top end models and it really doesn't matter if there's a few percentage points difference between one model or the other. Two FirePros in Crossfire is going to offer amazing performance.

 

Except that the very few people who can afford them are the same folks that buy Mac Pros.  Whether two FirePros offer amazing performance or not is immaterial if you have CUDA code or X86 code designed for the Phi. 

 

Given that the machine isn't shipping and very little is known about them anyway it's all about theoretical specs.  What IS certain is that there isn't dual CPUs like before and there isn't 8 RAM slots and TB2 is much slower than a PCIe slot.  There is nothing the new Mac Pro can do that an updated old Mac Pro could not also do except fit in a tighter space or win design awards (although it did in its day).  The opposite is not true.

 

Like I said, I got what I wanted...a Mac Pro Mini.  It is irksome that folks can't even admit that an updated Mac Pro classic would not have been faster and more expandable.

post #280 of 1290
At last! I thought Apple were finished in the pro market, it may not suit everyone but I'm looking to mate this online cloud driven puppy with a 22" Wacome HDtouch and a 40 " 4K screen with about 4Tbt nas-ssd with Red Wine driven B&W PM1s and Audeze for the personal touch.

So short of seeing Red which is not in my bag... exactly what sound video Art photography production won't I be able to professionally create/edit in the foreseeable future?
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