Yes, but that's only part of the point. Thunderbolt ports cannot be considered part of the spec without the ability to push graphics as well as data. Therefore the ports have to be connected to SOME sort of GPU, and that's either going to be a chip integrated on the logic board or the Thunderbolt ports will be on the GPU in a PCIe slot (but that's not allowed, as far as I know).
OR, the third option, whatever GPU you order from Apple is built into the computer and non-upgradable. That gives users the power of that card usable through their logic board Thunderbolt ports.
That is one of my concerns with this refresh. I want to get a Thunderbolt Display, but unless they come out with a brand new graphics card that supports Thunderbolt, at best I will be pushing HD3000 through the port (isn't HD4000 only in Ivy Bridge?) . At the same time I am also considering getting a less pixel dense monitor so I might be able to some light gaming (not a priority, but would be nice with some of the offerings from the App Store).
I would love a 4K display, but again I don't see too many GPU's capable of taking advantage of it right now or even being able to push a decent frame rate. I guess that is my reasoning for wanting the Mac Pro, at least there is some expandability built into there.
I think it depends on a few things such as what you do. Overall the 1,1 and 3,1 machines aged quite well even if I wouldn't suggest one today, but the 3,1 still does well enough in heavily threaded functions. Imacs worry me at times because there are the people who end up with chronic problems, and of course I hate the lack of machine access. If they debut a decent machine this time in the sub 3k realm, I'll have to buy one. Even apart from raw computing power, there are things that I like. They're made for higher duty cycles. I can populate them with drives, keep gpus up to date if necessary, and they have more ports. I don't buy the thunderbolt display or expensive TB docking stations. It erodes any savings against a tower in the longer term.
I agree and machine access is also important to myself. As for other comments about case design I'm more than happy with the current appearance and form factor. Still simply breath taking every time I look at it.
I mainly use my Mac for picture and video editing but my old Mac is feeling the strain and takes an age to encode etc. The only issue I have is the Airport signal as I need to turn it off and on to pick up my network. I'm convinced this issue only came when I upgraded to Leapoard.
I am so happy to see this, after the many pompous pronouncements from haters saying the Mac Pro would be killed off. These will be fantastic upgrades for power users!
Yes, but that's only part of the point. Thunderbolt ports cannot be considered part of the spec without the ability to push graphics as well as data. Therefore the ports have to be connected to SOME sort of GPU, and that's either going to be a chip integrated on the logic board or the Thunderbolt ports will be on the GPU in a PCIe slot (but that's not allowed, as far as I know).
OR, the third option, whatever GPU you order from Apple is built into the computer and non-upgradable. That gives users the power of that card usable through their logic board Thunderbolt ports.
Thunderbolt supports accepting video from a standalone graphics card which is multiplexed and output on the thunderbolt port. How do you think they output the discreet GPU to thunderbolt in an iMac for example?!? Also take some models of MBP which has both on-chip graphics and discrete switchable gpu, both which work fine out the thunderbolt port. Go look at Wikipedia search for thunderbolt and read about it. Look at the diagram which shows this.
Apple often is not the first to use new or revolutionary technology. OTOH, they sometimes are the first to use new things in completely new ways (Mac mini is one example).
I could see this transpiring: When the component changes you cite become pervasive enough, Apple could design an all new Mac Pro based on those changes that would allow for a much smaller chassis, rack-mountability, etc. Not sure if enough of those component changes have happened yet for a completely new Mac Pro to appear in 2012. We'll see.
In a nut shell that is the question, has technology moved far enough to justify a smaller machine. I'd say yes but it will be very interesting to see what Apple does.
Personally I will be disappointed to see the new Mac Pro come in the same old case. It would be an example of Apple thumbing its nose at desktop users again. Over the last few years we have seen significant technological improvements to the laptops, it is about time Apple got serious about the desktop. As stated elsewhere the entire desktop line up has bee stagnet for years.
In a nut shell that is the question, has technology moved far enough to justify a smaller machine. I'd say yes but it will be very interesting to see what Apple does.
Personally I will be disappointed to see the new Mac Pro come in the same old case. It would be an example of Apple thumbing its nose at desktop users again. Over the last few years we have seen significant technological improvements to the laptops, it is about time Apple got serious about the desktop. As stated elsewhere the entire desktop line up has bee stagnet for years.
It will surprise me if it's not on a life support R&D budget. My prediction is they do something with the design in 2014 given that the board should last through Ivy Bridge E. Intel tends to update workstation chipsets on tock cycles. I still think your ideas are cool though.
That is rather sad. If no one pointed it out and it was an obscure error that might be one thing but this is a rather substantial accuracy problem. More so it seems to indicate a complete lack of knowledge with respect to the technology and industry.
I realize as a news + rumors site there is a fine line with the respect to news and rumors. Even rumors though need to reflect a bit of knowledge or understanding of what is being discussed. Frankly it looks like just about anybody could induce questionable reporting by these bloggers, they just look gullible.
We can mention it, but we don't actually have influence. The info in this article has been taken from other sources, as is the info from a number of other articles. If the info from the source is wrong, it will be repeated elsewhere. This site being one of those elsewheres.
I'm amazed at how often all the world of computer reporting is wrong. Many errors in PcMag, for example, and they're not by any means alone. In some tech sites such as ArsTechnica and AnandTech, if the author has made a factual error, and a poster notes it, it will be corrected. But that's very unusual elsewhere, I've noticed. Once the article is posted, no one reads the posts to see if an error has been caught. That's a shame, but it's become much more common in recent years.
It's one reason why I still don't believe that much of what we read on the internet is reporting in the journalistic sense. While news papers make mistakes, it's far more common on the I telnet. One reason is that there's simply no fact checking going on. That eliminated most of the bloggers, and many of the web sites from my consideration as journalists, despite what the courts have said.
Even here, I find it annoying. I would like to see posting in an article regarding corrections of errors. But it's no better, or worse, here than most other places, I find.
I can't agree. The Mac Pro is one of the best designed workstations I have seen. I don't see any wasted space. It was designed for excellent airflow, which it has. If you are looking at areas that are designed to be open for the purpose of that airflow, and are assuming that it's wasted space, and can be eliminated, well, that's just wrong.
I have to disagree with this airflow point. The current Mac Pro case design is left over from the G5 days. Back then it had to contain massive heat sink, ducting and even some plumbing. I'm not at all convinced that an engineer designing for thermal performance would layout the Mac Pro the way it is today.
I don't understand and this smaller case thing here. I can only suspect that those wanting one don't really need a Mac Pro. Mine has a 950 watt power supply. These machines are often used with a pro level graphics card, or even two, that consume 250 watts of power each. In addition they have more slots that can use more power. In addition they have 4 official drive bays, plus a free bay under the DVD drive at the front.
This all uses power, and requires a big machine for full length boards. If you don't NEED a Mac Pro, then don't get one. Get an iMac, they are very good machines, and will satisfy the needs of most people.
But if you need 32GB or more of EEC RAM, 2 workstation level processors, and a pro level graphics card or two, plus other specialized hardware, then you need a Mac Pro. And that's goi g to be a big machine. Indeed, it's been criticized as being too small, with not enough slots. Some workstations in its class have 8.
Out of curiosity, how well will the suspected new Mac Pro stack up as a gaming machine? It's not what I want one for but it always fascinated me that my 8 core Mac Pro wasn't all that good compared to my MBP at even basic stuff such as Second Life yet smoked the MBP at video rendering and multi tasking.
I have to disagree with this airflow point. The current Mac Pro case design is left over from the G5 days. Back then it had to contain massive heat sink, ducting and even some plumbing. I'm not at all convinced that an engineer designing for thermal performance would layout the Mac Pro the way it is today.
I really don't mind the case, but this is one of those things where people will say it looks modern until the day it changes. A few months later it would look completely dated. Dell updated theirs considerably. The mac pro is closest to the T5600 in available configurations, but people often mistakenly compare it to the T7600 which is much larger. The same goes for HP. The one closest in size to the mac pro is made to accommodate more stuff internally. The mac pro overall is designed like a mid level workstation. The largest ones can typically take quite a few drives. It has been missing a few common features such as the ability to accept a larger number of drives if 2.5" drives are used, but I do think it's probably on a low R&D budget. While I don't mind the size or configuration, there are other perfectly valid designs that run at low decibel levels within spec using similar cpu configurations.
There are companies that offer rack mounts for Mac Pro's as well as for Mini's. No reason why Apple needs to do so.
12U to hold two machines would be ridiculous. Hence the suggestion for a slight redesign to reduce the size of the machines. Heck, cut the bloody handles off and it will fit on it's side...
No Apple doesn't need too, but they can dimension a Mac Pro replacement so that it fits the rack environment better.
Of course they could. But how many would they sell? Not too many, I would wager. And therefor, the price would be too high. Then, there's that additional number of SKU's they would have to carry.
That is rather sad. If no one pointed it out and it was an obscure error that might be one thing but this is a rather substantial accuracy problem. More so it seems to indicate a complete lack of knowledge with respect to the technology and industry.
I realize as a news + rumors site there is a fine line with the respect to news and rumors. Even rumors though need to reflect a bit of knowledge or understanding of what is being discussed. Frankly it looks like just about anybody could induce questionable reporting by these bloggers, they just look gullible.
Well, officially, bloggers are journalists, and so what they say is supposedly considered to be news, and information, just as it is from the NY Times and WSJ. So why question their accuracy? I mean, after all, they've been sued by Apple and others, and won their cases. So who are we to question that? If they come out with "information", it must be true, right? And so when sites such as AI quote them, they are quoting people who are entirely professional in what they do, and who have outstanding reputations for honesty and accuracy.
I have to disagree with this airflow point. The current Mac Pro case design is left over from the G5 days. Back then it had to contain massive heat sink, ducting and even some plumbing. I'm not at all convinced that an engineer designing for thermal performance would layout the Mac Pro the way it is today.
It's just the shell that's left over. The case is the entire unit that everything goes into. That‘s been radically changed several times. The thermal engineering is excellent. Mi e remains cool, and is the quietest workstation I've ever used, and that's a lot.
Out of curiosity, how well will the suspected new Mac Pro stack up as a gaming machine? It's not what I want one for but it always fascinated me that my 8 core Mac Pro wasn't all that good compared to my MBP at even basic stuff such as Second Life yet smoked the MBP at video rendering and multi tasking.
The Mac Pro is designed for other programs than games. If you want a gaming machine you need one with a higher CPU speed and fewer cores, as most games gain little from 4 cores and nothing from more than that. Then, you need a top graphics card. That's where the Mac Pro falls down. When it first comes out, it usually has a card option that about two thirds up the ladder, but not a top card (not talking about the expensive pro cards). But then they fail to give us newer cards as they come out, so people buy PC cards and flash them which may not work with every feature or need.
It's just not really a gaming machine, though it can work pretty well at it, if you buy the right one.
12U to hold two machines would be ridiculous. Hence the suggestion for a slight redesign to reduce the size of the machines. Heck, cut the bloody handles off and it will fit on it's side...
What is it with you people? Isn't it obvious that Apple isn't interested in a low volume model like that? Give it up already!
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Pshh, airflow. Like Apple knows anything about that. Check out my ride, bizzizzles:
Now lemme see, we got one, two, three, four, five, SIX di-rec-tions of fans for mayyyyximum airfaaaaa-low.
Single direction front to back… Pah! Mac Pro's got nuthin' on this.
Yeah, you go, girlfriend:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes, but that's only part of the point. Thunderbolt ports cannot be considered part of the spec without the ability to push graphics as well as data. Therefore the ports have to be connected to SOME sort of GPU, and that's either going to be a chip integrated on the logic board or the Thunderbolt ports will be on the GPU in a PCIe slot (but that's not allowed, as far as I know).
OR, the third option, whatever GPU you order from Apple is built into the computer and non-upgradable. That gives users the power of that card usable through their logic board Thunderbolt ports.
That is one of my concerns with this refresh. I want to get a Thunderbolt Display, but unless they come out with a brand new graphics card that supports Thunderbolt, at best I will be pushing HD3000 through the port (isn't HD4000 only in Ivy Bridge?) . At the same time I am also considering getting a less pixel dense monitor so I might be able to some light gaming (not a priority, but would be nice with some of the offerings from the App Store).
I would love a 4K display, but again I don't see too many GPU's capable of taking advantage of it right now or even being able to push a decent frame rate. I guess that is my reasoning for wanting the Mac Pro, at least there is some expandability built into there.
I agree and machine access is also important to myself. As for other comments about case design I'm more than happy with the current appearance and form factor. Still simply breath taking every time I look at it.
I mainly use my Mac for picture and video editing but my old Mac is feeling the strain and takes an age to encode etc. The only issue I have is the Airport signal as I need to turn it off and on to pick up my network. I'm convinced this issue only came when I upgraded to Leapoard.
Long live the Mac Pro!
I am so happy to see this, after the many pompous pronouncements from haters saying the Mac Pro would be killed off. These will be fantastic upgrades for power users!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes, but that's only part of the point. Thunderbolt ports cannot be considered part of the spec without the ability to push graphics as well as data. Therefore the ports have to be connected to SOME sort of GPU, and that's either going to be a chip integrated on the logic board or the Thunderbolt ports will be on the GPU in a PCIe slot (but that's not allowed, as far as I know).
OR, the third option, whatever GPU you order from Apple is built into the computer and non-upgradable. That gives users the power of that card usable through their logic board Thunderbolt ports.
Thunderbolt supports accepting video from a standalone graphics card which is multiplexed and output on the thunderbolt port. How do you think they output the discreet GPU to thunderbolt in an iMac for example?!? Also take some models of MBP which has both on-chip graphics and discrete switchable gpu, both which work fine out the thunderbolt port. Go look at Wikipedia search for thunderbolt and read about it. Look at the diagram which shows this.
In a nut shell that is the question, has technology moved far enough to justify a smaller machine. I'd say yes but it will be very interesting to see what Apple does.
Personally I will be disappointed to see the new Mac Pro come in the same old case. It would be an example of Apple thumbing its nose at desktop users again. Over the last few years we have seen significant technological improvements to the laptops, it is about time Apple got serious about the desktop. As stated elsewhere the entire desktop line up has bee stagnet for years.
No Apple doesn't need too, but they can dimension a Mac Pro replacement so that it fits the rack environment better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
In a nut shell that is the question, has technology moved far enough to justify a smaller machine. I'd say yes but it will be very interesting to see what Apple does.
Personally I will be disappointed to see the new Mac Pro come in the same old case. It would be an example of Apple thumbing its nose at desktop users again. Over the last few years we have seen significant technological improvements to the laptops, it is about time Apple got serious about the desktop. As stated elsewhere the entire desktop line up has bee stagnet for years.
It will surprise me if it's not on a life support R&D budget. My prediction is they do something with the design in 2014 given that the board should last through Ivy Bridge E. Intel tends to update workstation chipsets on tock cycles. I still think your ideas are cool though.
I realize as a news + rumors site there is a fine line with the respect to news and rumors. Even rumors though need to reflect a bit of knowledge or understanding of what is being discussed. Frankly it looks like just about anybody could induce questionable reporting by these bloggers, they just look gullible.
I have to disagree with this airflow point. The current Mac Pro case design is left over from the G5 days. Back then it had to contain massive heat sink, ducting and even some plumbing. I'm not at all convinced that an engineer designing for thermal performance would layout the Mac Pro the way it is today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Fixed by editing the html source code.
Thanks!
Out of curiosity, how well will the suspected new Mac Pro stack up as a gaming machine? It's not what I want one for but it always fascinated me that my 8 core Mac Pro wasn't all that good compared to my MBP at even basic stuff such as Second Life yet smoked the MBP at video rendering and multi tasking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I have to disagree with this airflow point. The current Mac Pro case design is left over from the G5 days. Back then it had to contain massive heat sink, ducting and even some plumbing. I'm not at all convinced that an engineer designing for thermal performance would layout the Mac Pro the way it is today.
I really don't mind the case, but this is one of those things where people will say it looks modern until the day it changes. A few months later it would look completely dated. Dell updated theirs considerably. The mac pro is closest to the T5600 in available configurations, but people often mistakenly compare it to the T7600 which is much larger. The same goes for HP. The one closest in size to the mac pro is made to accommodate more stuff internally. The mac pro overall is designed like a mid level workstation. The largest ones can typically take quite a few drives. It has been missing a few common features such as the ability to accept a larger number of drives if 2.5" drives are used, but I do think it's probably on a low R&D budget. While I don't mind the size or configuration, there are other perfectly valid designs that run at low decibel levels within spec using similar cpu configurations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuberMagPico
Then go with Active Storage mSAN....
Looks familiar hé!
Then go look at the pricing for these... $17,000 for what one $5,000 Xserve could do is not justifiable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
There are companies that offer rack mounts for Mac Pro's as well as for Mini's. No reason why Apple needs to do so.
12U to hold two machines would be ridiculous. Hence the suggestion for a slight redesign to reduce the size of the machines. Heck, cut the bloody handles off and it will fit on it's side...
Of course they could. But how many would they sell? Not too many, I would wager. And therefor, the price would be too high. Then, there's that additional number of SKU's they would have to carry.
It's not worth it.
Well, officially, bloggers are journalists, and so what they say is supposedly considered to be news, and information, just as it is from the NY Times and WSJ. So why question their accuracy? I mean, after all, they've been sued by Apple and others, and won their cases. So who are we to question that? If they come out with "information", it must be true, right? And so when sites such as AI quote them, they are quoting people who are entirely professional in what they do, and who have outstanding reputations for honesty and accuracy.
It's just the shell that's left over. The case is the entire unit that everything goes into. That‘s been radically changed several times. The thermal engineering is excellent. Mi e remains cool, and is the quietest workstation I've ever used, and that's a lot.
The Mac Pro is designed for other programs than games. If you want a gaming machine you need one with a higher CPU speed and fewer cores, as most games gain little from 4 cores and nothing from more than that. Then, you need a top graphics card. That's where the Mac Pro falls down. When it first comes out, it usually has a card option that about two thirds up the ladder, but not a top card (not talking about the expensive pro cards). But then they fail to give us newer cards as they come out, so people buy PC cards and flash them which may not work with every feature or need.
It's just not really a gaming machine, though it can work pretty well at it, if you buy the right one.
What is it with you people? Isn't it obvious that Apple isn't interested in a low volume model like that? Give it up already!