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 11

post #401 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Nice listing of machines. However you run up the price to fast. Try $750 increments for the first three and the $2000 for the last increment.

I have to agree with you also Apple is trying to maximize performance at the lowest possible price.

Actually, from looking about on the ol' Interwebz, taking in the pricing that has been bandied about here for the last week or so, and keeping in mind Apple's predilection for fat margins; I think the pricing I outlined (AND the specs as well…!!!) might be pretty spot on…!

 

The entry-level drops the price from the previous generation, with a configuration that can only be a huge step up from the aforementioned previous generations specs…

 

This is the model for the hobbyist, for the lower-level pro-sumer, for the gamers & the HTPC crowd; low price, good specs…

 

The GOOD model IS the undercover XMac…!

 

The BETTER model is the REAL entry point for the true Pros… The Pros that need to stretch a dollar, the students that want a relevant workstation…

 

The BEST model is for the Pros that can afford a few extra bucks, but do not want to go 'all crazy' with the ULTIMATE model…

 

And that ULTIMATE model, well, that is just AWESOME… It WILL sell to the Pros who NEED to crank thru work to get to the next billable project; the freelancer that NEEDS top end hardware and does not mind amortizing it over the next five years…

 

Apple will, of course, get pricing on the components lower that what is tossed about here, and that is okay since they will be buying in BULK…

 

Apple will become ATI's BIGGEST workstation-class GPU customer; so they can afford to give Apple some ultra low pricing on GPUs…

 

Same goes for all of the other 'custom' parts in this tube… The R&D is done, the designs are there, the production should be well under way… The more Apple sells during the projected 10 year lifespan of this design; the more they should be able to drive component pricing down…

 

So again, I think the pricing is spot on, with assumed component pricing & Apple margins considered…

 

And I still think these things will sell like the proverbial hotcake…!!!

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

Actually, from looking about on the ol' Interwebz, taking in the pricing that has been bandied about here for the last week or so, and keeping in mind Apple's predilection for fat margins; I think the pricing I outlined (AND the specs as well…!!!) might be pretty spot on…!

The entry-level drops the price from the previous generation, with a configuration that can only be a huge step up from the aforementioned previous generations specs…

This is the model for the hobbyist, for the lower-level pro-sumer, for the gamers & the HTPC crowd; low price, good specs…

The GOOD model IS the undercover XMac…!
Actually that would in some ways be more of an XMac than many have considered. I would prefer a larger SSD over two GPU cards.

I'm still holding out hope that Apple has an even lower cost model in the wings based around desktop parts and a single GPU. It should be easy to hit the $1500 range with this frame as the base. It need not be marketed as a Mac Pro either. The neat thing about this design is that the thermal core and other parts can be easily shortened for a jr. Model.
Quote:
The BETTER model is the REAL entry point for the true Pros… The Pros that need to stretch a dollar, the students that want a relevant workstation…

The BEST model is for the Pros that can afford a few extra bucks, but do not want to go 'all crazy' with the ULTIMATE model…

And that ULTIMATE model, well, that is just AWESOME… It WILL sell to the Pros who NEED to crank thru work to get to the next billable project; the freelancer that NEEDS top end hardware and does not mind amortizing it over the next five years…

Apple will, of course, get pricing on the components lower that what is tossed about here, and that is okay since they will be buying in BULK…
I could see Apple moving more FirePro GPUs than AMD has even dreamed of up until now.
Quote:
Apple will become ATI's BIGGEST workstation-class GPU customer; so they can afford to give Apple some ultra low pricing on GPUs…
Agreed! This is huge for AMD and hopeful will go to helping them re establish themselves in the CPU market.
Quote:
Same goes for all of the other 'custom' parts in this tube… The R&D is done, the designs are there, the production should be well under way… The more Apple sells during the projected 10 year lifespan of this design; the more they should be able to drive component pricing down…
Actually I'd be surprised if anything more than pilot production is happening now.
Quote:
So again, I think the pricing is spot on, with assumed component pricing & Apple margins considered…
Well a $2000 entry point would be far more reasonable than today's hardware. One thing I'm really hoping that they do is to wise up and populate that other PCI Express solder pad so that both GPU boards can have SSDs installed on them. With one extra SSD slot I wouldn't need any external storage expect for bulk storage and backup.
Quote:
And I still think these things will sell like the proverbial hotcake…!!!

Without a doubt. Well given that Apple doesn't get greedy with pricing. In many ways these come close to what I imagine would be an ideal computer for my use.
post #403 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post


 

Apple will become ATI's BIGGEST workstation-class GPU customer; so they can afford to give Apple some ultra low pricing on GPUs…

 

You guys seem to run with these assertions without any data. The only reason I might be able to see Apple carrying a certain amount of volume is that NVidia typically dominates that segment. Even then I wouldn't read so far into what this might be or its impact on retail pricing.

post #404 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

You guys seem to run with these assertions without any data. The only reason I might be able to see Apple carrying a certain amount of volume is that NVidia typically dominates that segment. Even then I wouldn't read so far into what this might be or its impact on retail pricing.

Well if apple moves 30,000 a quarter that is 60,000 GPUs. Not bad really and frankly I don't know what other manufactures move a quarter but it is likely spread across at least 4 manufactures. That would be 240,000 Workstation GPUs a year from one manufacture.
post #405 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

You guys seem to run with these assertions without any data. The only reason I might be able to see Apple carrying a certain amount of volume is that NVidia typically dominates that segment. Even then I wouldn't read so far into what this might be or its impact on retail pricing.

Well if apple moves 30,000 a quarter that is 60,000 GPUs. Not bad really and frankly I don't know what other manufactures move a quarter but it is likely spread across at least 4 manufactures. That would be 240,000 Workstation GPUs a year from one manufacture.

Even if Apple gave them an average of $150 profit per GPU and managed to sell 250k units per quarter with 2 GPUs each, that's $75m profit per quarter. AMD recently had to sell their HQ:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/03/amd-sells-its-austin-hq-for-164-million-to-raise-some-quick-cash/

so they could have a deal with Apple that benefits both of them. AMD's 10K filing shows how much money they make from GPUs:

http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-reportsannual

In 2012, they made $5.4b revenue, which is split $4b for CPUs and APUs and $1.4b standalone GPUs. Operating income was a loss of $231m from CPUs and profit of $105m from GPUs.

That's not just the case in 2012, their entire net revenue for GPUs for the last 3 years is about $1.5b/year. If you assume an average dedicated GPU retails for about $200, that's 7.5m units across all manufacturers in a year where 350m units are sold. If the average price is higher, the volumes are very low. If Apple can cover 1 million Mac Pros a year with 2 GPUs each with each GPU no less than $400, Apple alone can increase their revenue by 50% and have a much larger impact on profits.
post #406 of 1290
Thanks for the effort, I would never bother to do such detailed research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Even if Apple gave them an average of $150 profit per GPU and managed to sell 250k units per quarter with 2 GPUs each, that's $75m profit per quarter. AMD recently had to sell their HQ:
Is 250K Mac Pros a quarter realistic? If it is that is 500K GPUs a quarter which is far more than I would guess at given the dismal nature of Mac Pro sales. Given that I believe the Mac Pro can bump sales a bit when it hits the market.

I'm going out on a limb here and will suggest that the FirePro cards don't cost AMD that much more to physically build than the top end desktop cards. By that measure I'm really of the opinion that Apple could put these cards into Apples hands for somewhere between $450 and $500 each. That with your $150 profit for each card for AMD. That would be huge for AMD and frankly I don't see any other single vendor offer such an opportunity to AMD.
Quote:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/03/amd-sells-its-austin-hq-for-164-million-to-raise-some-quick-cash/

so they could have a deal with Apple that benefits both of them. AMD's 10K filing shows how much money they make from GPUs:

http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-reportsannual
For me reading annual reports is a lot like self flicked torture. So I will take your word for it.
Quote:
In 2012, they made $5.4b revenue, which is split $4b for CPUs and APUs and $1.4b standalone GPUs. Operating income was a loss of $231m from CPUs and profit of $105m from GPUs.

That's not just the case in 2012, their entire net revenue for GPUs for the last 3 years is about $1.5b/year. If you assume an average dedicated GPU retails for about $200, that's 7.5m units across all manufacturers in a year where 350m units are sold. If the average price is higher, the volumes are very low. If Apple can cover 1 million Mac Pros a year with 2 GPUs each with each GPU no less than $400, Apple alone can increase their revenue by 50% and have a much larger impact on profits.

The real question is can Apple sell that many units per year. Even if they don't they will still impact AMD very positively. For AMD this will also become a bit of a halo effect for one they are now associated with Apples top of the line Mac. Second people will be writing lots of code with these GPUs as targets. OpenCL should make that code portable to other systems so AMDs GPUs could also become associated with hi performance OpenCL in a way that no other GPU is. This project will bring positive notice upon AMD and the capabilities of their GPUs.

In the end I don't have real numbers because I don't know how many Mac Pros move a quarter now, nor do I know what the future holds for the New Mac Pro. If the customer base is open minded I could see Apple having a very positive upside in sales. 250K seems like a lot though. If the number is realistic there must be accountants at AMD with big smiles on their faces. AMD will win with this even if the discount is stiff due to volume. I could see the equivalent of $750 retail FirePro cards going to Apple for as little as $250 wholesale, these being put into the "entry" level machine.

In any event I don't think it is even possible to guess at Apple marketing strategy here. I still think it is possible for them to have a low end entry that hits the $2000 mark if they wanted too.
post #407 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

…low end entry that hits the $2000 mark…

Xeon E5 v2 4-core CPU

16GB ECC DDR3 RAM

256GB PCIe Flash SSD

(2) ATI W5000 FirePro GPUs w/2GB GDDR5 RAM

 

;^p

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

Xeon E5 v2 4-core CPU
16GB ECC DDR3 RAM
256GB PCIe Flash SSD
(2) ATI W5000 FirePro GPUs w/2GB GDDR5 RAM

;^p

Honestly I'm expecting something like this. It would need a larger SSD in the base model but I don't think that is a problem given that Apple has the option available for the AIRs. It is actually cheap for the BTO option on the Airs (well cheap given Apples history with upgrades).

Frankly this is more machine than I wanted in the XMac, but it is affordable at this price. As to that $2000 mark Apple should be able to either hit or come in below with this hardware configuration and still make their profit.
post #409 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
 Second people will be writing lots of code with these GPUs as targets. OpenCL should make that code portable to other systems so AMDs GPUs could also become associated with hi performance OpenCL in a way that no other GPU is. This project will bring positive notice upon AMD and the capabilities of their GPUs.

OpenCL is also available on Nvidia GPU's. Nvidia supports CUDA as well so you have more of a choice with their cards. Not saying AMD doesn't make great cards, they do but you can't associate OpenCL with just one vendor.

 

This is also interesting;

 

AMD thinks most programmers will not use CUDA or OpenCL

Familiarity breeds aversion
Mon Mar 25 2013, 10:27
AMD logo

CHIP DESIGNER AMD believes that most software developers won't use CUDA or OpenCL to create code that runs on the GPU.

AMD has spent a lot of effort promoting OpenCL in the hope that developers will make use of the GPGPU in the firm's accelerated processing units (APUs). However the firm thinks most developers will shun GPGPU specific languages such as CUDA and OpenCL and stick with what they already know.

Margaret Lewis, director of software for AMD's server business unit, said that while OpenCL abstracted the GPU architecture to a degree, developers still require knowledge of how the GPU works.

"When you look at a world when people were graphics programmers to begin with, they understood the make-up of the GPU, they could use CUDA and OpenCL because they were familiar with it," she said. "Even though OpenCL abstracted it a bit, it still required you to have some fundamental knowledge of the GPU end for you to do a good job with either CUDA or OpenCL."

AMD believes that only a relatively small subset of developers that work on operating systems and produce libraries will use CUDA or OpenCL. Lewis said OpenCL is a good tool for them and that is part of the reason behind why AMD and other vendors such as Intel and Apple have been pushing the language.

"What we're trying to do is go a level higher, but for those people that need to do OpenCL, there are many different companies supporting OpenCL," Lewis said. "This is a good tool, but we're using that tool with tool developers, OS developers and library developers so that the majority of the programmers in the world will use whatever they are using today to do their code and their code will then be able to address CPUs or GPUs depending on what's in their system."

Effectively what Lewis is saying is that neither AMD nor Nvidia can get away with prescribing a programming language to developers and expect widespread adoption. While AMD has worked hard to drive OpenCL, as Nvidia has with CUDA, both companies are now looking at delivering the performance advantages of using those two languages and incorporating them into languages such as Java, Python and R. µ

 

As a programmer myself I also prefer using the already awesome Python OpenCL/CUDA libraries instead of writing them myself.

http://enja.org/2011/02/22/adventures-in-pyopencl-part-1-getting-started-with-python/

http://srossross.github.io/oclpb/

OpenCL is also now available for Android, AMD is going to release a SDK for their Tegra 4 CPU/GPU. I think I just might have to grab one of these, you know for my son;

 

 


Edited by Relic - 6/20/13 at 6:46am
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 #410 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Is 250K Mac Pros a quarter realistic? If it is that is 500K GPUs a quarter which is far more than I would guess at given the dismal nature of Mac Pro sales.

There was a stats breakdown of the workstation market here for 2011:

http://www.deskeng.com/virtual_desktop/?p=5233

That showed Apple at 22% and the workstation market is 1 million units per quarter so 250k for a new model is entirely realistic. Apple's total Macs per quarter are about 4-5 million and 25-35% are desktops so around 1.25 million desktops. The iMac makes up the bulk of those so perhaps 250k for the Pros is on the high side but it'll still have a noticeable impact on AMD and this is an entirely new Mac Pro after 10 years of the same design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I'm going out on a limb here and will suggest that the FirePro cards don't cost AMD that much more to physically build than the top end desktop cards. By that measure I'm really of the opinion that Apple could put these cards into Apples hands for somewhere between $450 and $500 each. That with your $150 profit for each card for AMD. That would be huge for AMD and frankly I don't see any other single vendor offer such an opportunity to AMD.

The good thing Apple does is that they pick just a few options. Other workstation vendors offer choices of about 10 different GPUs in single/dual configs including no GPUs at all so they can't guarantee what profits they'll pass onto a company like AMD. Apple can say to AMD 'here's how many Mac Pros we sell and every single one will ship with two AMD GPUs so what's the best price you'll give us for these?'. That will allow them to offer these GPUs at prices nobody else can match. I don't think they need to match desktop GPU prices but at the same time, there's no need to come close to the $3k retail prices.

If they even managed to get sort of a 2-for-1 deal, they might even manage to get the 12-core dual-W9000 out for under $7k, which is really competitive.
post #411 of 1290

I think Apple will offer four choices for each 'slot' in the performance areas of this new workstation…

 

CPUs will (obviously) be Xeon E5 v2 units, with the number of cores differentiating them:

 

4-core

6-core

8-core

12-core

 

(I do not think Apple will have speed differentials in the CPUs, just the number of cores will be the variable)

 

RAM will be quad-channel DDR3 1866MHz EEC:

 

16GB

32GB

64GB

128GB

 

Boot volume/primary storage will be a single PCIe Flash RAM SSD, in four sizes:

 

256GB

512GB

768GB

1TB

 

(many are hoping for that second 'socket' to be made available, but maybe there are not enough PCIe lanes available to support it?)

 

And the big chunk of the paradigm shift in these units, the GPUs, will all be from the ATI (AMD) FirePro W-series of GPUs:

 

(2) FirePro W5000 GPUs w/2GB GDDR5 RAM

(2) FirePro W7000 GPUs w/4GB GDDR5 RAM

(2) FirePro W8000 GPUs w/4GB GDDR5 ECC RAM

(2) FirePro W9000 GPUs w/6GB GDDR5 ECC RAM

 

So, four standard configurations:

 

GOOD

US$2,000.00

 

BETTER

US$3,500.00

 

BEST

US$5,000.00

 

ULTIMATE

US$7,500.00

 

But, BTO should allow some variables in the end-user choice of configuration…

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 #412 of 1290

If it starts at $2,000 it should sell well. Lots of the Pro buyers (including myself) usually buy the minimum config and upgrade over time.

 

A four-core Xeon should outpace the top-end iMac handily right? Print may move back to the Pro after all. 1biggrin.gif

 

Though buying RAM through Apple is insane, it may be worth it to upgrade the Flash RAM SSD, given that Apple sometimes gets prices on these things that are quite competitive.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #413 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

I am going to go ahead and assume you are taking this from that 'netcast' video he had up the week of the new Mac Pro being announced…

 

This would be the same netcast where neither he, nor any of the three other people in the room, nor the guy that was also 'there' via video chat ; could be bothered to correct themselves when one of them stated that the new Mac Pro had a bunch of USB & FireWire ports for expansion…

 

Yeah, they could not recognize that Phil made a verbal mistake in the keynote…

 

Laporte then went on to denigrate the machine due to its compact size, and then suggest that it would be nothing more than a stylish HTPC, but overpriced…

 

Apple is not going to go thru the effort of R&D-ing this thing just to overprice the entry point and lose more pro customers to linux or windows…

 

GOOD

Xeon E5 v2 4-core CPU

16GB DDR3 ECC RAM

256GB PCIe Flash SSD

Dual ATI FirePro W5000 GPUs w/2GB GDDR5 RAM

US$2,000.00

 

 

BETTER

Xeon E5 v2 6-core CPU

32GB DDR3 RAM

512GB PCIe Flash SSD

Dual ATI FirePro W7000 GPUs w/4GB GDDR5 RAM

US$3,500.00

 

 

BEST

Xeon E5 v2 8-core CPU

64GB DDR3 ECC RAM

768GB PCIe Flash SDD

Dual ATI FirePro W8000 GPUs w/4GB GDDR5 RAM

US$5,000.00

 

 

ULTIMATE

Xeon E5 v2 12-core CPU

128GB DDR3 ECC RAM

1TB PCIe Flash SSD

Dual ATI FirePro W9000 GPUs w/6GB GDDR5 RAM

US$7,500.00

 

Mac Ronin, you've done a good job of configuring the 4 models there.  Well done.  Good effort.

 

I'm intrigued by the entry model of course.  But I wonder if it could have a hex core in it...  Still, for the $2000 price...you get a machine that puts the Pro back in the 'X Mac' class fight.  A machine we've not really seen...since...well, the G3 Blue and White days.

 

1292.99 (at $2000) would be a cracking entry model.  (By the time you take off the 27 inch monitor off the iMac that seems like a reasonable entry price.)  Will Apple do it?  History says they can.  You get an extra GPU, a modest SSD instead of the iMac's monitor.  (And the pro is still £200 higher...for the entry.)

 

but then...you leap to the £2,262.74 price..!  That's quite a gap from the Quad to the HEx? vO.o

 

But the four models seem nicely worked out in principal.  I can't see Apple offering the entry for £1300 (even though I think they should!)  £1695 for the Hex..?  £2195 for the 8 core (they've sold dual quads below £2k before now...in fact, didn't they once have two(!) dual quads below £2k back in the day?  Closer to £3k for the 12 core.

 

A sane priced line up to get them back in the game in the Pro market?  Surely they've got to offer compelling value to the Pro market?  If they offer the same old prices...maybe it won't be enough to tempt previous defectors, switchers or even current owners to upgrade.  Will the extra GPU and SSD speed be worth it?  This isn't the old dark PPC days.  Apple can no command much greater scale of economy and buying power.

 

£1295 Quad.

£1695 Hex.

£2195 Octo.

£2995 Twelve Core.

 

That would be an aggressive line up with SSD standard and dual GPUs.  Apple would still make gravy on the 4k £999(?) monitor they bring to the market?

 

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 #414 of 1290
Quote:

A four-core Xeon should outpace the top-end iMac handily right? Print may move back to the Pro after all. 1biggrin.gif

 

That remains to be seen.  The current iMac more than competitive for the old Hexcore Pro.

 

Let's see those benches on the quads to the 12 core...

 

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

I think Apple will offer four choices for each 'slot' in the performance areas of this new workstation…

They've done that in the past but I think they can just have a single configuration page and let people choose. I don't think anyone buying these machines fits into easily defined categories. It wouldn't make sense for them to force dual W9000s on people who are buying for CPU performance.

If they want a separate server model, they'd just have two and spec them separately but I think OS X Server can be BTO in every machine and selecting it would mean OS X server came preinstalled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

(I do not think Apple will have speed differentials in the CPUs, just the number of cores will be the variable)

They'd probably be best picking the best value CPUs at each core count but definitely keep the options to a minimum for inventory. There will be 10-core CPUs so possibly 4,6,8,10,12.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

128GB

RAM will top out at 64GB as there are only 4 RAM slots. They will be able to offer 128GB with DDR4 in future but that amount of RAM is about $1500 3rd party - Apple charges $1950 for 64GB, so they'd charge at least $3900 for 128GB.
post #416 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

OpenCL is also available on Nvidia GPU's. Nvidia supports CUDA as well so you have more of a choice with their cards. Not saying AMD doesn't make great cards, they do but you can't associate OpenCL with just one vendor.
That isn't what I was implying at all. The point I was trying to make is that AMD will get a lot of recognition for the compute ability of its GPUs by being widely deployed on the new Mac Pro. This is especially so due to apps and libraries written to leverage OpenCL and the AMD GPUs. In a nut shell this is a huge win for AMD and will highlight their hardware
Quote:
This is also interesting;



CHIP DESIGNER AMD believes that most software developers won't use CUDA or OpenCL to create code that runs on the GPU.

It depends upon the programmer and the app if OpenCL is used directly. Of course if you are using a library built with OpenCL you are using OpenCL even if you avoid writing the low level code yourself.
Quote:

AMD has spent a lot of effort promoting OpenCL in the hope that developers will make use of the GPGPU in the firm's accelerated processing units (APUs). However the firm thinks most developers will shun GPGPU specific languages such as CUDA and OpenCL and stick with what they already know.



Margaret Lewis, director of software for AMD's server business unit, said that while OpenCL abstracted the GPU architecture to a degree, developers still require knowledge of how the GPU works.



"When you look at a world when people were graphics programmers to begin with, they understood the make-up of the GPU, they could use CUDA and OpenCL because they were familiar with it," she said. "Even though OpenCL abstracted it a bit, it still required you to have some fundamental knowledge of the GPU end for you to do a good job with either CUDA or OpenCL."



AMD believes that only a relatively small subset of developers that work on operating systems and produce libraries will use CUDA or OpenCL. Lewis said OpenCL is a good tool for them and that is part of the reason behind why AMD and other vendors such as Intel and Apple have been pushing the language.



"What we're trying to do is go a level higher, but for those people that need to do OpenCL, there are many different companies supporting OpenCL," Lewis said. "This is a good tool, but we're using that tool with tool developers, OS developers and library developers so that the majority of the programmers in the world will use whatever they are using today to do their code and their code will then be able to address CPUs or GPUs depending on what's in their system."



Effectively what Lewis is saying is that neither AMD nor Nvidia can get away with prescribing a programming language to developers and expect widespread adoption. While AMD has worked hard to drive OpenCL, as Nvidia has with CUDA, both companies are now looking at delivering the performance advantages of using those two languages and incorporating them into languages such as Java, Python and R. µ



 



As a programmer myself I also prefer using the already awesome Python OpenCL/CUDA libraries instead of writing them myself.

Which is fine, however you are still using OpenCL and GPU compute to accelerate your apps even if that is abstracted away with a Python lib. This goes to support my point though, Apple is giving programmer a strong reason to use OpenCL by having this hardware in the Mac. The AMD hardware should perform in an outstanding manor thus the comment about this being a big positive for AMD.
Quote:

OpenCL is also now available for Android, AMD is going to release a SDK for their Tegra 4 CPU/GPU. I think I just might have to grab one of these, you know for my son;









post #417 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


There was a stats breakdown of the workstation market here for 2011:

http://www.deskeng.com/virtual_desktop/?p=5233

That showed Apple at 22% and the workstation market is 1 million units per quarter so 250k for a new model is entirely realistic. Apple's total Macs per quarter are about 4-5 million and 25-35% are desktops so around 1.25 million desktops. The iMac makes up the bulk of those so perhaps 250k for the Pros is on the high side but it'll still have a noticeable impact on AMD and this is an entirely new Mac Pro after 10 years of the same design.
The good thing Apple does is that they pick just a few options. Other workstation vendors offer choices of about 10 different GPUs in single/dual configs including no GPUs at all so they can't guarantee what profits they'll pass onto a company like AMD. Apple can say to AMD 'here's how many Mac Pros we sell and every single one will ship with two AMD GPUs so what's the best price you'll give us for these?'. That will allow them to offer these GPUs at prices nobody else can match. I don't think they need to match desktop GPU prices but at the same time, there's no need to come close to the $3k retail prices.

If they even managed to get sort of a 2-for-1 deal, they might even manage to get the 12-core dual-W9000 out for under $7k, which is really competitive.

 

Well, here's another more recent breakdown of the workstation market from the same source:

 

http://jonpeddie.com/publications/workstation_report/

 

Apple is not in the top four, but somewhere down amongst the 11% of  "others", and a long way behind hp, Dell and Lenovo. Don't know where the 22% came from - maybe someone went mad while drawing that piechart. The later breakdown is much more believable, and suggests that 250k per quarter for the MacPro is not at all realistic.

post #418 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post

Well, here's another more recent breakdown of the workstation market from the same source:

http://jonpeddie.com/publications/workstation_report/

Apple is not in the top four, but somewhere down amongst the 11% of  "others", and a long way behind hp, Dell and Lenovo. Don't know where the 22% came from - maybe someone went mad while drawing that piechart. The later breakdown is much more believable, and suggests that 250k per quarter for the MacPro is not at all realistic.

It's not clear if they are including Apple there as some of their graphs exclude them, one of the diagrams in their report is titled "Table 4 Historical share of Windows and Linux in x86 based workstations (Apple platforms not included)". I think they skip IBM sometimes too. Here, they mention excluding Apple in 2012 reports:

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/418526/apple_mac_pro_users_clamor_hardware_upgrade/

"Apple bristles at the notion of comparing Mac Pros to generic workstations and doesn't provide shipment numbers for the product, Herrera said. JPR (Jon Peddie Research) this week issued workstation shipment numbers for last year's fourth quarter, but did not include Apple's numbers. Herrera estimated that Mac Pro shipments are likely in the ballpark of workstations shipped by HP, which had a 41.3 percent market share in the fourth quarter, and Dell, which held a 33.4 percent share."

Still, the shipment units won't stay the same throughout the refresh cycle. The above site even mentioned that Apple's share was higher than 22% the year before in 2010. The last real update to the Mac Pro was in 2010. The 2012 update used the same 2010 hardware so the current Mac Pro is about 3 years old. Apple also stopped selling the Mac Pro in Europe mid-Q1 2013.

FCPX came out mid-2011 and caused some migration to other platforms, which Dell and HP have taken advantage of:

http://en.community.dell.com/dell-blogs/direct2dell/b/direct2dell/archive/2012/12/27/mac-users-continue-to-switch-to-dell-precision-workstations-for-professional-video-editing.aspx




Some Mac Pro owners will just be holding onto the ones they have and not buying new ones because they are so outdated now. 250k per quarter may be on the high side but it's the first major design change in 10 years and has had a lot of publicity. We'll probably never find out the actual numbers but it might be possible to work it out from AMD's financial reports and Apple's Mac shipment figures.
post #419 of 1290

Apple seem to like having only 2 default configs for each Mac these days (counting different notebook screen sizes as different Macs). 

Also I don't think there will be a quad core Mac Pro as quad is the new normal, it would be like the current gen. having a dual core. Guesses:

 

Low end:

- 6-core Xeon

- 16GB RAM

- 512GB Flash

- 2 x 3GB video cards

$4,000

 

High end:

- 12-core Xeon

- 32GB RAM

- 1TB Flash

- 2 x 6GB video cards

$6,000

 

CTO options with more RAM, more Flash, and 4K Cinema Display.

post #420 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Low end:
- 16GB RAM

I... would temper that thought. 1frown.gif

Originally Posted by helia

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

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #421 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


I... would temper that thought. 1frown.gif

That was one of the things I was surer of... even the Macbook Pro has a 16GB RAM default config now (admittedly the high end one).

post #422 of 1290
I think 16GB RAM will indeed be the default. If there really are four slots they'll probably insert 4GB sticks. So, useless if you want to upgrade.

Flash storage and GPU? Sounds really acceptable.

$4,000? No idea. Completely blank in my head.

Doubling all specs for $2k more...hmm, sounds cheap, yet I think you might be right. Not on the price, since I have no idea on the price for the lower end, but the difference, percentage-wise, yes.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #423 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I think 16GB RAM will indeed be the default. If there really are four slots they'll probably insert 4GB sticks. So, useless if you want to upgrade.

Flash storage and GPU? Sounds really acceptable.

$4,000? No idea. Completely blank in my head.

Doubling all specs for $2k more...hmm, sounds cheap, yet I think you might be right. Not on the price, since I have no idea on the price for the lower end, but the difference, percentage-wise, yes.

Yep it will be tough for upgraders but I think it is a quad-channel memory architecture so it has to be 4 modules to get full performance...

post #424 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Apple seem to like having only 2 default configs for each Mac these days (counting different notebook screen sizes as different Macs). 

Also I don't think there will be a quad core Mac Pro as quad is the new normal, it would be like the current gen. having a dual core. Guesses:

 

Low end:

- 6-core Xeon

- 16GB RAM

- 512GB Flash

- 2 x 3GB video cards

$4,000

 

High end:

- 12-core Xeon

- 32GB RAM

- 1TB Flash

- 2 x 6GB video cards

$6,000

 

CTO options with more RAM, more Flash, and 4K Cinema Display.

That low end is not low enough…

 

I prefer the older 4 config Apple… GOOD, BETTER, BEST & ULTIMATE…

 

And I know I have listed these before, but I am going to do it again!

 

With a change though, I think it was wizard69 who said there could be 10-core CPUs, so I am moving my low end (GOOD) config up to 6-core CPUs & adjusting up from there… I am also adjusting my boot volume/primary storage options…

 

This would also differentiate the Pro line, as (hopefully) Apple will keep the consumer models of Macs to 4-core CPUs…

 

Of course, a 6-core mobile CPU could be in the MacBook Pro, because it is also a Pro unit…

 

I think that Apple could bring in a solid low end entry level workstation for US$2,000.00…

 

GOOD CONFIGURATION

Xeon E5 v2 6-core CPU

16GB DDR3 ECC RAM

512GB PCIe Flash RAM SSD

(2) ATI (AMD) FirePro W5000 GPUs w/2GB GDDR5 RAM

US$2,000.00

 

BETTER CONFIGURATION

Xeon E5 v2 8-core CPU

32GB DDR3 ECC RAM

768GB PCIe Flash RAM SSD

(2) ATI (AMD) FirePro W7000 GPUs w/4GB GDDR5 RAM

US$3,500.00

 

BEST CONFIGURATION

Xeon E5 v2 10-core CPU

64GB DDR3 ECC RAM

1TB PCIe Flash RAM SSD

(2) ATI (AMD) FirePro W8000 GPUs w/4GB GDDR5 ECC RAM

US$5,000.00

 

ULTIMATE CONFIGURATION

Xeon E5 v2 12-core CPU

128GB DDR3 ECC RAM

1.5TB PCIe Flash RAM SSD

(2) ATI (AMD) FirePro W9000 GPUs w/6GB GDDR5 ECC RAM

US$7,500.00

 

I feel these are SOLID configurations, at a decent price point; one that gives the Pro users a good value for the dollar yet still allows Apple a margin for profit…

 

EDITED TO ADD: Of course, these are base-line configurations. Apple should make each section BTO, meaning one can either just order a pre-configured unit (READY TO SHIP!) or pick & choose from the four different performance categories…


Edited by MacRonin - 6/21/13 at 11:18am
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 #425 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

That low end is not low enough…

 

I prefer the older 4 config Apple… GOOD, BETTER, BEST & ULTIMATE…

 

And I know I have listed these before, but I am going to do it again!

I hope you're right about those prices but I will be surprised if they come in at $2k. The top iMac is $2k and I would expect *some* gap.

post #426 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I hope you're right about those prices but I will be surprised if they come in at $2k. The top iMac is $2k and I would expect *some* gap.

There IS a gap…

 

The iMac has a built-in monitor, the Mac Pro does not…

 

To (roughly) 'match specs', one needs to add in a 27" Thunderbolt Display; which would bring the entry-level Mac Pro (with ADDED monitor) to a US$3,000.00 price point… Which makes it a US$1,000.00 gap in pricing between the two units…

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 #427 of 1290
You would not necessarily need a first party monitor. Drop $30 for a Thunderbolt to DVI adapter and grab any decent screen from Newegg. Only those who require 100% color accuracy need to spend more.

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply
post #428 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I will be surprised if they come in at $2k. The top iMac is $2k and I would expect *some* gap.

I think it would help sales if they could start at $1999 but people who want a Mac Pro will buy the minimum anyway. They could go with Sandy Bridge CPUs on the entry model:

E5-2609 4-core ($294) or E5-2620 ($406) +35% markup on CPUs
8GB RAM (4x 2GB) $300
256GB SSD $300
Dual W5000 - the spec is close to a Radeon 7770, which costs ~$150 retail, FirePro is ~$450. Two will be no less than $300 and no more than $900.
The enclosure, PSU, motherboard, wifi, bluetooth etc I'd estimate at $300 with 35% markup.

If the GPUs are $600 for both and they go with the quad-core, they can hit $2k. Top-end performance/base storage would be:

E5-2697 v2 ($2057) +35% markup
8GB RAM $300
256GB $300
Dual W9000 - spec close to a 7970, which is about $450 retail, FirePro is ~$3k. This makes a pretty wide possible range of $900-6000.
Same enclosure costs.

Say it hits that same mid-point for the GPUs so around $3500 for two W9000 GPUs. That's about $7k for the whole machine. I don't think they'd manage the same $6k top spec/base storage as before but that all depends on how low AMD went.

Absolute maximum spec would be 64GB RAM as there are only 4 slots, which Apple charges $1950 for now and I'd say 1.5TB SSD as it's double their current 768GB (they do offer 2TB SSD in 4 bays just now though) and that would be $1500-2000. Assuming the GPUs are around $3500 (which would be surprising but nice), that would max out around $10.5k, which is the same as it is now.
post #429 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos View Post

You would not necessarily need a first party monitor. Drop $30 for a Thunderbolt to DVI adapter and grab any decent screen from Newegg. Only those who require 100% color accuracy need to spend more.

I was delineating what makes 'the gap' between the top-end iMac & the entry-level Mac Pro. To get one (roughly) equal with the other, an Apple 27" Thunderbolt Display is needed. Remember, the 27" TBD also has speakers & an iSight camera, AND is a port replicator/docking station. Which means more bang for the buck…

 

Personally, for a Mac Pro (and in a Pro user context, DCC/3D/video editing/compositing/etc.) I would want an Apple 27" Thunderbolt Display AND a Wacom 24" Cintiq 24HD touch monitor. Unless, of course, Apple updates its monitor lineup with a 4K Thunderbolt 2 Display (I would think anywhere from the current 27" up to a 32" model is possible). But the Cintiq is still a must have! The Computer Animation lab at RSAD is filled with them & they are awesome to work with…

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 #430 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos View Post

You would not necessarily need a first party monitor. Drop $30 for a Thunderbolt to DVI adapter and grab any decent screen from Newegg. Only those who require 100% color accuracy need to spend more.

You would need a mini displayport to dvi adapter. Thunderbolt specific stuff doesn't work for non- thunderbolt displays unless something changed. This was well documented early on. You might be able to use displayport daisy chaining with compliant models once thunderbolt 2 hits, as it's supposed to support displayport 1.2. Displayport 1.2 has that protocol. Of course the display itself has to support that. I'm not sure whether different color profiles register properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

 

Personally, for a Mac Pro (and in a Pro user context, DCC/3D/video editing/compositing/etc.) I would want an Apple 27" Thunderbolt Display AND a Wacom 24" Cintiq 24HD touch monitor. Unless, of course, Apple updates its monitor lineup with a 4K Thunderbolt 2 Display (I would think anywhere from the current 27" up to a 32" model is possible). But the Cintiq is still a must have! The Computer Animation lab at RSAD is filled with them & they are awesome to work with…

I like cintiqs too. I prefer to use my shoulder for larger strokes and wrist movements for smaller ones. Small tablets force too much movement down to the finger level, which is bad for me. It's also nice being able to angle it like a drafting table.

post #431 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


I think it would help sales if they could start at $1999 but people who want a Mac Pro will buy the minimum anyway. They could go with Sandy Bridge CPUs on the entry model:

 

That is unlikely. It happened last time because intel didn't release a complete westmere lineup. All oems filled in with nehalem. Ivy still has a quad core model, so there's nothing to gain by going with the prior generation. I would be surprised if quad ivy was much more expensive than quad sandy.

post #432 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Apple seem to like having only 2 default configs for each Mac these days (counting different notebook screen sizes as different Macs). 
It is probably just as well especially if BTO options are more reasonable.
Quote:
Also I don't think there will be a quad core Mac Pro as quad is the new normal, it would be like the current gen. having a dual core. Guesses:

Low end:
- 6-core Xeon
- 16GB RAM
- 512GB Flash
- 2 x 3GB video cards
$4,000
Far too expensive. For one a 6 core Xeon isn't anymore difficult for Intel than a quad core with a GPU. They may charge more for a high clock rate version but that might not last long as six cores are quickly becoming the norm in the server world. 16 GB of RAM is cheap these days, even registered ECC RAM. The interesting thing here is that by reducing the number of RAM sockets they may eliminate the need for registered RAM. In the MB Airs they are only charging $300 for a SSD upgrade to 512 MB, that is damn cheap for Apple. Asto video cards there is so much variability here that you could cost them anywhere in the ball park.

Given the above I see pricing in the range of $2000 to $2500 for such a model. Mind you the parts will be selected for cost in the entry level model.
Quote:
High end:
- 12-core Xeon
- 32GB RAM
- 1TB Flash
- 2 x 6GB video cards
$6,000
The above might be nice as a $5000 machine if the RAM is doubled.
Quote:
CTO options with more RAM, more Flash, and 4K Cinema Display.
post #433 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think it would help sales if they could start at $1999 but people who want a Mac Pro will buy the minimum anyway. They could go with Sandy Bridge CPUs on the entry model:
I see a starting price at or preferably below $2000 as an imperative. To generate strong sales Apple needs to shake up the market.
Quote:
E5-2609 4-core ($294) or E5-2620 ($406) +35% markup on CPUs
Apple would likely be getting nice volume discounts on those chips. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Apple go this route. While not ideal the performance delta might not be that great. I'd love to see a surprise delivery of Haswell based chips in the fall tied to this machine. Wishful thinking I know.
Quote:
8GB RAM (4x 2GB) $300
RAM DIMMS in 8GB size are less than $100. That is for registered ECC RAM. I'm not even sure if this design requires registered RAM. If Apple wanted to be nice they could ship the machine with two of these DIMMs leaving two slots open for future expansion..
Quote:
256GB SSD $300
Even that is pretty stiff price wise considering what we are seeing in the Air. The SSDs in the Airs would be more than good enough in an entry level machine.
Quote:
Dual W5000 - the spec is close to a Radeon 7770, which costs ~$150 retail, FirePro is ~$450. Two will be no less than $300 and no more than $900.
This is possibly the most difficult one to estimate. Being a completely custom card the dou of Apple and AMD could price the cards at almost any price. Obviously at least one of the cards acts as an expansion slot.
Quote:
The enclosure, PSU, motherboard, wifi, bluetooth etc I'd estimate at $300 with 35% markup.
Actually I'm thinking a bit more. One issue is that extrusions aren't cheap relatively
Quote:
If the GPUs are $600 for both and they go with the quad-core, they can hit $2k. Top-end performance/base storage would be:
I have to agree an entry level machine <= $2000 is very doable. It would offer good performance at that price point too.
Quote:
E5-2697 v2 ($2057) +35% markup
8GB RAM $300
256GB $300
Dual W9000 - spec close to a 7970, which is about $450 retail, FirePro is ~$3k. This makes a pretty wide possible range of $900-6000.
Same enclosure costs.

Say it hits that same mid-point for the GPUs so around $3500 for two W9000 GPUs. That's about $7k for the whole machine. I don't think they'd manage the same $6k top spec/base storage as before but that all depends on how low AMD went.

Absolute maximum spec would be 64GB RAM as there are only 4 slots, which Apple charges $1950 for now and I'd say 1.5TB SSD as it's double their current 768GB (they do offer 2TB SSD in 4 bays just now though) and that would be $1500-2000. Assuming the GPUs are around $3500 (which would be surprising but nice), that would max out around $10.5k, which is the same as it is now.

The permutations are really impressive when you think about it. This is a huge opportunity for AMD to get a lot of high performance product out there on a very visible platform. I see a volume that is large enough for AMD to be very flexible pricing wise.
post #434 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The permutations are really impressive when you think about it. This is a huge opportunity for AMD to get a lot of high performance product out there on a very visible platform. I see a volume that is large enough for AMD to be very flexible pricing wise.

I think they have some flexibility. The chips in workstation gpus are largely the same as those used in gaming cards. Markups are much higher, but they have to make back development costs based on smaller numbers. I'm not sure workstation card sales are anywhere near the percentage of profits for AMD that they are for NVidia, and I suspect the costs of cards like the W9000 may come down by late in the current year or early next year anyway. Workstation gpus are typically sold over long cycles, but they don't always stay the same price. As for the ram comment, it will probably remain a cto option. You can always purchase for less after market. I always memtest memory prior to putting a machine back in service anyway. Dimms aren't that expensive, but I suspect Apple will go for 2x 4GB chips. This is because they usually fill all channels in their shipping machines. The current ones use tri-channel memory. They come up with 3 dimms by default. Anyway it could be a good system, but I hate having to add more external storage. Apple used to tout their towers as being nearly silent. I can't remember the exact language, but it started with the G5 era. External DAS boxes are not so quiet. The ones with cheap fans are the worst, but they generate some noise regardless. Using two rather than just one for backup increases that noise factor. I do hope they went large enough for the base machine to at least remain somewhat quiet.

post #435 of 1290
With respect to storage arrays I'm hoping Apple offers a suitable solution that isn't too expensive. An ideal design would be an enclosure that the new Mac Pro sits upon. I understand your concern as to noise but realize with TB the hardware doesn't even have to be in the same room. For secondary storage TB offers more flexibility than any other solution. The only gotcha there is pricing of current TB solution which Apple can impact by agressive pricing of a simple solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I think they have some flexibility. The chips in workstation gpus are largely the same as those used in gaming cards. Markups are much higher, but they have to make back development costs based on smaller numbers. I'm not sure workstation card sales are anywhere near the percentage of profits for AMD that they are for NVidia, and I suspect the costs of cards like the W9000 may come down by late in the current year or early next year anyway. Workstation gpus are typically sold over long cycles, but they don't always stay the same price. As for the ram comment, it will probably remain a cto option. You can always purchase for less after market. I always memtest memory prior to putting a machine back in service anyway. Dimms aren't that expensive, but I suspect Apple will go for 2x 4GB chips. This is because they usually fill all channels in their shipping machines. The current ones use tri-channel memory. They come up with 3 dimms by default. Anyway it could be a good system, but I hate having to add more external storage. Apple used to tout their towers as being nearly silent. I can't remember the exact language, but it started with the G5 era. External DAS boxes are not so quiet. The ones with cheap fans are the worst, but they generate some noise regardless. Using two rather than just one for backup increases that noise factor. I do hope they went large enough for the base machine to at least remain somewhat quiet.
post #436 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

I am going to go ahead and assume you are taking this from that 'netcast' video he had up the week of the new Mac Pro being announced…

 

This would be the same netcast where neither he, nor any of the three other people in the room, nor the guy that was also 'there' via video chat ; could be bothered to correct themselves when one of them stated that the new Mac Pro had a bunch of USB & FireWire ports for expansion…

 

Yeah, they could not recognize that Phil made a verbal mistake in the keynote…

 

Laporte then went on to denigrate the machine due to its compact size, and then suggest that it would be nothing more than a stylish HTPC, but overpriced…

 

Apple is not going to go thru the effort of R&D-ing this thing just to overprice the entry point and lose more pro customers to linux or windows…

 

Some believe that they really don't care.  What do say to that?  They have money to burn on an "experiment" and just look at where their market share is now -- why would they care?  If it is successful -- all the better for them; if not, well so much for the PRO market…  Workstation market is shrinking anyway!

 

As for expansion issues -- I have yet to see a person or organization that has been ready to dive into the Thunderbolt camp and the types of devices that use USB don't tend to be types of components that they upgrade much or to be too demanding.  Now video and memory and processors and other bespoke interfaces -- that's a different story.  If Apple doesn't offer the price/performance combination that is acceptable, how else will one to get to it in an OSx box?  With this box, chances (my speculation) are they won't!

post #437 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

With respect to storage arrays I'm hoping Apple offers a suitable solution that isn't too expensive. An ideal design would be an enclosure that the new Mac Pro sits upon. I understand your concern as to noise but realize with TB the hardware doesn't even have to be in the same room. For secondary storage TB offers more flexibility than any other solution. The only gotcha there is pricing of current TB solution which Apple can impact by agressive pricing of a simple solution.


Storage is a strange issue. A lot of solutions aren't that great. Vendors often sells storage arrays populated so they can be fully tested in whatever shipping configuration and to squeeze out additional profit from higher markups. I would expect Apple to go that route as they tend to favor things that require little setup. Internal bays work out a lot better than a low end solution like what is available from Lacie or G-Raids. I used those two examples because you can find them in Apple retail stores. This also isn't really a case of legacy devices. There's nothing cheap enough to displace large numbers of HDDs for storage. Thunderbolt is in a weird spot. In notebooks it competes with usb3, which is generally cheaper. In some cases usb3 may actually work out better overall if an external display is needed at times and will not function properly chained. Interestingly you can get a lot of the functionality out of standard displayport as well, as long as the port supports displayport 1.2 (approved Dec. 2009 IIRC). It supports daisy chaining and usb hubs on displays. I would have to look up whether it can pass audio. Anyway the things I think need to die and go away are more like firewire and eSATA. Firewire was just abandoned a long time ago rather than improved. Making new peripheral devices depend on it is a bad idea. eSATA means host cards which introduce another layer of third party drivers between whatever raid or basic port multiplier box and the host machine. I'm not sure where thunderbolt fits in overall. SAS and other connectors provided comparable or better solutions prior to thunderbolt, and they still work. I'm not sure what it really does better than the things that preceded it. There's even confusion over what thunderbolt 2 represents. It introduces channel bonding, not a jump in total chip bandwidth.

post #438 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

A four-core Xeon should outpace the top-end iMac handily right? Print may move back to the Pro after all. 1biggrin.gif

 

Not necessarily, the current line of Xeons are based on the same architecture as the i7. The difference is usually that the Xeons are the cream of the crop. They run cooler and at lower voltages and are spec'd for 24/7 continuous usage. Otherwise, performance is usually identical. Xeons are able to be used in multi-socket motherboards, where i7s are not (which is why the Mac Pros use them). Xeons are also usually the first to be updated. There are 6-core Xeons, but not i7s yet, though they are still based on the same architecture.

The additional reliability of the Xeons is very important in servers, especially rack-mount and blade-enclosed servers where the lower heat dissipation and power consumption are essential. These benefits usually don't mean too much to all but the most extreme overclockers though, so people in the desktop segment usually ignore it due to the enormous difference in the price of both the CPU and the motherboards needed to support them.

The Quad Core i7-3770S found in the iMac has a CPU score of 9098, a Xeon Six Core E5649 has a CPU score of 7037 and costs twice as much. However with the mixture of a 12 Core CPU, fast bus and PCI SSD there is no doubt the Mac Pro will be ridiculously fast. I however still prefer a multiple socket machine,  for the price of one 12 Core Xeon I can buy two 6, maybe 8 Core CPU's with a rating of 10,000 and above and completely wipe the floor with it. My current HP Z800 has 2  Xeon X5660's with a CPU score of 8459 for each processor, the 12 Core Mac Pro Xeon will most likely have a CPU score between 12,000 - 14,000. Now my machine doesn't have two of those wonderful ATI cards but I do have a Quadro 4000 and 2 Tesla cards in it and future upgrades to faster graphic cards is just an Amazon purchase away. This is just an opinion as I know you die hard's couldn't possibly think of owning anything else but an Apple product but I really like having a machine that can grow with my needs instead of chucking it out when I need something faster. Even if Apple allows us to upgrade the video cards or SSD, do to their design you will always have to buy expensive upgrades from them. Is the CPU soldered to the motherboard, I sure hope not but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

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 #439 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

 

Not necessarily, the current line of Xeons are based on the same architecture as the i7. The difference is usually that the Xeons are the cream of the crop. They run cooler and at lower voltages and are spec'd for 24/7 continuous usage. Otherwise, performance is usually identical. Xeons are able to be used in multi-socket motherboards, where i7s are not (which is why the Mac Pros use them). Xeons are also usually the first to be updated. There are 6-core Xeons, but not i7s yet, though they are still based on the same architecture.

Xeons are usually one generation behind architecture-wise aren't they? For example the new Mac Pro Xeons will be Ivy Bridge not Haswell. This is (like everything else you mentioned) for reliability reasons: they want to make sure all the bugs are out of a new architecture before moving it to Xeon.

post #440 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

Actually, from looking about on the ol' Interwebz, taking in the pricing that has been bandied about here for the last week or so, and keeping in mind Apple's predilection for fat margins; I think the pricing I outlined (AND the specs as well…!!!) might be pretty spot on…!

 

The entry-level drops the price from the previous generation, with a configuration that can only be a huge step up from the aforementioned previous generations specs…

 

This is the model for the hobbyist, for the lower-level pro-sumer, for the gamers & the HTPC crowd; low price, good specs…

 

The GOOD model IS the undercover XMac…!

me thinks too much overlapp with the next iMac.   skating to where the puck will be, I do think your 'good' mac won't exist, or if it does, it will be at $2299 (and the current TOL iMac will drop to $1799).   They have to maintain that $500 differential.   One can only assume that PCIe SSDs will be across all mac products by fall,  with a PCIe Fusion drive as well (save for the Mac Pro).  

 

The xMac concept is really counter to the direction Apple has gone the last 4 years.  If anything the next gen Mac Mini (with PCIe SSD/Fusion, Thunderbolt (or 2), a quad processor Haswell) is your xMac.

 

That, and I still hold out hope for chaining macs by thunderbolt and Grand Central extensions to drive to an aSMP clustering for compute power.  Think of chaining 2 mac Minis together, shared disk via thunderbolt, in a master/slave config.

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