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 8

post #281 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The same thermal and power requirements exist for both machines for the FirePros.

The old one had two CPUs so 130W went to one of them. You can't put two of these FirePros in a 2012 Mac Pro. The Dell Precision has a 1300W PSU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Whether two FirePros offer amazing performance or not is immaterial if you have CUDA code or X86 code designed for the Phi.

Right but that's up to the developer. They should be using OpenCL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

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.

The space saving is quite dramatic. I don't think they quite got that across in the presentation:





The old MP might not have been able to easily mix slots and Thunderbolt. The old MP could not run two FirePros internally. You can say similar things about the rMBP and the cMBP. You can technically do more with the cMBP like put your own RAM in and HDD and you have an optical drive. It doesn't mean much though if the unique things the old one did aren't that important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

It is irksome that folks can't even admit that an updated Mac Pro classic would not have been faster and more expandable.

I freely admit that it wouldn't have been faster and more expandable. 1biggrin.gif

It could have been built faster but it wouldn't be if it had the same restrictions the design has had for the last 10 years. Also, when you say 'more expandable', you mean you could use 3 devices at a time instead of 36. I'd say 36 is more than 3. The slots are faster but I haven't seen any real world scenarios where it's a measured problem.
post #282 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


*low whistle* Is that really to scale right there? Wish they would have a comparison shot on the website proper rather than that one frame during the keynote.

Just have the new Mac Pro in front and the bottom of the old one fading in the darkness behind it for a sense of scale.

Edited by Tallest Skil - 6/12/13 at 6:20pm

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

*low whistle* Is that really to scale right there?

Yup, that's to scale. The Cube would be a touch shorter (9.1" vs 9.9") but the Cube photo there was at a slight angle and it wasn't that far off.

You'd get 6 of the new MPs in the same space as the old Mac Pro. Phil said it was 1/8th the size but that would be measuring the volume difference.
post #284 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


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.
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
 

I can see how you would think that about my opinions. In the most basic sense, I tend to favor integrated solutions unless something can't be done well. My long term results have been fairly poor with Apple displays on a number of things (perform poorly at lower brightness settings, uniformity issues, more than average backlight bleed, used to be way too shiny even in controlled lighting, only method of trying to keep some consistency to output is the old matrix profile method which has its own problems). I'm not so much about PCI slots. I think most cards available on Macs have been poorly supported in recent years, so I don't think they offer a great solution for most people. At the same time I don't favor a $600 mac edition of a $400 PC card coupled with an $800 case as a good solution. The tests are pretty mixed. Some show great performance. Others show the higher end cards choking. It's all over the place at the moment, although no card currently demands a full x16 PCIe 3. I think adding distance to the gpu tends to be a bad idea, but if they're going to do that, it would make more sense if it came from a company that tested the entire solution with appropriate drivers and a case with appropriate power and space.

 

Basically I'm only against integrating components when the quality isn't there yet. Otherwise it's the direction computing has always taken. I mentioned Wizard's solution as far more forward thinking than what Apple did. It was probably just too expensive at this point in time. I would have liked to see them use the available sata connections, perhaps 4-6 2.5" bays. As for the R6, I wasn't concerned about performance there. Promise makes a large range of hardware, although I've never used one of their SANs. I can say that supporting Raid 5 is something that is advertised on a lot of cheap boxes where it's a bad idea. Just the use of it without enterprise drives (shorter error recovery timings to prevent drives from timing out trying to recover data due to bad sectors) and an ECC cache is a bad idea, as it doesn't lead to a stable system. Of course it raises doubts when I run into points like that.

 

Also I like anandtech, but some of their testing methods are severely flawed. Their display tests made no sense at all, and not because Apple wasn't ranked on top1rolleyes.gif. It was because their criteria lacked context when they were using measurements that make no sense out of context.

 

Edit: fwiw I don't know whether I will own one. There isn't enough information yet. It's likely enough.

 

Quote:
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:

Hardware often precedes software if developers aren't exactly sure what will show up when. If they're responsive once something shows up, that is a good thing. Workstation gpus don't change that fast though. Assuming static price points, it's generally a staggered 2 year cycle on workstation variants. They might release high end performance options later than the lower ones, but you don't see the same ones constantly turned over. They certainly don't rebrand and just clock bump. Intel tends to be faster in that regard, although I wouldn't expect anything to change beyond this until at least the first half of 2015. I completely disagree that they will bump things outside of cpu cycles. That would be a first, and you're talking about two lines of slowly moving parts coupled with a set of buyers that are likely not the type to line up outside stores. I don't think you'll see a repeat of that last thing from intel. Intel only released 2/3 of a westmere line, then pushed back sandy bridge e rumored to be due to a reverberation of the sata bugs that caused the initial recall and requiring further stepping.


Edited by hmm - 6/12/13 at 7:26pm
post #285 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by mervynyan View Post

looks like my plug hole

 

 

For someone who only posts one a year, it wasn't worth the wait.

 

post #286 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The old one had two CPUs so 130W went to one of them. You can't put two of these FirePros in a 2012 Mac Pro. The Dell Precision has a 1300W PSU.
It depends upon the Fire Pro card. It is hard to tell exactly what FirePro Apple will be using, but it is likely to be between 200 and 300 watts per card. I wouldn't be surprised to find Apple using unreleased chips. If fact I don't think it is much of stretch to say that Apple and AMD may very well have a custom version of the FirePro to support the faster TB ports. In any event a budget of 750 watts for the processors isn't unreasonable add in another 100 watts or so for the rest of the machine and you have ballpark figure for the system powersupply. This is a substantial machine.
Quote:
Right but that's up to the developer. They should be using OpenCL.
Any developer targeting anything else just isn't with it as far as evaluating the direction of the industry.
Quote:
The space saving is quite dramatic. I don't think they quite got that across in the presentation:
This machine inspires all sorts of ideas as far as companion hardware goes.
Quote:

The old MP might not have been able to easily mix slots and Thunderbolt. The old MP could not run two FirePros internally. You can say similar things about the rMBP and the cMBP. You can technically do more with the cMBP like put your own RAM in and HDD and you have an optical drive. It doesn't mean much though if the unique things the old one did aren't that important.
More importantly this machine will run circles around any laptop which is what most people want
Quote:
I freely admit that it wouldn't have been faster and more expandable. 1biggrin.gif
Even that isn't a given because there is no assurance that Apple would have stayed with dual socket solutions.
Quote:
It could have been built faster but it wouldn't be if it had the same restrictions the design has had for the last 10 years. Also, when you say 'more expandable', you mean you could use 3 devices at a time instead of 36. I'd say 36 is more than 3. The slots are faster but I haven't seen any real world scenarios where it's a measured problem.

I'm not going to say this new Mac Pro is ideal expansion wise but it really requires one to do a little mind refactoring. If you can convince yourself that disk arrays don't belong inside your computational unit then you are well on your way to accepting the new Mac Pro. All the whining about existing hardware is nonsense because such hardware has been constantly outmoded by technological advancement. I have a cellar full of old analog cards, digital I/O cards and such that can't be plugged into modern computers be they Dells or this new Mac.
post #287 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

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.
Well it certainly is in the configuration that Apple has detailed. However the rank and file can hold out for a less than premium model. I can easily see this frame offering up a more mainstream machine.
Quote:
  I mean just take a look at the hardware and try to price out some of these components. 
Actually it isn't that easy to do. FirePro covers a wide range of Hardware. This might be a machine with $500 GPUs or one with $2000 GPUs. Unlike we understand what Apples "range" of machines look like we can only gues at the price range. However I still firmly beleive that they need a machine that comes in under the entry price of the current Mac Pro. More than anything the Mac Pro line needs a sound entry point.
Quote:
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!!!
Apple needs a model that comes in under $2000 for an entry level machine.
post #288 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.  
They may very well change their minds on that one. At least for the SSD slot.
Quote:
Then they insinuated that the problem is not with their hardware, but with Mac users.    
With every technological advance a few Luddites try to ruin it for everybody.
Quote:
Your BTO ideas are awesome, but I'm afraid Apple will never execute them.
I don't know about that. Apple has been very responsive to customers. I could see three or so variants of the "Tube" to cover a wide array of professional users.
Quote:
 Still, we can dream.  It's not like we haven't gotten plenty of practice dreaming about an xMac since around 2001.
Dream we can.

Interestingly this comes close to what an XMac could be, plug in a 55-85 watt desktop processor and a couple of 75 watt GPUs and you have the basic idea down. Actually one 75 watt GPU would be pretty good considering most desktop processors these days have their own GPU. Built that way this machine would have been very close capability wise to what I imagined an XMac should be. The goal for XMac was or is a half decent GPU coupled with a good desktop grade processor which this chassis could easily support.

If you take the released materials at face value this isn't in Apple release plans. I could see them scraping the current Mini for a machine built in this platform concept. Shrink the height of the machine and lighten the heat sink for mobile chips or low end desktop chips and Bingo a new Mini.
post #289 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Oi View Post

What's the point of getting this over priced macbook when it will have terrible specs? I would rather save up my money and upgrade my gaming computer.

Well, if all you are doing is gaming, then maybe all you need is a gaming computer.  Then keep your gaming computer.   This would actually make a great gaming computer if you think about it.  Ability to drive 3 4K monitors and you don't have to have some big bulky tower.   What's so terrible about the specs?

post #290 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

 

a pro speaks. thank you. ;)

post #291 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The old one had two CPUs so 130W went to one of them. You can't put two of these FirePros in a 2012 Mac Pro. The Dell Precision has a 1300W PSU.

 

Given that folks run dual GTX 680 by adding a small secondary internal PSU simply upping the current CPU by a little doesn't strike me as a significant change for Apple to make in the update.

 

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1520765&page=2

 

Seriously, if a random guy can make this work then it's just not a hard problem to move to a 1300W PSU.

 

 

 

Quote:
The space saving is quite dramatic. I don't think they quite got that across in the presentation:

 

Yes, it is.  That's why I think of it as a Mac Mini Pro.

 

 

 

Quote:
It could have been built faster but it wouldn't be if it had the same restrictions the design has had for the last 10 years. 

 

Thus far you have PSU as the only restriction and that's a very easy upgrade for Apple to make given the form factor.   Seriously it's just a PSU and you don't know that the two GPUs are 275W devices in the new Pro.

 

 

Quote:
Also, when you say 'more expandable', you mean you could use 3 devices at a time instead of 36. I'd say 36 is more than 3. The slots are faster but I haven't seen any real world scenarios where it's a measured problem.

 

As in more expandable I mean 2 x16 PCIe 3.0 and 2 x4 PCIe 3.0 slots and 2 x2.5 TB2 ports vs 2 dedicated x16 GPUs and 6 x2.5 ports. Hell yes that's a lot more expandable.

 

Given that there are 16 bay expansion chassis for PCI 2.0 x8 slots you can have 32 from the two PCI 3.0 x4 slots and still have another 12 from the TB2 ports for 44.  That's with both x16 slots occupied by GPUs.

 

If I only needed one GPU then I could have 48 expansion chassis slots + 12 TB2 device chain for a total of 60.  I'd say that both 44 and 60 are bigger than 36.

 

What?  You think PCI expansion chassis only existed after Thunderbolt was introduced?

 

Even if you believe that the two GPUs are running as x8 cards the classic Mac Pro is STILL more expandable.  Two x8 GPU slots + Two x4 slots = 24 lanes leaving you 16 for TB2 ports.  At 2.5 lanes each that's 6 ports at 20 Gbps plus 1 lane spare.

post #292 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


It depends upon the Fire Pro card. It is hard to tell exactly what FirePro Apple will be using, but it is likely to be between 200 and 300 watts per card. I wouldn't be surprised to find Apple using unreleased chips. If fact I don't think it is much of stretch to say that Apple and AMD may very well have a custom version of the FirePro to support the faster TB ports. In any event a budget of 750 watts for the processors isn't unreasonable add in another 100 watts or so for the rest of the machine and you have ballpark figure for the system powersupply. This is a substantial machine.

 

Looking at the pictures I'm wondering where this 850W PSU is located.

 

Given the specs probably around 500W total with two W9000 tuned for power consumption vs raw speed.

post #293 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

RAID them. 1cool.gif

I think they are. 1.3GB/s

My PCIe SSD is 240GB in size. But the card actually has 2 sticks of 120GB each, and their in RAID0, making it 800MB/s or something.
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #294 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Well it certainly is in the configuration that Apple has detailed. However the rank and file can hold out for a less than premium model. I can easily see this frame offering up a more mainstream machine.
Actually it isn't that easy to do. FirePro covers a wide range of Hardware. This might be a machine with $500 GPUs or one with $2000 GPUs. Unlike we understand what Apples "range" of machines look like we can only gues at the price range. However I still firmly beleive that they need a machine that comes in under the entry price of the current Mac Pro. More than anything the Mac Pro line needs a sound entry point.
Apple needs a model that comes in under $2000 for an entry level machine.

Yep. It's the same line of thinking adopted by those that think i7 is automatically cheaper than Xeon 6GB of ECC ram somehow tacks hundreds onto the price. The only truth to that would have been if they did a direct transport of the imac internals to a headless case, because of how many parts could be reused. I don't think a lot of people get which chips are labeled i7 or the array used under the Firepro label. In fact many of those are just Radeons with different drivers. I like the use of Firepros because those drivers can make a significant difference when it comes to OpenGL operations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


They may very well change their minds on that one. At least for the SSD slot.
With every technological advance a few Luddites try to ruin it for everybody.

 I wouldn't personally call myself a luddite, but I would have liked to see them make better used of already available connections, whether via arrays of PCI based storage like your concept or a bunch of 2.5" drives. You need backups either way, so it's not possible to alleviate all extra boxes. I definitely prefer to minimize them when it's possible. The same thing went for the imac. Poor display experiences and lack of hard drive access put me off it. I think they could do better rather than try to childproof every computing experience. The focus on simplicity gets to the point of being too restrictive at times.

 

Quote:
Actually one 75 watt GPU would be pretty good considering most desktop processors these days have their own GPU.

Intel tends to include the cheaper configurations in desktop gpus for cost effectiveness reasons. It's obvious that the use of integrated graphics remains for budget reasons there. For something focused on computation, one of their better variants would be a good thing.

post #295 of 1290
Quote:
Poor display

 

The new iMac has a fantastic display.  The old one was pretty good.  This new one is even better.  Crystal clear.  Vibrantly punchy.

 

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 #296 of 1290
Quote:
Well it certainly is in the configuration that Apple has detailed. However the rank and file can hold out for a less than premium model. I can easily see this frame offering up a more mainstream machine.
Actually it isn't that easy to do. FirePro covers a wide range of Hardware. This might be a machine with $500 GPUs or one with $2000 GPUs. Unlike we understand what Apples "range" of machines look like we can only gues at the price range. However I still firmly beleive that they need a machine that comes in under the entry price of the current Mac Pro. More than anything the Mac Pro line needs a sound entry point.
Apple needs a model that comes in under $2000 for an entry level machine.

 

I'd love for a model to come under $2000.  That would make a reasonable UK price.

 

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 #297 of 1290

...which would just about give us an X-Mac.  (The new Pro IS the mythical 'X-Mac.)

 

What we're talking about is...an accessibly priced version.

 

i7.  7XX Nvidia card.  £1295-ish.  (...if you take off the iMac monitor...this is about right...considering what I payed for mine...)

 

They'd walk out the stores.

 

Who knows, Wizard may even buy one...

 

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 #298 of 1290

 

 

The new Mac Pro is revolutionary.  Design?  Phenomenal.

 

Stunning.

 

Drop dead Gorgeous.

 

'Can't innovate anymore my ass' knock it out it out the park.

 

The Pro never looked this good or was this powerful.

 

CPU up.  

 

Platform redefining Dual GPUs moving to the future of computation.  (If you'd have offered me an Amiga in the old days with x2 co-processors like the ATI FIRE GLs I'd have torn your arms off...)

 

Blistering SSD PCIe speed at 1.25 size?!??!?

 

Memory boost.

 

...and to top it off...Thunderbird 2?  Pegasus Raid on steroids?  Here it comes....

 

Nerd-gasm.

 

Wow.  Blown away.

 

Jaw dropping.

 

And it's about the size of the old Cube give or take?

 

Darth Pro has emerged.


The shadow of the 'dark side' is upon us.

 

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 #299 of 1290

The legendary 'X-Mac' has arrived.

 

Caveat.

 

It needs a prosumer config' priced around £1295-1495.

 

8 gigs of ram.  SSD.  i7.  Nvidia 7xx card.

 

Home run Apple.

 

Start your lobbying of Apple right now if you want that machine.  

 

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 #300 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

The legendary 'X-Mac' has arrived.

Caveat.

It needs a prosumer config' priced around £1295-1495.

8 gigs of ram.  SSD.  i7.  Nvidia 7xx card.

Home run Apple.

Start your lobbying of Apple right now if you want that machine.  

Lemon Bon Bon.
At last someone is listening. This design has the potential to answer the needs of most Mac users, provided Apple decides to offer low end configurations. I said it here, you gave a nice example. The question still stands though: what Apple will finally do?
post #301 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

The legendary 'X-Mac' has arrived.

 

Caveat.

 

It needs a prosumer config' priced around £1295-1495.

 

8 gigs of ram.  SSD.  i7.  Nvidia 7xx card.

 

Home run Apple.

 

Start your lobbying of Apple right now if you want that machine.  

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post


At last someone is listening. This design has the potential to answer the needs of most Mac users, provided Apple decides to offer low end configurations. I said it here, you gave a nice example. The question still stands though: what Apple will finally do?

Huh, I could swear I covered this days ago…!

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/157958/apple-throws-out-the-rulebook-for-its-unique-next-gen-mac-pro/160#post_2343370

 

This chassis could be both the Mac Pro AND the mythical xMac…

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 #302 of 1290
Corrected
post #303 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

Huh, I could swear I covered this days ago…!

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/157958/apple-throws-out-the-rulebook-for-its-unique-next-gen-mac-pro/160#post_2343370

This chassis could be both the Mac Pro AND the mythical xMac…
I definitely missed that post.

Anyway, I am not going to ask rights of intellectual property about it. 1biggrin.gif The thing speaks by itself. It is just the fact that the name Mac Pro attracts all kinds of pro's, each one with his arguments and heat, and all forget to think about the obvious.
post #304 of 1290

I'm a proud iMac owner (and a spiritual Power Mac, sorry, 'Mac Pro' owner...having had one of the 'Mac Clones' back in the 'Clone Wars...' back in '97...says in a Vet grizzled voice...)

 

However, you could make the argument (it won't happen) for Apple to bin the Mac Mini, iMac and just scale the innards of this revolutionary desktop.  

 

Pick your i5-i7-Xeon.

 

Pick your Ram.

 

Pick your GPU.

 

Pick your SSD.

 

Done.

 

BTO would never have been so much fun!

 

That way, Apple would have just one desktop (how's that for consolidation...) and 1 monitor.  Scale of economies.

 

In reality.  Not so much.  This is Apple.

 

The Mini, iMac and now preview Mac Pro have their identifiable markets by the badge of their design and what specs they include.  The iMac being the most mainstream of the three, perhaps.  (At least as sales go.)

 

They're all workstations by any previous definition.  Gone are the days when you NEED a 'Pro' to do photo, music, video work.

 

It's all about the level of how much computation each 'Pro' needs.

 

And the new 'Pro' provides that in spades.

 

It does say 'upto' so presumably the base model will come in at £2045 if the current 'Pro' pricing is anything to go by.  I think this would be a mistake though...

 

Time to take this into the car park and price it much lower.  Lop £500, at least off the starting price.  Just take the monitor price off the top end config' iMac and you have your X-Mac right there.

 

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 #305 of 1290
Quote:

Huh, I could swear I covered this days ago…!

 

...and Wizard...and myself have covered (and coveted...) such a beast for years now.  The price of the 'mid tower/mid-tower/Cube etc' has been well covered and is pretty much consensus given the odd punch up.

 

But yes, price it £1295 (top end iMac without monitor) -ish and it would walk out the stores.  It would turbo boost 'Pro' sales.

 

But this is Apple.  

 

But I suppose they made the entry 13 inch Air cheaper...

 

Like I say, start lobbying Tim Cook now.

 

Does he have email?

 

Really, should get all the X-Mac folk to petition him for the said machine.  Same case.  Lower prosumer/gamer/entry workstation spec.  (HP 'workstations' start at £700+?  Exactly...so an Apple one starting at £1295 with an astonishing 1/8th volume - saving on materials... - should be possibly even with Apple tax.)  

 

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 #306 of 1290

And Kudos for dragging the 'pro' crowd (well, the % rump of them that are squealing at this revolution...) into the new millenium.

 

Taking the storage outside.  Focus on Computation.

 

Hook me a Darth Pro upto a Pegasus TB 2.0?

 

Drools....

 

...den ders dem...geeze...4k displays or 'display' coming...an'....

 

Wut's dat?  2 external cables? :D

 

3 if yer still wants yer optical...

 

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 #307 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

That doesn't mean this doesn't represent a solution. It's just not the ideal solution in terms of storage. Ideally 90% of the market for that specific machine (not 90% of consumers) would have their primary storage needs solved internally with only backups pushed out of the box.

 

I felt that way too, until I thought about it for a while. Now I don't really understand what difference it makes whether the storage is internal or external?

 

In a laptop it matters, since external storage affects portability. I even get the objection in the case of an all-in-one like the iMac because it's a device that sits on a desk in a home or office and people want it to look tidy. But when we're talking a production tool, what difference does it make? There's no advantage in speed or convenience to having the drives built in, and looking pretty isn't a really a priority.

 

I'm not saying the new design is better in this respect, just that it seems like a "shrug -- who cares?" issue.

 

Am I missing something? Is there some benefit to having the drives in the same box as the CPU?

 

 

EDIT: Never mind, I later saw your explanation of your concerns. It SEEMS like you're comparing the liabilities of cheap outboard RAID arrays to the reliability of the old Pro's internal JBOD. The benefits you describe derive not from the drives being internal, but from the fact that there's no array to maintain. Couldn't the same benefit be achieved with an outboard JBOD?


Edited by v5v - 6/13/13 at 10:50am
post #308 of 1290

If you want more than in the new souped up Hot Rod Mac Pro.

 

Hook it up to a Pegasus.  A render farm.  

 

Presumably these are the 'serious' pros that have access to 'serious' jobs demanding serious output? 

 

Clearly.  If you want more.  You'll pay for it.  Out of the box the Mac Pro can be configured 'upto' quite teh powerhouse.

 

Having said that.  Will this cut down in bloat and materials be reflected in the Pro's price?

 

eg dropping the optical drive and Apple upped the price of £100 of the entry iMac.  Will the Pro get the price cut it needs to get a true entry price for the workstation and deliver the mythical Mac Pro pricing people want?

 

Price will be interesting variable methinks.

 

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 #309 of 1290

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post


Price will be interesting variable methinks.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

I guess it depends on what kind of volume they need for the line to be viable. This isn't going to carry the highest profits even in the context of Macs. It's not a realistic goal. It should however be able to move in at least steady numbers.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

I felt that way too, until I thought about it for a while. Now I don't really understand what difference it makes whether the storage is internal or external?

 

In a laptop it matters, since external storage affects portability. I even get the objection in the case of an all-in-one like the iMac because it's a device that sits on a desk in a home or office and people want it to look tidy. But when we're talking a production tool, what difference does it make? There's no advantage in speed or convenience to having the drives built in, and looking pretty isn't a really a priority.

 

I'm not saying the new design is better in this respect, just that it seems like a "shrug -- who cares?" issue.

 

Am I missing something? Is there some benefit to having the drives in the same box as the CPU?


It adds at least $500 for a decent JBOD box. They all add some noise. The cheap ones are terrible in that regard. Not all of them are seamless, as you're placing the device behind another layer hooked up through whatever port multiplier. Thunderbolt also isn't the same as SATA or PCI. The certifications are totally different. You must be able to unplug it without causing kernel panics. With a PCI card, the card stays in all the time. It's not here nor there. I'm just listing it for some people on here who claim it's the same thing who may also be reading the thread. You need a backup anyway, so this is yet another box. I dislike that it tries to save space on one, yet expands space and costs on another. It also wastes available bandwidth ports that are there either way, as they're part of the chipset. At this point the imac actually has greater storage capacity internally. It's just one of those things that in the end may cost more while not really accomplishing the space saving goals with the possible exception of facilities that rely solely on centralized storage. What I mentioned was a JBOD solution not including drives. A decent raid would cost more.

 

Most of the potential gains here are in gpu performance, which others have already mapped out. Workstation drivers are nice if they provide better OpenGL stability. I hope to see that. The potential x86 speeds won't change that much compared to the current line, although overall it's arguably a very nice net gain as long as you can take advantage of some of the improvements. I know Marvin came up with price estimates. I'm skeptical whether it will really go that high, as the only 12 core options would be a max gain of maybe 15% from the 12 cores we have now. GPUs are a much bigger deal here, and it comes down to how well drivers are optimized. With the more expensive workstation gpus, you're typically paying for drivers and video ram. The quality of the drivers determines whether or not they are worth the extra cost much more than the hardware itself. Admittedly I'm still somewhat excited to see that.

post #310 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Why would they do that?

 

Because there needs to be change for the sake of change. Otherwise the line is "stale."

 

Besides, a vertical format will place the antennas higher which is more important to wireless range and speed than where the device itself is physically situated, as evidenced by the new AirPort.  1oyvey.gif

 

/s

 

I actually would not be at all surprised if a new mini DID adopt that form. I'm not saying it will, just that it seems plausible.

post #311 of 1290

For those that are Apple developers, the Foundry/Pixar lunchtime talk mentioned in the keynote, 'Painting the Future', is now up on the developers website…

 

Come see the new Mac Pro in action…!!!

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

Yes, it is.  That's why I think of it as a Mac Mini Pro.

I think the same of the old one. The quad-i7 Mini was around the same performance as the entry Pro. All it had on top was a dedicated GPU, slots and storage bays and a whole heap of space used for an inefficient cooling system. All computers from the iPhone to the Mac Pro to server blades have more things in common than they have differences. It's what people do with them that's important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

you don't know that the two GPUs are 275W devices in the new Pro.

They have to be around that TDP given the number of stream processors. A 2013 iteration might save some power but nowhere near 150W it would need to fit in the old limit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

As in more expandable I mean 2 x16 PCIe 3.0 and 2 x4 PCIe 3.0 slots and 2 x2.5 TB2 ports vs 2 dedicated x16 GPUs and 6 x2.5 ports. Hell yes that's a lot more expandable.

If you configure it the same way, the two x16s are already used for GPUs in the original so that only leaves you 2 x4 PCIe 3 and you couldn't have TB on top as you only have 40 lanes. The lanes aren't changing from one machine to the next, all this machine is doing is dictating that two fast slots stay inside for graphics and the remaining lanes are divided between 6 ports that can be daisy chained up to 36 devices.

It takes the step that all Apple devices do by limiting user-configurability in order to improve the efficiency of the design based on what most people do with the machines anyway and you'll probably get more performance-per-dollar this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Given that there are 16 bay expansion chassis for PCI 2.0 x8 slots you can have 32 from the two PCI 3.0 x4 slots and still have another 12 from the TB2 ports for 44.  That's with both x16 slots occupied by GPUs.

I don't think you have the TB as mentioned above but even the boxes are fairly expensive:

http://www.magma.com/catalog/basic-pcie-expansion

A 16-bay there is $4500 so $9000 to match the number of devices of the entry Mac Pro. That's not even taking into consideration that TB is plug and play so you can keep a ton of peripherals in a cupboard most of the time and just take them out when needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm 
the only 12 core options would be a max gain of maybe 15% from the 12 cores we have now.

Not vs the current Mac Pro. I estimate 50% improvement in CPU over the current Pro, which is 2 or more generations back. They might be able to clock it higher based on the cooling solution. The single heatsink cools 3 parts so for CPU-only tasks, they can probably clock it up a bit.
post #313 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

For those that are Apple developers, the Foundry/Pixar lunchtime talk mentioned in the keynote, 'Painting the Future', is now up on the developers website…

 

Come see the new Mac Pro in action…!!!

Cool demo…!

 

Foundry guy (and original creator of Mari while at Weta) says he gets emails all the time from customers asking what machine/config to get to best use Mari; now he can unequivocally say the new Mac Pro…

 

Pixar guy (shader/texture artist) says, and demos, how he can use Mari with the new Mac Pro to handle 10GB, 20GB & larger amounts of data; interacting with it in real time 'like butter'… Recounts how most models have multiple channels (color, specularity, displacement, etc.) and each channel is running about 500 textures… Oh yeah, the textures are each 8K x 8K in size… Never know when an extreme close-up might be needed… Again, rotating the model around in real time while painting with these huge textures; and not just on a single channel at a time…

 

Long story short; bitch & whine all you want about 'only one CPU, no internal secondary storage, no internal PCIe expansion slots', the new Mac Pro is a serious machine that means serious business…!

 

WELL worth going over to the Apple site and registering for a free developer membership ( I THINK they still do that) to watch this demo…!!!

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 #314 of 1290

There will be no mac pro server room with these goofy things...No reasonable shelving accommodations, cooling would be a nightmare and thats just the top two - in a real data center enviornment, everything that could be moved from OSX to Windows or Linux should be, and if something absolutely _MUST_ run on OSX Server, Minis would be a better option - and can do just about any server task fairly well...and if you want a render node/farm, you would be insane to buy these, you cant swap out the GPUs, you cant add Tesla (Hell you cant use any Nvidia parts) Give me $6000 at HP+Newegg and I will build you something far better than the Mac Pro sexy trash can edition...

 

I think Apple wants to kill the Pro so they are doing this to push the remaining Pro users to something else...two years and there will be no headless desktop other than the Mini.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

 

In reality, Mac Pro server rooms will be interesting to watch.

 

The shelving will be 7" wide, and the machines placed with the back panel facing outward. I imagine the shelves will have to slide out to swap components.

 

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

 

I really did think that the new Pro would have been more rack-friendly, given that the Xserve was discontinued.

You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #315 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

 I estimate 50% improvement in CPU over the current Pro, which is 2 or more generations back. They might be able to clock it higher based on the cooling solution. The single heatsink cools 3 parts so for CPU-only tasks, they can probably clock it up a bit.

I was basing it on a likely very conservative clock speed. I'm not sure how ivy will work out. With Sandy the 1600s chips didn't go past 6 cores. The 8 cores were at least 2600s (when I say 2400s it's me rambling things off the top of my head) chips, the type that are made for dual socket machines. The 2687 is as fast as it gets. Two of them here geekbenched 45000. That is somewhat faster than I remember from other similar tests. I don't regard geekbench as a great measure of performance. I'm just using it because it's quick to look up. I guess it depends on how they're clocked. I'm just speculating as I wouldn't end up buying a maxed one anyway.

post #316 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

Cool demo…!

 

Foundry guy (and original creator of Mari while at Weta) says he gets emails all the time from customers asking what machine/config to get to best use Mari; now he can unequivocally say the new Mac Pro…

 

Pixar guy (shader/texture artist) says, and demos, how he can use Mari with the new Mac Pro to handle 10GB, 20GB & larger amounts of data; interacting with it in real time 'like butter'… Recounts how most models have multiple channels (color, specularity, displacement, etc.) and each channel is running about 500 textures… Oh yeah, the textures are each 8K x 8K in size… Never know when an extreme close-up might be needed… Again, rotating the model around in real time while painting with these huge textures; and not just on a single channel at a time…

 

Long story short; bitch & whine all you want about 'only one CPU, no internal secondary storage, no internal PCIe expansion slots', the new Mac Pro is a serious machine that means serious business…!

 

WELL worth going over to the Apple site and registering for a free developer membership ( I THINK they still do that) to watch this demo…!!!


I don't personally use Mari, but they made the exact same claims a year ago. In fact that's how they marketed the software from the start. It was designed for pelting huge textures. Pixar probably runs more maya seats than anything. I doubt they are houdini heavy there. Maya's maximum texture map size is 8k. These things have to deform uses pixar's version of subdivision surfaces and would be projected based on their normals, so they have to hold up to a lot more than a single still image that you view as is. It's not just closeups but the amount of torture the textures would naturally take. Anyway I guess the new aspect would be that it runs on Macs and OpenCL. It used to be a CUDA only application. It is not the only machine in the world that can match what you just described, not to say it isn't impressive, and I suspect you would want such a workstation for that kind of application. Like I said, I don't use Mari. It's a $2000 texture painting app. The target market is obvious.

post #317 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


They may very well change their minds on that one. At least for the SSD slot.
With every technological advance a few Luddites try to ruin it for everybody.
I don't know about that. Apple has been very responsive to customers. I could see three or so variants of the "Tube" to cover a wide array of professional users.
Dream we can.

Interestingly this comes close to what an XMac could be, plug in a 55-85 watt desktop processor and a couple of 75 watt GPUs and you have the basic idea down. Actually one 75 watt GPU would be pretty good considering most desktop processors these days have their own GPU. Built that way this machine would have been very close capability wise to what I imagined an XMac should be. The goal for XMac was or is a half decent GPU coupled with a good desktop grade processor which this chassis could easily support.

If you take the released materials at face value this isn't in Apple release plans. I could see them scraping the current Mini for a machine built in this platform concept. Shrink the height of the machine and lighten the heat sink for mobile chips or low end desktop chips and Bingo a new Mini.

From your lips to Apple's Space Ship.  

 

That's my thought ever since laying eyes on this iTube.  Both technically and asthetically it's a beautiful design, but somehow it strikes me not as a pro machine, but as almost exactly what Apple should be making as their high end consumer desktop.  A quiet and compact desktop machine for the masses.  A non-upgradable GPU is usually fine as long as it's not underpowered from the beginning, as is the case with the Mini and even many iMacs until recently.  Even the stock GPU on some recent Mac Pros is unable to smoothly render OS X GUI graphics, lol.  They try pulling that with this iTube, it will bite them in the arse.

 

Having a few days go perseverate over this new Mac Pro, I find myself wondering if Apple gave up the internal expansion/upgradability for the one feature they didn't talk about at its intro:  price.  This new Mac Pro could be the machine that finally scales from the needs of home enthusiasts to hardcore workstation users.  If Apple can offer a sub-$2000 Mac ProTube with a quad-core Xeon, single 79xx GPU, and PCIe SSD, the motive for this new design then snaps into focus.  It's also notable that even though the Mac Pro tower could be purchased with a single Xeon it was designed (and priced) around two power-hungry Xeons.  

 

/dreaming

 

Ok, back in reality, even a single Xeon is too expensive for Apple to hit a sub $2K price point.  They would need to build an i7 version with a whole new logic board.  Apple already did that and it's called a "Mac Mini".  Apple's product managers dream nightmares of an invincible xMac cannibalizing their overpriced iMac sales.  

 

BTW I must say this tube thingie is a work of art and it's hard to believe even some fanbois are trashing its design.  Just wait until you see it person - the polished dark metal strikes the perfect mix of elegance and badassery.  The lines and stance suggest some dark power resides within, a power so confident it need not assert brand by putting any sort of logo in view.  If this is Ive unchained from Steve Jobs's artistic micromanagement, Apple's products are about to rock at a whole new visual level.

post #318 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

That's my thought ever since laying eyes on this iTube.

Even back when it was a cube, am I right? 1rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Even the stock GPU on some recent Mac Pros is unable to smoothly render OS X GUI graphics, lol.

Utter frippery.
Quote:
Ok, back in reality...

Took you long enough; been months since you made those claims.
Quote:
...even a single Xeon is too expensive for Apple to hit a sub $2K price point.

I disagree. What will make it too expensive, I think, is the fact that they're using dual FirePro W9000s. Those are $2,399 a pop. Well, at least the highest-end Mac Pro uses those.

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 #319 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

 

I think Apple wants to kill the Pro so they are doing this to push the remaining Pro users to something else...two years and there will be no headless desktop other than the Mini.

 

 

That's a lot of R&D money to spend on such an elaborate scheme when all Apple has to do to kill the Mac Pro is...kill the Mac Pro.  Still, your post raises a good point:  even after Apple presented their new Mac Pro, pros still have no freakin' clue about Apple's intentions.  The product is out there and Mac users are left to figure it out on their own.

 

I generally don't like WWJD posts (What Would Jobs Do?), but Jobs would have used the introduction of a new Mac Pro to make Apple's plans for the Pro market crystal clear.  He would have redefined Apple's entire pro user strategy at the Mac Pro launch.  Apple doesn't seem to have anyone who can throw down a new vision for Mac users, and that's fatal to a company that was always about product gestalts rather than hardware specs.  

post #320 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

The legendary 'X-Mac' has arrived.
Well in many ways but certainly not price. I can actually see this machine as being very affordable to manufacture so it certainly could be priced surprisingly low. Low for a machine with workstation hardware like this. It just won't be in XMac territory without extremely low cost GPU and CPU options.
Quote:
Caveat.

It needs a prosumer config' priced around £1295-1495.
Even that is expensive in dollars.
Quote:
8 gigs of ram.  SSD.  i7.  Nvidia 7xx card.

Home run Apple.
Home run if they step up to bat!

I could see them though refactoring the Mini to better fill that middle of range roll that is left open currently.
Quote:
Start your lobbying of Apple right now if you want that machine.  

Lemon Bon Bon.
Release time is in a few months, I'm figuring September / October time frame. When the machine launches I'm expecting a family of devices to go with it. Displays and disk arrays for one. So maybe we shouldn't lobby too hard until Apple has played all of its cards.

One thing though Apple really needs to make sure that second PCI Express SSD card slot is active. That little extra would make for a far more interesting machine. I do wonder though if they have enough lanes available. That is most certainly worth lobbying for right now.
Edited by wizard69 - 6/13/13 at 10:51pm
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