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 19

post #721 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I would caution you regarding your metrics of quality. "Wide gamut" is often marketing. There are still values that you won't be able to see on any display. What matters is how well  values are represented relative to a reference colorspace, how well calibration can be maintained over the life of the display, shadow detail, etc. Do not get caught by manufacturer marketing drivel. Having a wider gamut doesn't mean the discrete points that represent colors will be closer to what is intended. Some of the marketing guys clearly misinterpret the intended use of engineering white papers. I don't think the other issue is a big one. Frankly Apple's displays aren't all that stable. They are better than what you would find with most all in ones, but most all in ones are cheaper anyway. If I wanted to update the cpu within 3 years, the display would definitely be due for the same assuming a critical eye. 
Marketing drivel is hard to escape in the computer world. Apple is actual a master of marketing drivel and could open their own Dojo to pass on the secretes they have amassed.

In any event my problem with the iMacs monitor is that it simply doesn't fit every user need and you have to upgrade it with every computer update. People that suggest hiding an iMac behind a desk and attaching your preferred monitor are just plain nuts in my estimation.
Quote:

That's possible. I'm genuinely curious how they will target this. Keep in mind I'm going off assumption that sales were very slow. The low end one had a ridiculous markup, so I suspect they have "some" wiggle room there.
My point is they have a massive amount of wiggle room in the entry level machine. The old entry level machines where a joke price wise.
Quote:

Lack of internal bays and PCI cards may be a passive price increase for some people.
Possibly but deletion of that hardware is a price cut for everyone else. Effectively the removal of these parts adds to the wiggle room. Even going to a single fan for the three processors effectively adds wiggle room for price control.
Quote:
Even if they own a quality DAS solution for backup or performance reasons, they may have to replace it if it's anything other than usb or thunderbolt. I don't think I would try adapters with something like that assuming the existence of any that would even work.
Actually I think Apple has interfacing to disk arrays fully covered. You have USB3, Thunderbolt, FireWire via TB and Ethernet. Accessing storage should not be a problem.
post #722 of 1290
Again I really do wish you would explain your problem here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Factual statement: you did not list a single monitor that would work on a Mac Pro that would not work attached to the iMac.
The problem isn't that external monitors don't work, it is rather that you would have to be an idiot to hook one up to an iMac to use in place of the internal monitor.
Quote:
Factual statement: you can connect at least two additional monitors to the 27" Mac Pro.
Again I really wish you would explain your problem here. The problem with hooking up any of those monitors is that you still have the massive iMac to deal with. I'm beginning to think your problem is you can't think past common desktop usage.
Quote:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/03/apple-imac-hands-on-with-dual-30-inch-displays-video/

And what are the "many tasks that a computer is used for" that the iMac monitor is completely useless?
This argument is becoming a waste of time, walk into a lab, a manufacturing floor or any other non traditional desktop and try to figure out how you would even implement a massive IMac type machine. For many applications the iMac is a joke.
Quote:
Perhaps it is you that has a problem confusing opinion with "fact". The "fact" is that any monitor that you are likely to use on a Mac Pro will work equally well on an iMac.
I'm not sure if you are in denial here or just being argumentative or simply don't have wide exposure to the way computers are used in non traditional desktop environments. It doesn't really matter; the iMac is a no show for these sorts of applications because the monitor is simply too big and attaching a second monitor to an iMac would get you laughed out of the facility.
Quote:
If you don't have the desk space I'm going to give you the same (impractical) suggestion that you and Marvin provided about the footprint of an external raid: stick the iMac somewhere hidden and run a TB line to your desired monitor (or dock and then monitor).
Which just demonstrates how ridiculous your position is.
Quote:
/shrug

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
post #723 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Again I really do wish you would explain your problem here.

Because your assertion of fact is wrong and is simply your opinion.
Quote:
The problem isn't that external monitors don't work, it is rather that you would have to be an idiot to hook one up to an iMac to use in place of the internal monitor.

Why? There are many folks with a dual monitor setup with an iMac. Are they all idiots?

The primary use case for "replacing" the iMac
monitor is a higher quality pro monitor.
Quote:
Again I really wish you would explain your problem here. The problem with hooking up any of those monitors is that you still have the massive iMac to deal with. I'm beginning to think your problem is you can't think past common desktop usage.

It's a desktop machine. Not a POS device or embedded computer. The 27" iMac is not "massive" and the 21" even smaller.
Quote:
This argument is becoming a waste of time, walk into a lab, a manufacturing floor or any other non traditional desktop and try to figure out how you would even implement a massive IMac type machine. For many applications the iMac is a joke.

I work in a lab. We have iMacs in our labs. We have iMacs in our clean rooms (manufacturing floor equiv).

Also, in what context is the 21" iMac "massive"? How many factory floors need a high powered machine ON the floor?
Quote:
I'm not sure if you are in denial here or just being argumentative or simply don't have wide exposure to the way computers are used in non traditional desktop environments.

For many of these applications the supplier provides the support machine (manufacturing floor). For really tight spaces the mini will work but the footprint of a mini+21" monitor is no smaller than a 21" iMac.

There's no denial, I'm simply calling you on your bullshit. You don't AIOs. We get it. But the examples you provide are laughable.
Quote:
It doesn't really matter; the iMac is a no show for these sorts of applications because the monitor is simply too big and attaching a second monitor to an iMac would get you laughed out of the facility.

These are tiny tiny percentages of the use cases for a desktop. First 99% of these use cases required windows or Linux because of the applications and no Mac is well suited. For the remaining tiny fraction very few of these use cases require the power of the 27"' iMac AND do not have the space for a 27" monitor AND for which the iMac display is unsuited.
Quote:
Which just demonstrates how ridiculous your position is.

My position is simple: you assert opinion as fact and support it with really rare edge cases as if they were common.

Given I work in some of those edge cases I know your assertion is bullshit. The iMac is fine in our labs and production facilities when any Mac is viable due to software. In the cases where it is not the Mini or MBP works.

You have to come up with a scenario where the iMac clearly doesn't work as a desktop machine as opposed to an embedded computer for process control or a headless server.
post #724 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

You have to come up with a scenario where the iMac clearly doesn't work as a desktop machine as opposed to an embedded computer for process control or a headless server.

 

Would a living room/home theater computer count? Is that common yet? In that setting the computer uses the TV as the display, so the screen on an AIO is redundant and the size makes it impractical. Fortunately there's a mini for that, but the current model is pretty weak in the graphics department.

 

BTW, I'm not arguing against the value or utility of the iMac in general, I'm just seeing if I can meet your challenge.

post #725 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

Would a living room/home theater computer count? Is that common yet? In that setting the computer uses the TV as the display, so the screen on an AIO is redundant and the size makes it impractical. Fortunately there's a mini for that, but the current model is pretty weak in the graphics department.

 

I am eager to see what an updated Mac mini brings to the table graphics-wise, as I would LOVE to have one as a HTPC/WoW box…

 

I am thinking Mac mini (HDMI out) > Onkyo HT-S9400THX > HDTV flat-panel

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 #726 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

Would a living room/home theater computer count? Is that common yet? In that setting the computer uses the TV as the display, so the screen on an AIO is redundant and the size makes it impractical. Fortunately there's a mini for that, but the current model is pretty weak in the graphics department.

 

BTW, I'm not arguing against the value or utility of the iMac in general, I'm just seeing if I can meet your challenge.

 

I used to do HTPCs "back in the day" but nowadays I use aTV and Roku.

 

For the living room home theater the optimal machine is the mini.  Neither the iMac nor the xMac are good for this application.  The iMac has a redundant screen.  The xMac will be noisy, large and power hungry in comparison to the mini.

 

That said, lets look at common HTPC use cases.

 

  • The living room is the primary one.  Probably 80-90% of the cases based on the HTPC forum on AVS.  Use a mini if you want an OSX based HTPC.
  • The equipment room is probably the next largest.  In this domain most folks have a small rack of AV gear that serves their front projector and it really depends on the build.  Some are tight and built under stairs or something.  Others are more roomy.  A 21" iMac is pretty decent in this regard as a lot of the time it can be hard to actually see the primary screen from where the rack is.  Given the xMac form factor it's no more rackable than the iMac and also requires a screen.  I'd say it's a toss up and I'd lean toward the mini or a 21" iMac.
  • Dorm Room/RV HTPC was an interesting niche for a couple years.  One that the older display port based 27" iMac was actually well suited for.  The 27" size isn't a bad one for the confines of an RV or dorm.  With a kanex box you could hook up your PS3 for a very small footprint PC/Blue Ray/gaming media center.  Too bad the newer TB based 27" iMacs can't do this.  An xMac would now be better in this use case if 3D performance is a requirement...although with most larger screen displays the 1080p max resolution isn't that taxing even for a mini.  If Apple added HDMI input (unlikely) to the iMac I would say that the iMac would be better once again.
  • Conference Room HTPC.  We have an iMac for this.  Primary video goes to the front projector.  The iMac local display is used by the support staff. No particular advantage for an xMac.
post #727 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

I am eager to see what an updated Mac mini brings to the table graphics-wise, as I would LOVE to have one as a HTPC/WoW box…

 

I am thinking Mac mini (HDMI out) > Onkyo HT-S9400THX > HDTV flat-panel

 

Dont think small. :)

 

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666386163

 

100"+ baby.

 

Sony projectors are a bit pricey.  So for $1500 you can still get a 100" screen + 1080p projector.  The Benq w1070 seems decent and under $1K.

 

http://www.amazon.com/BenQ-W1070-Theater-Projector-Silver/dp/B00A2T6X0K

post #728 of 1290

For me, two (almost three) problems with projectors…

 

One - Usually requires a darkened room for best image brightness…

 

Two - That whole thing with people blocking the projector beam on occasion…

 

Three - A decent screen is an extra expense; this can be avoided by proper prep of the wall that is to be projected onto; but then you have the expense of the prep & the hassle of doing it all over again if/when you move the projector…

 

The first two can be solved by going the back-projection method; but then there not only the added cost of the screen, but you need a room behind the screen to place the projector into (which could be used for some storage I suppose)… This room can be made almost half as short by using a specific mirror to 'fold' the projector beam length…

 

If I hit the Lotto, yeah, I would be all over a HUGE back projection system (and my THX portion of the rig would go severely upscale as well), but until then a decent-sized HDTV flat-panel will do…!

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 #729 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Marketing drivel is hard to escape in the computer world. Apple is actual a master of marketing drivel and could open their own Dojo to pass on the secretes they have amassed.
 

The idea of a dojo makes me laugh. Regarding my prior point though, I was trying to explain that pushing the boundaries of a set of discrete points will not necessarily lead to a better representation of them either perceptually (assuming a lack of color blindness) or measured as a variation between scalars in xyz Cie 1931 color models. It does make for a larger spread between data points, but it depends upon discrete data being both well aligned with both the desired results and the measurement devices commonly used to compensate for drift. I would never suggest anyone buy a display based solely on a volumetric description of its gamut.

 

If it had some poorly aligned hues and I just increased their chroma, it would not improve anything. I could prove that with something as simple as paper swatches. Ideally you are able to get both a representation that aligns well with reference values as well as a strong correlation between various pieces of hardware. It pretty much works that way in any field as you won't have laboratory grade instruments there.

post #730 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Dont think small. :)

 

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666386163

 

100"+ baby.

 

Sony projectors are a bit pricey.  So for $1500 you can still get a 100" screen + 1080p projector.  The Benq w1070 seems decent and under $1K.

 

http://www.amazon.com/BenQ-W1070-Theater-Projector-Silver/dp/B00A2T6X0K

Well, i guess it depends on how big you want to get, what you can afford and what quality you want.  The best is probably too expensive for 99.9 percent of the users out there.  100"?  That's large for a TV, but not for a projection system.  They can go LARGE, check out the Meridian Reference Projector.

 

http://www.meridian-audio.com/en/collections/products/810-reference-video-system/33/    It will handle up to 23 Feet wide.  Now, THAT'S a screen!  Unfortunately, the Meridian Reference projector will set you back several hundred grand.  then you have to get the Reference Home Theater system which is another several hundred grand and then a big screen, and then you have to have a BIG room with proper room treatment and seats to have the ultimate experience......... :-)

post #731 of 1290

 

Pfft. Projection? Please. We have a Panasonic 103" Plasma! Only $50,000. 1biggrin.gif

post #732 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

Pfft. Projection? Please. We have a Panasonic 103" Plasma! Only $50,000. 1biggrin.gif

 

 

Plasma isn't as good as a Meridian Reference projection system. Those are what the big boys use at the Film Production studios in their reference theaters.  

 

Heck, they have one of those at the local sports bar. Nothing special about a 103 inch Panasonic. The Meridian goes up to 23 FEET wide and makes the Panasonic look dinky.  Plus the Reference Projector has better black levels.  It's basically about as good as you can get at this point in time.

post #733 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

[...] Plus the Reference Projector has better black levels.

 

A projector has better black levels than a plasma display? That seems contrary to the laws of physics...

post #734 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

And it would crater iMac sales.  Why would you EVER buy a $1,999 27" iMac if that Mac Pro was $2K?  You wouldn't so that's not happening. 

 

 

Some people would.  And lots do; the AIOs actually sell pretty well.

 

Less expense; the display is included.  Less clutter.  Fewer cables.  Nothing to worry about... go in, buy one machine, have a complete computer system.  Thus the idea of all-in-one.   Does it solve every user's needs?  Of course not.

 

The iMac I bought cost just shy of $3000.  Would you suggest then that the Mac Pro must come in over that?

 

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

 

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

 

 

Reply

 

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

 

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

 

 

Reply
post #735 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


Some people would.  And lots do; the AIOs actually sell pretty well.

Less expense; the display is included.  Less clutter.  Fewer cables.  Nothing to worry about... go in, buy one machine, have a complete computer system.  Thus the idea of all-in-one.   Does it solve every user's needs?  Of course not.

The iMac I bought cost just shy of $3000.  Would you suggest then that the Mac Pro must come in over that?

Yea mine was 2900, it would have been $3,549 but I purchased the 32GB RAM and 256GB SSD drive separately, Apple charges more than twice the market price for these things, especially memory. Anyway, yes I expect the MacPro to start around 3,000, 2,000 no way, I couldn't even build a halfway decent XEON machine for that.
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 #736 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

A projector has better black levels than a plasma display? That seems contrary to the laws of physics...

Wel, i'm sure it depends on the projection system, now doesn't it?  Have you seen a plasma display and compare it to a Meridian Reference projector?  NO. You haven't.   This projection system also is capable of displaying 10K, not 4K.  The resolution on these things is about as good as you can get.  It also depends on the screen that's being used since there are different types of screens that have a factor into the equation.

 

For a real home theater, I would be looking at LEAST an 8 to 10 foot display, at minimum.  I would much rather get a high quality fixed screen  and even go with the MF1 with a 10 foot screen than get a 103inch plasma and have a much better experience that would come close to a movie theater, than a plasma. 

 


They send a guy out and they spend 4 days in the calibration process.    They get pretty damn near what you would get if you had film or even an iMax theater.  Obviously, I'd turn the lights down because that's what anyone would do for a real cinematic experience.


This thing is not something you buy at your local Best Buy and have some Geeksquad dork calibrating your system. 


Edited by drblank - 7/20/13 at 12:06pm
post #737 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


Yea mine was 2900, it would have been $3,549 but I purchased the 32GB RAM and 256GB SSD drive separately, Apple charges more than twice the market price for these things, especially memory. Anyway, yes I expect the MacPro to start around 3,000, 2,000 no way, I couldn't even build a halfway decent XEON machine for that.

Yeah, XEONs aren't cheap when you get to the higher number of cores and Ghz ratings.  sure Apple is at a lower cost point due to they are buying more.  It wouldn't surprise me if the entry level system is around $3000.  I think maybe they are increasing the number of GPUs, faster SSD memory, tons of TB 2 ports and offsetting the costs of traditional HDD, Optical, bigger case, power supply, etc. 


It's all going to boil down to what configurations they offer.   They are supposedly going to be using a 12 Core single chip XEON, but I've seen anything discussed from Intel on that chip.  They have 6 and 8 cores mentioned, but not 12 and I don't think they are going with 2 6 core chips.  Not enough room.

post #738 of 1290
Here is some info on the upcoming Xeon 12 Core E5-2600, the E7 series will have 15 Cores.
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 #739 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Apple charges more than twice the market price for these things, especially memory.

 

Oh, but Apple only uses the finest, organically grown, carbon-free RAM that is faster, more accurate and much more reliable than the crap every single manufacturer on the planet dumps on the consumer market. Apple RAM is WORTH twice as much! Only a fool would buy aftermarket.

 

1smile.gif

post #740 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Wel, i'm sure it depends on the projection system, now doesn't it?  Have you seen a plasma display and compare it to a Meridian Reference projector?  NO. You haven't.

 

Dude, relax. It's a TV, not a cure for cancer.

 

All I was saying is that I don't understand how a light shining through a display element could produce deeper blacks than a plasma element. You didn't address that point at all, but fine, yours is bigger (and blacker) than mine and therefore better.

 

So anyway, how about that new Mac Pro, eh? Pretty cool.

post #741 of 1290
OT
Holy Crap, Doc !
Only $185,000 msrp :-)

A toy for the big boys, that's for sure.
post #742 of 1290

With the total lack of new information since the June Mac Pro announcement this thread has really gone off on tangents.

 

In one way it's kind of interesting that there's been nothing new. Usually on new updates there's been rumors from suppliers, but nothing so far. Maybe since it's being assembled here the states, Apple is able to keep a tighter lid on the flow of information. Maybe it's still in prototype stage and the final specs for the different systems haven't been finalized yet. Maybe Apple is waiting for a sufficient supply of component to meet their expected demand. Maybe ... ?

 

Originally I was hoping for a September release but that's looking overly optimistic. Maybe late October - November with constrained supply into December? Hope I'm wrong.

post #743 of 1290

Mac mini base prices of $599, $799 and $999.

The server version can be configured so that it costs $1999.

 

iMac base prices of $1299, $1499, $1799, $1999.

The 27" can be configured up to $3849.

 

That's a lot of overlap once you start configuring, but the prices of the base models are distinct jumps

 

My guess is the Mac pro will start at under $2500 (but more than $1999 to separate it from the iMac) and go to the sky from there.

 

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

 

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

 

 

Reply

 

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

 

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

 

 

Reply
post #744 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Yeah, XEONs aren't cheap when you get to the higher number of cores and Ghz ratings.  sure Apple is at a lower cost point due to they are buying more.  It wouldn't surprise me if the entry level system is around $3000.  I think maybe they are increasing the number of GPUs, faster SSD memory, tons of TB 2 ports and offsetting the costs of traditional HDD, Optical, bigger case, power supply, etc. 


It's all going to boil down to what configurations they offer.   They are supposedly going to be using a 12 Core single chip XEON, but I've seen anything discussed from Intel on that chip.  They have 6 and 8 cores mentioned, but not 12 and I don't think they are going with 2 6 core chips.  Not enough room.

Sandy Bridge EP came with up to 8, and that didn't even accompany a process shrink.

Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

Oh, but Apple only uses the finest, organically grown, carbon-free RAM that is faster, more accurate and much more reliable than the crap every single manufacturer on the planet dumps on the consumer market. Apple RAM is WORTH twice as much! Only a fool would buy aftermarket.

 

1smile.gif

Some after market brands seem to have more dead sticks than others, but it's easy enough to test it prior to using the machine.

post #745 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post

Maybe it's still in prototype stage and the final specs for the different systems haven't been finalized yet. Maybe Apple is waiting for a sufficient supply of component to meet their expected demand. Maybe ... ?

Originally I was hoping for a September release but that's looking overly optimistic. Maybe late October - November with constrained supply into December? Hope I'm wrong.

They have to wait on Intel for the Thunderbolt 2 controllers and the Ivy Bridge E5 v2 chips. These will likely be shown off at Intel's IDF in San Francisco around September 10th. The new Mac Pro could well be a showcase for Intel to use to demo their new tech. Acer recently said they'd stop using Thunderbolt in favour of USB 3 so Apple is really a good candidate for Intel to use to promote Thunderbolt now. The problem with the cheap PC makers is they don't have much of an audience for the high-end equipment so USB 3 just suits their audience better but you can't run a Red Rocket or HDX card over USB 3 and never will so they are just limiting themselves to having high-end peripherals stuck on towers and having other form factors for consumers.

We're about 7 weeks away from the components Apple needs being available. It looks like the quad i7 laptop CPUs are shipping in some PC laptops so MBPs should be on the way soon too.

The Mini should use the same chips as the MBPs but the CPUs for the 13" MBP aren't clear yet. It looks like it will be a 'ULV' chip but one of the high TDP ones, which is kind of an odd setup and presumably why they moved from using ULV to ULT because a high TDP chip isn't ULV.

Tim said updates would spread through 2014 but that could just be some misdirection to put people off waiting. I doubt they'd hold back any Macs until early 2014 unless they are planning to go to 4K iMacs.
Quote:
They are supposedly going to be using a 12 Core single chip XEON, but I've seen anything discussed from Intel on that chip. They have 6 and 8 cores mentioned, but not 12 and I don't think they are going with 2 6 core chips.

The 12-core CPU is the following that showed up in the Geekbench log:

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon%20E5-2697%20v2.html
post #746 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

They have to wait on Intel for the Thunderbolt 2 controllers and the Ivy Bridge E5 v2 chips. These will likely be shown off at Intel's IDF in San Francisco around September 10th. The new Mac Pro could well be a showcase for Intel to use to demo their new tech.
Intel has a bunch of chips due for September. Rise wondering where the new Macs are inky need to look at what is publicly known about Intels plans.
Quote:
Asus recently said they'd stop using Thunderbolt in favour of USB 3 so Apple is really a good candidate for Intel to use to promote Thunderbolt now.
I thought that was Acer. Doesn't matter though, these people don't sell systems like Apple. I'm convinced that Apple has already gotten just about everything they wanted out of TB as it is a near perfect docking solution for laptops.
Quote:
The problem with the cheap PC makers is they don't have much of an audience for the high-end equipment so USB 3 just suits their audience better but you can't run a Red Rocket or HDX card over USB 3 and never will so they are just limiting themselves to having high-end peripherals stuck on towers and having other form factors for consumers.
It isn't a question of "high-end" but rather the ablity to grok a system. Think about it how many PC manufactures would build a display / dock to work with even their cheapest laptops? Apple sells systems that represent complete solutions.
Quote:
We're about 7 weeks away from the components Apple needs being available. It looks like the quad i7 laptop CPUs are shipping in some PC laptops so MBPs should be on the way soon too.
I'm thinking by the end of September.
Quote:
The Mini should use the same chips as the MBPs but the CPUs for the 13" MBP aren't clear yet. It looks like it will be a 'ULV' chip but one of the high TDP ones, which is kind of an odd setup and presumably why they moved from using ULV to ULT because a high TDP chip isn't ULV.
Just because a processor is low voltage doesn't mean it can't disapate a lot of heat. I'm not clear on what will go in the 13" Pro but I'm hoping it has Iris Pro graphics.
Quote:
Tim said updates would spread through 2014 but that could just be some misdirection to put people off waiting. I doubt they'd hold back any Macs until early 2014 unless they are planning to go to 4K iMacs.
The 12-core CPU is the following that showed up in the Geekbench log:
Hard to say. One obvious thing is that Aple can't update unless it has chips. Further if they are in allocation the laptops get first choice. It wouldn't be the first time the Mini update is delayed in preference to other hardware.
post #747 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
 I'm not clear on what will go in the 13" Pro but I'm hoping it has Iris Pro graphics.
 

They cost more, but it would give the 13" that differentiation from the Air. I suspect the 13" Pro is popular in spite of the Air. Otherwise it may not have lasted.

post #748 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

They cost more, but it would give the 13" that differentiation from the Air. I suspect the 13" Pro is popular in spite of the Air. Otherwise it may not have lasted.

Hopefully iPad autocorrect won't turn this into something no one can understand!😉😉

I'm not sure why people see the 13" MBP as being in the same category as the AIR. I see them as two entirely different machines. On The other hand the current AiRs are such a step forward that all the MBP's are in need of substantial updates. That simply to put a solid performance delta back in place.

For people that don't need a MBP right this very minute, waiting for the new models is highly advised. As for the Mini I'd still like to see Apple break away a little bit from Intel and consider an AMD chip. In that regard the new chips being prepared for the new gaming console seem like an interesting possibility. Mainly so that we can get lots of cores along with a high performance GPU. I know those cores in the console machines aren't the fastest but that is balanced somewhat by lots of them in a small package. AMD is slowly coming back and frankly Intel needs a thorn in their side. 8 cores in a Mini combined with a really good GPU would be fantastic.
post #749 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Hopefully iPad autocorrect won't turn this into something no one can understand!😉😉

I'm not sure why people see the 13" MBP as being in the same category as the AIR. I see them as two entirely different machines. On The other hand the current AiRs are such a step forward that all the MBP's are in need of substantial updates. That simply to put a solid performance delta back in place.

For people that don't need a MBP right this very minute, waiting for the new models is highly advised. As for the Mini I'd still like to see Apple break away a little bit from Intel and consider an AMD chip. In that regard the new chips being prepared for the new gaming console seem like an interesting possibility. Mainly so that we can get lots of cores along with a high performance GPU. I know those cores in the console machines aren't the fastest but that is balanced somewhat by lots of them in a small package. AMD is slowly coming back and frankly Intel needs a thorn in their side. 8 cores in a Mini combined with a really good GPU would be fantastic.

That would be ideal for me as a HTPC/WoW box…

 

WoW on the 60" HDTV (with audio handled by an Onkyo THX HTiB), surfing the web on an iPad & watching videos on an iPad mini…

 

Multitasking…!!! ;^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 #750 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

Some people would.  And lots do; the AIOs actually sell pretty well.

 

 

There is no $2000 Mac Pro with dual GPUs.  The context was THIS:
 

 

US$2,000.00

Xeon 6-core workstation-class CPU

16GB DDR3 ECC RAM

512GB PCIe Flash RAM SSD

Dual W5000 FirePro workstation-class GPUs w/2GB GDDR5 RAM

 

would crater iMac sales.

 

If you'd rather buy a 3.2 Ghz Core i5 with a 1GB GTX675MX with 8GB RAM for $1999 or even the next revision of the base 27" iMac with Haswell instead of this mythical Mac Pro for $2K you're a complete moron.  I don't care how in love you are with an AIO, I stand by my statement that a dual 2GB W5000 Mac Pro that sells for only $2000 will absolutely crater iMac sales unless Apple suddenly has a desire to have Dell sized margins across their desktop lines.

 

Quote:

Less expense; the display is included.  Less clutter.  Fewer cables.  Nothing to worry about... go in, buy one machine, have a complete computer system.  Thus the idea of all-in-one.   Does it solve every user's needs?  Of course not.

 

The iMac I bought cost just shy of $3000.  Would you suggest then that the Mac Pro must come in over that?

 

No.  I would suggest that the Mac Pro will have a quad E3 v2 or maybe if we're lucky a quad E3 v3 or low end hexa core V2 with a single low end GPU, 8GB RAM and a 256GB SSD and cost $2500.  It will spec in at around the same as a moderately upgraded iMac around that $2500 price point.

post #751 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 


 

 

No.  I would suggest that the Mac Pro will have a quad E3 v2 or maybe if we're lucky a quad E3 v3 or low end hexa core V2 with a single low end GPU, 8GB RAM and a 256GB SSD and cost $2500.  It will spec in at around the same as a moderately upgraded iMac around that $2500 price point.

I expect better logic from you sir! The problem with an E3 is it requires an entirely different logic board / chipset to use a cpu that costs the same as an entry level Xeon EP 1620. They're both around $300. If you saw a quad version, it would be an E5-1620  in a v2 version. To suggest they would go with an entirely different socket is just so far beyond silly. A likely E3 candidate would be something like an E3-1245  as it's about the same as what they use in 27" imacs. It makes no sense to fork the entire line just to use that when a more logical and pin compatible choice is available. I don't know why this even comes up. There is really no reason to ever dip below EP options at this point, although I've stated that the new design really seems aimed at Xeon 1600 configurations more than Xeon 2600.

post #752 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



I'm not sure why people see the 13" MBP as being in the same category as the AIR. I see them as two entirely different machines. On The other hand the current AiRs are such a step forward that all the MBP's are in need of substantial updates. That simply to put a solid performance delta back in place.

I was thinking in context of Apple. Apple is well known for dumping certain features and functionality on lower cost models while retaining them as higher price tiers.
I was saying that the 13" mbp is likely too significant to do something like that. I'm not really against APU solutions at all, but I don't think they are mature yet for all use cases. They are getting better. I mean the Iris pro was in no way tangential from the GMA chips from a few years ago. It is an entirely different design mantra of engineering. Their igpus seemed to start as a repository for leftover transistor allocation, and that stopped being the case with the HD 3000 in spite of its weakness.

post #753 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I expect better logic from you sir! The problem with an E3 is it requires an entirely different logic board / chipset to use a cpu that costs the same as an entry level Xeon EP 1620.

 

Yah, you're right they'll use a quad core E5-1600 v2 but I was under the mistaken impression they were all 6+ core.  /shrug  Shame on me for not double checking.

 

Yes, a new logic board is unlikely but maybe for Haswell it's worthwhile.  LOL...imagine the screaming if they did have a $1799 Mac Pro but it was a E3-1285 v3 and no discrete GPUs at all.

 

I was pony-wishing for a mini with the E3-12x5.  LOL.

post #754 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

If you'd rather buy a 3.2 Ghz Core i5 with a 1GB GTX675MX with 8GB RAM for $1999 or even the next revision of the base 27" iMac with Haswell instead of this mythical Mac Pro for $2K you're a complete moron.  

 

 

 

 

Just because my computer needs and other considerations don't match yours, I'm a moron?

 

Such a sweet thing for you to say.  Should I accept that as a compliment?

 

 

Edit:

 

Sorry, you said "complete moron".  

 

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

 

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

 

 

Reply

 

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

 

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

 

 

Reply
post #755 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

Just because my computer needs and other considerations don't match yours, I'm a moron?

 

Yep.  You're arguing for the sake of I have no clue what if you claim you would turn down a dual Firepro W5000 hexa core Mac Pro in favor of a quad core Core i5 iMac for the same $2000.  

 

ESPECIALLY given what you stated you do with your iMac and your described needs and other considerations.  So you're just trying to be offended and pretend I called you a moron.

 

Even ignoring all that it STILL would be an insanely poor value to pick the base 27" iMac over that hugely underpriced Mac Pro configuration AND YOU KNOW IT.

 

Even for Dell that would be a $3000 machine.  Go price out a T5600 with 6 cores, dual W5000s, 16GB RAM and a 256GB SSD.

 

Drop it down to dual V4900s, quad core and 8GB RAM and you're back down to $2200.  For a Dell.

post #756 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Yah, you're right they'll use a quad core E5-1600 v2 but I was under the mistaken impression they were all 6+ core.  /shrug  Shame on me for not double checking.

 

Yes, a new logic board is unlikely but maybe for Haswell it's worthwhile.  LOL...imagine the screaming if they did have a $1799 Mac Pro but it was a E3-1285 v3 and no discrete GPUs at all.

 

I was pony-wishing for a mini with the E3-12x5.  LOL.


I meant you would need one for E3s and one for E5s. E3s even have some pricing overlap with the most expensive one being $885 for a 1290. They aren't that common of a workstation processor choice, although Dell uses some of the cheaper ones in their T1600s line. I suspect it wouldn't be that logical for a company who would only use them in one model out of one line, but it would literally be the headless imac. If they were crammed into a mini case, you wouldn't get the ECC ram as I've never seen ECC in sodimm form. I don't think it would be very compelling for that at $1800. You wouldn't get the extra level of internal customization back. You would probably be limited to one thunderbolt chip. I don't think integrated graphics, especially the type included with E3s would support that whole array of thunderbolt ports unless they starved the usb3 ports with 1 lane at the back end. The igpu typically soaks up 4. Right now I wouldn't say even the $2500 solution is that great. The extra bays and things give it slightly more value by reducing dependence on third party peripherals where possible.

 

I think intel will continue to maintain a quad option with ivy or at least something at the $300 cpu price point. The other thing is some of the Firepro pricing is weird. Cards that they market as mid range are based on low end gaming cards chips or older designs. It may not line up quite as you suggest if the primary relationship to the other cards is one of branding. It could end up no different than what they labeled as a radeon with the current one. OSX cards have to at least be stable in OpenGL use, which was the older purpose of professional graphics.

post #757 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

 

 

Just because my computer needs and other considerations don't match yours, I'm a moron?

 

Such a sweet thing for you to say.  Should I accept that as a compliment?

 

 

Edit:

 

Sorry, you said "complete moron".  

 

The top end iMac is a sound piece of kit.

 

There's a few reasons why you'd take it over the base Mac Pro.  The monitor being a key one.  Some people like it's AIO appeal.

 

As for Morons.  Complete or otherwise...  It's name calling based on hypertheticals.  We don't know how much the new Pro is going to be.

 

Likely as pricey as the old entry point for £2045 inc VAT.  But better value if it includes two gpus trade off vs the monitor in the iMac?

 

Expect the base Pro to pick up after the top end iMac.

 

Still could do with having a price lower than £2045 inc VAT.

 

£1500 with hex core and dual gpus instead of the monitor you'd get with the iMac.  Lower price could get units moving again.  

 

An iMac selling 1 million units is 20 times the units of the Pro selling 50k units.  £1199-£1699 isn't cheap either.  So there's an argument for having an entry option that isn't insanely priced.  

 

It's not like the BTO and higher models won't allow Apple to do their customary 'Apple' pricing...

 

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

 

The top end iMac is a sound piece of kit.

 

Never said it wasn't which is why this is funny.  In fact I've been saying all along that there is no need for a $2000 Mac Pro because that role is already very ably filled by the 27" iMac.

 

I'm not shouting it's just that some folks here apparently can't read.

 

 

Quote:

There's a few reasons why you'd take it over the base Mac Pro.  The monitor being a key one.  Some people like it's AIO appeal.

 

As for Morons.  Complete or otherwise...  It's name calling based on hypertheticals.  We don't know how much the new Pro is going to be.

 

Except we were discussing a specific scenario of the base Mac Pro being this uber machine for $2K.  Not generalities.  The "we don't know how much blah blah blah" is again the result of folks who apparently can't read.  For this specific scenario postulated by MacRonin to pick the 27" Core i5 iMac is just dumb.  Which is why I said that such a machine would crater iMac sales and Bergermeister got his panties in a wad as if it were a general attack on the iMac or AIOs and ignoring the entire f**king thread where I've been saying otherwise. 

 

But I don't care how well you think iMacs currently sell because if Apple releases a $3000+ Mac Pro for $2000 that completely changes the value proposition of the entire Mac lineup.  Something Apple has put tremendous thought into as opposed to someone like Dell with 6 gazillion possible machine combinations at every price point. 

 

Yah, they sure would sell a lot of Mac Pros.  And a lot less of the 27" iMacs.  Who's IPS panel is the same LG IPS panel seen in $300 retail monitors on eBay and $450 from Monoprice.

 

Just like if they put a 640M in the current Mac Mini.  A $999 2.6 Ghz Quad i7 Mac Mini with a 512MB GT 640M would crater 21" iMac sales.  Which is why no such machine exists even if it would sell well with decent margins.  A machine I would dearly love to see appear but understand it simply ain't happening.  There's a huge profit advantage in selling AIOs which is why Apple still protects the iMac line even today even with Jobs gone.  It's not whimsy or some kind of AIO fetish but why Apple makes money selling desktops and Dell not so much.  That $500 cost delta between the base $1300 quad core i5 iMac and the $800 quad Core i7 Mac Mini is mostly profit on top of the profit inherent in the mini that you pay every time you refresh your iMac.

 

So it ain't likely that Apple is going to introduce either a Mac Pro or Mini that's going to significantly impact iMac sales.

post #759 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

we were discussing a specific scenario of the base Mac Pro being this uber machine for $2K.  Not generalities.  The "we don't know how much blah blah blah" is again the result of folks who apparently can't read.  For this specific scenario postulated by MacRonin to pick the 27" Core i5 iMac is just dumb.  Which is why I said that such a machine would crater iMac sales and Bergermeister got his panties in a wad as if it were a general attack on the iMac or AIOs and ignoring the entire f**king thread where I've been saying otherwise.

A 6-core for $2k certainly isn't likely considering the old Mac Pro had a $294 CPU for $2499 and a 6-core CPU costs at least $406. The dual FirePro can't be less than the single 5770 they used to have. The SSD will also cost more than the single HDD they used to sell with it. I do think they will have saved money on some of the design - they probably just buy the GPU chips from AMD and design the boards elsewhere, the single heatsink is likely cheaper to build than what they had before because it's just a single piece of extruded aluminium, just 1 fan vs 6 or more, no optical nor 5.25" bays/wiring, no HDD bays, much smaller enclosure, lower shipping costs (weight and volume).

I reckon they could sell a quad Mac Pro with dual W5000 for $2k and wouldn't impact the iMac significantly. Once a display is factored in, the cost is immediately higher. $2k is perhaps overly optimistic even for a quad but the original $2199 Mac Pro price wouldn't be all that bad. It's still higher than an iMac and they should be able to build the machine with a decent gross profit while still allowing for people to spend money on external storage or peripherals.

I don't expect that entry config to come with much though:

E5-1620v2 quad 3.6GHz
8GB RAM (4x 2GB)
256GB SSD
dual W5000 2GB

The current $2k iMac has 3.2GHz quad i5, 8GB, 1TB HDD, 1GB GTX 675MX and this will of course change with Haswell but despite it being clearly lower spec than the MP, I think some people would still take the iMac for the display if the spec meets their needs.

It wouldn't really matter one way or the other to Apple as long as the margins were high enough on both and it may convince some to buy an Apple Thunderbolt display on top of the Mac Pro.

The box design could be interesting as this is the first cylindrical machine they've had. I expect they'll ship it with a wireless keyboard and mouse and the wireless keyboard is taller than the Mac Pro. It could be a box that is curved on one side (heavily padded) and flat on the other with the wireless keyboard sitting vertically beside the documentation and the power plug under the mouse.
post #760 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post




I reckon they could sell a quad Mac Pro with dual W5000 for $2k and wouldn't impact the iMac significantly. Once a display is factored in, the cost is immediately higher. $2k is perhaps overly optimistic even for a quad but the original $2199 Mac Pro price wouldn't be all that bad. It's still higher than an iMac and they should be able to build the machine with a decent gross profit while still allowing for people to spend money on external storage or peripherals.

I don't expect that entry config to come with much though:

E5-1620v2 quad 3.6GHz
8GB RAM (4x 2GB)
256GB SSD
dual W5000 2GB
 

 

I would suggest it could be all branding. On Windows it varies by card. Some get better OpenGL performance on Windows, and some have bugs that aren't seen under OSX. It could be as simple as a branding issue. I think going by existing firepro model numbers may be unrealistic due to pricing structure. It could be similar to that 5770, yet branded differently. For computation workstation cards aren't always faster. They usually contain ECC ram, and they don't typically run as hot.

 

Consider that 7000 drivers showed up in prior Mountain Lion betas.

 

Sapphiretech also released a 7970 with 6GB of ram.

 

Apple's typical Radeon selections aren't always precisely the same. Typically they have less ram and a high price. In this case it's x2, so I suspect higher spec options will be expensive. I don't think it will follow current W9000 price points with Apple's typical markup tacked onto that. The 6GB cards were still part of the up to spec, so obviously I don't expect them to be standard. Other than that I basically agree with your assessment. I'm pretty sure the v2 will still be a quad core, but either way I think that cpu will stay around the same price.

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