Oh, is that not the set about to be released? I thought it was. 8xxx, then, since the next Mac Pro's chips won't be out until about then.
I'm thinking new architecture here, the recently release 8xxx chips are a rebranding and slight tweaks of the 7xxx series.
[/Quote]
Wish there'd be a breakthrough in GPU tech on the order of what ARM is doing for CPUs to get that down.
[/Quote]
Actually we are getting break throughs, the new chips from AMD and NVidia perform extremely well for the power they consume. Imagination does even better. You literally have hundreds of processors working at once on those chips.
I mean, look at the Apple TV. First one was 100 watts. IDLE. The second and third models use 6 watts maximum. That's astonishing, and it doesn't even talk about the heat output! Imagine a GPU innovation that brought power changes like that!
True but I suspect much of that comes from application specific processing. In other words they use hardware video decodes in the new Apple TVs. Just about all video processors come with some sort of hardware decoder now which greatly improves power efficiency when handling suitable video. The issue with the GPUs is that supporting 3D and other technologies demands a fair amount of processing power so these chips still consume energy at high rates. Interestingly the chips run substantially cooler when just handling normal 2D graphics.
As a side note those Imagination Tech GPUs are pretty innovative on the power front. Even NVidia seems to have trouble managing power the way those chips do. The reality of 3D is that performance still involves a bit of brute force no matter what GPU you are running.
Now this isn't 100% perfect, but it's closer to the mark than what we've seen previously.
I think I still prefer the Cube mod made by the guy on the following site. The above mockup would be around the same dimensions but the angle makes it look different:
The only thing is from the side, the proportions look a little off:
but the hard edges make it look more like a machine built for serious work.
He tried a few designs here:
I like the one furthest to the right. Jonathan Ive will do this in his workshop and be able to pick the best design. If he wants to use a Braun/Rams design, there's this one:
That would work well for stacking and it has a lip so it can be lifted easily. The insides can be pulled out the back and it would be a seamless design for the other parts.
Bringing back the Cube (in aluminium form) is the perfect tribute to Jobs, while assuring to creatives that the Pro market is still a priority with Apple.
I think so. The Pixar computer was cube-like despite the dimensions being off - 20" cube:
Then the G4 Cube was 8". They have a cubic Apple Store and look at the reactions when they introduced the G4 Cube:
"We are combining the power of the [Mac Pro] with the desktop elegance, the silence and the miniaturization that we learned from doing the iMac. Some of you are saying 'it looks like a mid-range machine to me', this is where we get into the magic"
Condemning PCI slots to expansion chassis is a double tribute to Jobs.
It wouldn't be essential to take away PCI expansion but they could if they wanted. If they soldered the GPU, they could get away with an even smaller cube but the 3.5" drive dimensions would get in the way.
If they can't do something special with connectivity over Thunderbolt, a half-length PCI 3 slot would be the best route for now. That ensures immediate compatibility with everything - in the worst case, you'd connect a PCI breakout box for all existing full length cards.
Apple really needs to hit $1500 dollars for a reasonably high performance base model. I'm still thinking Ivy Bridge mainstream in the base box.
The original Cube was $1799 and I think they can at least hit that with iMac-like components. I do think the Cube would have more mainstream appeal than a large tower so it justifies a lower price point. I'd like to see a 24" 1080p Cinema display though for about $500. That would be a really nice setup for around the same price as a top-end iMac.
Apple has to decide if they want to boost the headless category of machines any more though. I suspect that's not the case. I see them wanting to wind this category down and if they just do a run-of-the-mill upgrade on the current chassis, you can guarantee that's how it is.
I do understand that designers feel they have to emulate the current design when brainstorming on future Apple hardware directions.
I don't see the point in emulating the old design either. That doesn't mean handle wouldn't be handy though.
But seriously, a Cube that size and weight doesn't have any need for handles, and so Ive won't allow any.
I'm actually thinking due cast housing for the Mac Pro replacement. That is get ride of the sheetmetal all together. A die casting would offer a new look and a lot of freedom in design. Done right it could also make for a rugged if maybe heavy chassis.
I'm still thinking any chassis they come up with will need to be easily rack mountable and probably no more than 3U high, 4U at the outside. It should be fairly easy to come up with a good looking design that can be used in multiple ways according to the users needs.
Why is Apple not even mentioning any new concepts for the Mac Pro at all? They seem to shy away from this.
Apple seems more secretive than the CIA or NAS. Rarely do they tip their hand before announcing something, other than to say they are working on some great stuff.
For the MacPro, Tim Cook did come out and say they have something amazing for later in 2013...
Just looked at the Apple Store. It is difficult to fathom that Apple could allow sales of the current Pro for the next 6-9 months.
USB3 can always be added later, but not having Thunderbolt on board really does make these machines kind of disposable.
If Cook knew the upgrade was going to take a year or more, why didn't they just drop first-gen Thunderbolt in last fall?
I think buyers of the 2012-13 Mac Pros will be the first Pro buyers to actually regret their purchase.
I think I missed this post before. There is no new thunderbolt upgrade this year, and Ivy Bridge E5s are not likely to make thunderbolt any easier than it was with Sandy. The speculation on this can be attributed to overly active imagination coupled with lack of a new machine from Apple. It's unlikely that the chipset will change to accommodate usb3 as well, but every other oem managed to add it in with their sandy bridge E5 offerings. If they want to include either of these things, it will fall on Apple to do so. I can't think of any practical reason they skipped Sandy other than cancelling prior development plans. It doesn't make a lot of sense as their board design could go for Sandy + Ivy. This would push it to Ivy alone with the possibility of Sandy remnants to fill in missing E5 cpu options. It has happened before. Note how the current mac pro still has one of the original 2009 nehalem cpus in its lineup.
Bang on the nail, hmm ! A very concise summation of the workstation at the moment.
My concern is that I can see Apple dropping the MacPro for those very reasons - just not enough potential. But I want them to stick with it so the OS will still support the higher end configurations. If they drop the MP, what else would drop out of the OS over time ?
I couldn't find the link I was looking for. There was a better one on workstation shipments from last year. In spite of the delays from intel, they came out reasonably well. In spite of the graphic, I'm not sure if those deemed "mobile workstations" are included in the comparison. These numbers are much less meaningful to Apple than they are to Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc as they likely represent minimal growth to Apple. I don't really try to predict what they will drop from their product offerings.
But seriously, a Cube that size and weight doesn't have any need for handles, and so Ive won't allow any.
How will we pick it up? It'll just be a perfectly smooth, ungrippable surface.
But no, you're right. No handles needed. I'm not sure that I buy it needing to be this freaking small (and if they made it that small I'd have to start looking around for other options to fit my needs), but if they did do it, I see it being exactly like a Mac Mini, except as tall as it is square.
I think some of the mock ups posted look good and pretty much all have their merits. Personally, I go with the wiz's rack concept. I think that offers the best way forward. Apple could accomodate all users and third party hardware with that. Modular in a strong chassis that could be added to. Base model that can expand as you need, with a couple of higher end options. Even if they didn't go full width but went half that could still look great.
It would also clearly differentiate the product line. That's what I would hope for.
But seriously, a Cube that size and weight doesn't have any need for handles, and so Ive won't allow any.
While I can see handles being useful to an extent on such an expensive machine, I'd agree that they would mostly be aesthetic design elements and Ive does try to keep things as minimal as possible. That was why I tried to mockup the seamless plastic from the G4 Cube in the aluminum style but I didn't want it to end up looking like a subwoofer, which I think it does.
I also don't like the perfectly squared-off design shown in the centre of the image of the 3 cubes side-by-side. It doesn't have much character to it, no personality:
If they were doing a radical redesign, I'd expect Ive will go through a number of iterations and the best one will stand out. The use of a better cooling solution is critical to the smaller design. If their engineers can't make it viable, they have to stick with the big box just because of the heatsink size.
For the MacPro, Tim Cook did come out and say they have something amazing for later in 2013...
He just said 'something really great'. If you got a new haircut and someone said it was 'really great', it wouldn't fill you with much confidence. Maybe he's just trying to downplay it but the safest bet is still them doing almost nothing to the design at all and just dropping Ivy Bridge EP in with modern GPUs and USB 3.
There is the new Redwood Ridge controller but Falcon Ridge is the faster one. Apple could get it early but the peripherals would still have the older controller.
if they made it that small I'd have to start looking around for other options to fit my needs
I take it you mean from a storage point of view? It should hold 2x 3.5" drives up to 4TB each and I'd say 2xSSD blades up to 1.5TB. There's no reason it couldn't hold the fastest desktop GPU - they are only about 200W maximum. With one half-length PCI 3 slot, it allows any kind of PCI expansion. It also allows up to a 10-core CPU. It's 1/6th the size while being more powerful and only lacking minor things vs the huge box.
It won't quite have the bravado of the big box that gets attached to the user but it would be able to do the same job. The same work getting done with less bravado seems like a good setup to me.
I'd fully expect to see USB 3 on machines that ship in the current year, but where did you read that this would be chipset native? For reference EP = E5s. EN (E3) is based on the "mainstream" chip designs, so that came out last year. EX (E7) is only used in servers. They rarely change EP chipsets after one cycle. Did you read something different? I expect it will continue to use X79, and I haven't read about any replacements to this.
Quote:
He just said 'something really great'. If you got a new haircut and someone said it was 'really great', it wouldn't fill you with much confidence. Maybe he's just trying to downplay it but the safest bet is still them doing almost nothing to the design at all and just dropping Ivy Bridge EP in with modern GPUs and USB 3.
I guess it depends on how long they intend to keep something in that spot. I actually got a comment like that on a haircut a while back. I chopped off the long crazy hair, and the receptionist said it looked great. That immediately made me paranoid even though I liked it prior to the statement. It was a great haircut, but the comment still had the effect you just mentioned.
I take it you mean from a storage point of view? It should hold 2x 3.5" drives up to 4TB each and I'd say 2xSSD blades up to 1.5TB. There's no reason it couldn't hold the fastest desktop GPU - they are only about 200W maximum. With one half-length PCI 3 slot, it allows any kind of PCI expansion. It also allows up to a 10-core CPU. It's 1/6th the size while being more powerful and only lacking minor things vs the huge box.
I suppose if I move things around locally I could get my four drives cut down to two. By moving my Time Machine backup to just my AirPort, basically. But then I'll need another one somewhere…
And wouldn't a half-length slot limit the GPUs it could use?
I'd fully expect to see USB 3 on machines that ship in the current year, but where did you read that this would be chipset native? I expect it will continue to use X79, and I haven't read about any replacements to this.
You're right, still USB 2 on Ivy Bridge EP chipsets so they'd have to use a separate controller:
Only 2x 6G SATA ports too. That doesn't sound 'really great'. I don't suppose HDDs need SATA 6G but it limits the performance of SSDs put into those bays. They can't just have USB 2, especially without Thunderbolt. It sounds like Intel really wants to get out of that market entirely but why bother making the chips so fast?
The 10-core CPU is noted as being 70W, that would fit in an iMac. It would be nice if the only cost in going up to these Xeon chips was the processor itself and you get the benefits of the desktop chipsets with Thunderbolt and USB 3.
And wouldn't a half-length slot limit the GPUs it could use?
It would limit it to ones Apple supplies mostly but that's usually the case now anyway. Ideally (for them) they'd solder the GPUs in forcing people to upgrade.
A machine that converts easily from desktop to rack top should be fairly easy to accomplish. The electronics industry does it all the time with portable instruments that can be racked mounted. Half width would be versatile but I could see Apple going with an odd size relative to rack spacing, 12" or so would allow for a significant amount of space that can lead to a nice cube looking desktop. I doubt they would go full width as that would go against a design parameter which I believe would be a lower cost.
XServes problem was a lack of buyers and maybe expansion capability. It was a great server only platform but couldn't really draw customers who needed a more flexible machine. At least Apple never marketed it such that non server users took an interest. Functionality is huge consideration for pro users. My idea revolves around a platform that easily morphs into a machine suitable for a wide array of users. No idea is perfect but Apple needs to reduce the resistance that the current design creates with respect to Mac Pro sales. The more people that can say, ahh that will do the job for me and it is reasonably priced, the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
I think some of the mock ups posted look good and pretty much all have their merits.
Personally, I go with the wiz's rack concept. I think that offers the best way forward.
Apple could accomodate all users and third party hardware with that. Modular in a strong chassis that could be added to. Base model that can expand as you need, with a couple of higher end options. Even if they didn't go full width but went half that could still look great.
It would also clearly differentiate the product line.
I wouldn't dismiss the idea that Intel and Apple are working on a solution to the new Mac Pro chipset problem. Intel has become awfully secretive of late, this could reflect an influence from Apple to keep future technologies out of the public eye. So an IB chipset with USB 3 support could be possible. What I do know is impossible, or certainly ill advised, is Apple releasing a new Mac Pro without USB3.
The lack of SATA ports isn't a huge issue if Apple goes to a SSD in a PCI-Express interfaced card. Of course there are a limited number of PCI ports for any given chip sets but Apple can reallocate PCI lanes and reduce lane usage via an upgrade to PCI Express.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You're right, still USB 2 on Ivy Bridge EP chipsets so they'd have to use a separate controller:
Only 2x 6G SATA ports too. That doesn't sound 'really great'. I don't suppose HDDs need SATA 6G but it limits the performance of SSDs put into those bays. They can't just have USB 2, especially without Thunderbolt. It sounds like Intel really wants to get out of that market entirely but why bother making the chips so fast?
The 10-core CPU is noted as being 70W, that would fit in an iMac. It would be nice if the only cost in going up to these Xeon chips was the processor itself and you get the benefits of the desktop chipsets with Thunderbolt and USB 3.
It would limit it to ones Apple supplies mostly but that's usually the case now anyway. Ideally (for them) they'd solder the GPUs in forcing people to upgrade.
It is pretty amazing to think about ten cores at 70 watts. However the GPU issue is still a mystery in as we don't know how Apple will deal with the TB hardware. A soldered in GPU may simply be one solution to the technical problem TB creates. Custom GPU cards are another solution as is simply giving up on the video support on the TB interfaces.
In any event I suspect Apple and Intel are in bed together so to speak with this new Mac Pro design. It just seems odd that Intel has become so quiet lately with respect to some of their initiatives. They have for example become very quiet with respect to chips for super computing.
It sounds like Intel really wants to get out of that market entirely but why bother making the chips so fast?
I disagree here. These chips are shared between servers and workstations. In both cases intel tends to be very conservative in favor of stability. Note how many things pushed them back already. They have high margins and limited competition in this segment. As I mentioned the chipsets tend to be one for every two cycles. This allows for some amount of stability and controls costs for motherboard manufacturers who must overcome fixed development costs in a lower volume segment. Other workstation vendors all shipped usb3 with sandy bridge ep workstations, so it's not impossible. The further up you go, the more conservative intel remains. If you look at the EX lines, they only seem to show on die shrink years. The last one was Westmere. There is no Sandy Bridge EX. Of course those only appear in servers. I think you're reading into this on the false assumption that these only appear in workstation use.
I forgot to add, it might fit in an imac in terms of tdp, yet they still won't use the same board. They didn't use Ivy Bridge E3s either. We'll see what actually happens, but I don't expect Apple to design extra logic boards just to accommodate a slightly wider range of cpu offerings in the imac. I could be wrong as they've turned less conservative on hardware choices lately.
While it is true that Intel is more conservative with the workstation chipsets that doesn't mean that they need to be stuck with USB 3 until the next major rev. USB 3 would be valuable even in the workstation market and could be implemented without much external change to the chipset. It might be out of character but I think market demand is strong enough that Intel could rev a chipset early.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I disagree here. These chips are shared between servers and workstations. In both cases intel tends to be very conservative in favor of stability. Note how many things pushed them back already. They have high margins and limited competition in this segment. As I mentioned the chipsets tend to be one for every two cycles. This allows for some amount of stability and controls costs for motherboard manufacturers who must overcome fixed development costs in a lower volume segment. Other workstation vendors all shipped usb3 with sandy bridge ep workstations, so it's not impossible. The further up you go, the more conservative intel remains. If you look at the EX lines, they only seem to show on die shrink years. The last one was Westmere. There is no Sandy Bridge EX. Of course those only appear in servers. I think you're reading into this on the false assumption that these only appear in workstation use.
I forgot to add, it might fit in an imac in terms of tdp, yet they still won't use the same board. They didn't use Ivy Bridge E3s either. We'll see what actually happens, but I don't expect Apple to design extra logic boards just to accommodate a slightly wider range of cpu offerings in the imac. I could be wrong as they've turned less conservative on hardware choices lately.
This is exactly the problem the iMac currently is the only Mac that has the volume that could even remotely justify alternative motherboards. Conversely this is one of the reasons that I see that justifies a complete redesign of the Mac Pro, maybe even incorporating the Mac Pro and Mini concepts into the same chassis. They need to get the volume up on the Pro chassis. With sufficient sales of the general machine the lower volume "Pro" motherboard is less of an issues.
Now I'd be the first to admit that nobody would like this. The Mini users like their tiny foot point machine and the Pro users like the idea of their big format machines. Both users will eventually have to realize that Apple needs to do something to assure desktops in the future. The idea of a chassis with a low performance low power option, as seen in the Mini along with a high performance board option seems to be the only rational approach to dwindling sales.
Comments
[/Quote]
Wish there'd be a breakthrough in GPU tech on the order of what ARM is doing for CPUs to get that down.
[/Quote]
Actually we are getting break throughs, the new chips from AMD and NVidia perform extremely well for the power they consume. Imagination does even better. You literally have hundreds of processors working at once on those chips.
True but I suspect much of that comes from application specific processing. In other words they use hardware video decodes in the new Apple TVs. Just about all video processors come with some sort of hardware decoder now which greatly improves power efficiency when handling suitable video. The issue with the GPUs is that supporting 3D and other technologies demands a fair amount of processing power so these chips still consume energy at high rates. Interestingly the chips run substantially cooler when just handling normal 2D graphics.
As a side note those Imagination Tech GPUs are pretty innovative on the power front. Even NVidia seems to have trouble managing power the way those chips do. The reality of 3D is that performance still involves a bit of brute force no matter what GPU you are running.
I think I still prefer the Cube mod made by the guy on the following site. The above mockup would be around the same dimensions but the angle makes it look different:
http://hackedgadgets.com/2006/08/29/japanese-fan-mods-his-mac-cube-into-a-miniature-powermacmacpro/
http://www.conf.co.jp/new_folder/gallery/g5cube.html
The only thing is from the side, the proportions look a little off:
but the hard edges make it look more like a machine built for serious work.
He tried a few designs here:
I like the one furthest to the right. Jonathan Ive will do this in his workshop and be able to pick the best design. If he wants to use a Braun/Rams design, there's this one:
That would work well for stacking and it has a lip so it can be lifted easily. The insides can be pulled out the back and it would be a seamless design for the other parts.
I think so. The Pixar computer was cube-like despite the dimensions being off - 20" cube:
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/computer-graphics-music-and-art/15/213/611
The Next Cube was 12":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTcube
Then the G4 Cube was 8". They have a cubic Apple Store and look at the reactions when they introduced the G4 Cube:
"We are combining the power of the [Mac Pro] with the desktop elegance, the silence and the miniaturization that we learned from doing the iMac. Some of you are saying 'it looks like a mid-range machine to me', this is where we get into the magic"
It wouldn't be essential to take away PCI expansion but they could if they wanted. If they soldered the GPU, they could get away with an even smaller cube but the 3.5" drive dimensions would get in the way.
If they can't do something special with connectivity over Thunderbolt, a half-length PCI 3 slot would be the best route for now. That ensures immediate compatibility with everything - in the worst case, you'd connect a PCI breakout box for all existing full length cards.
The original Cube was $1799 and I think they can at least hit that with iMac-like components. I do think the Cube would have more mainstream appeal than a large tower so it justifies a lower price point. I'd like to see a 24" 1080p Cinema display though for about $500. That would be a really nice setup for around the same price as a top-end iMac.
Apple has to decide if they want to boost the headless category of machines any more though. I suspect that's not the case. I see them wanting to wind this category down and if they just do a run-of-the-mill upgrade on the current chassis, you can guarantee that's how it is.
I do understand that designers feel they have to emulate the current design when brainstorming on future Apple hardware directions.
But seriously, a Cube that size and weight doesn't have any need for handles, and so Ive won't allow any.
I'm actually thinking due cast housing for the Mac Pro replacement. That is get ride of the sheetmetal all together. A die casting would offer a new look and a lot of freedom in design. Done right it could also make for a rugged if maybe heavy chassis.
I'm still thinking any chassis they come up with will need to be easily rack mountable and probably no more than 3U high, 4U at the outside. It should be fairly easy to come up with a good looking design that can be used in multiple ways according to the users needs.
Why is Apple not even mentioning any new concepts for the Mac Pro at all? They seem to shy away from this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox
Why is Apple not even mentioning any new concepts for the Mac Pro at all? They seem to shy away from this.
Apple seems more secretive than the CIA or NAS. Rarely do they tip their hand before announcing something, other than to say they are working on some great stuff.
For the MacPro, Tim Cook did come out and say they have something amazing for later in 2013...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Just looked at the Apple Store. It is difficult to fathom that Apple could allow sales of the current Pro for the next 6-9 months.
USB3 can always be added later, but not having Thunderbolt on board really does make these machines kind of disposable.
If Cook knew the upgrade was going to take a year or more, why didn't they just drop first-gen Thunderbolt in last fall?
I think buyers of the 2012-13 Mac Pros will be the first Pro buyers to actually regret their purchase.
I think I missed this post before. There is no new thunderbolt upgrade this year, and Ivy Bridge E5s are not likely to make thunderbolt any easier than it was with Sandy. The speculation on this can be attributed to overly active imagination coupled with lack of a new machine from Apple. It's unlikely that the chipset will change to accommodate usb3 as well, but every other oem managed to add it in with their sandy bridge E5 offerings. If they want to include either of these things, it will fall on Apple to do so. I can't think of any practical reason they skipped Sandy other than cancelling prior development plans. It doesn't make a lot of sense as their board design could go for Sandy + Ivy. This would push it to Ivy alone with the possibility of Sandy remnants to fill in missing E5 cpu options. It has happened before. Note how the current mac pro still has one of the original 2009 nehalem cpus in its lineup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
Bang on the nail, hmm ! A very concise summation of the workstation at the moment.
My concern is that I can see Apple dropping the MacPro for those very reasons - just not enough potential. But I want them to stick with it so the OS will still support the higher end configurations. If they drop the MP, what else would drop out of the OS over time ?
I couldn't find the link I was looking for. There was a better one on workstation shipments from last year. In spite of the delays from intel, they came out reasonably well. In spite of the graphic, I'm not sure if those deemed "mobile workstations" are included in the comparison. These numbers are much less meaningful to Apple than they are to Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc as they likely represent minimal growth to Apple. I don't really try to predict what they will drop from their product offerings.
Originally Posted by Frank777
But seriously, a Cube that size and weight doesn't have any need for handles, and so Ive won't allow any.
How will we pick it up? It'll just be a perfectly smooth, ungrippable surface.
But no, you're right. No handles needed. I'm not sure that I buy it needing to be this freaking small (and if they made it that small I'd have to start looking around for other options to fit my needs), but if they did do it, I see it being exactly like a Mac Mini, except as tall as it is square.
Personally, I go with the wiz's rack concept. I think that offers the best way forward.
Apple could accomodate all users and third party hardware with that. Modular in a strong chassis that could be added to. Base model that can expand as you need, with a couple of higher end options. Even if they didn't go full width but went half that could still look great.
It would also clearly differentiate the product line.
That's what I would hope for.
(Always loved the look of the xServe RIP)
While I can see handles being useful to an extent on such an expensive machine, I'd agree that they would mostly be aesthetic design elements and Ive does try to keep things as minimal as possible. That was why I tried to mockup the seamless plastic from the G4 Cube in the aluminum style but I didn't want it to end up looking like a subwoofer, which I think it does.
I also don't like the perfectly squared-off design shown in the centre of the image of the 3 cubes side-by-side. It doesn't have much character to it, no personality:
If they were doing a radical redesign, I'd expect Ive will go through a number of iterations and the best one will stand out. The use of a better cooling solution is critical to the smaller design. If their engineers can't make it viable, they have to stick with the big box just because of the heatsink size.
He just said 'something really great'. If you got a new haircut and someone said it was 'really great', it wouldn't fill you with much confidence. Maybe he's just trying to downplay it but the safest bet is still them doing almost nothing to the design at all and just dropping Ivy Bridge EP in with modern GPUs and USB 3.
There is the new Redwood Ridge controller but Falcon Ridge is the faster one. Apple could get it early but the peripherals would still have the older controller.
It's Ivy Bridge EP, it'll have USB 3.
I take it you mean from a storage point of view? It should hold 2x 3.5" drives up to 4TB each and I'd say 2xSSD blades up to 1.5TB. There's no reason it couldn't hold the fastest desktop GPU - they are only about 200W maximum. With one half-length PCI 3 slot, it allows any kind of PCI expansion. It also allows up to a 10-core CPU. It's 1/6th the size while being more powerful and only lacking minor things vs the huge box.
It won't quite have the bravado of the big box that gets attached to the user but it would be able to do the same job. The same work getting done with less bravado seems like a good setup to me.
Personally, I don't care about the size. I'm actually fine if they use the same box, as long as the internals are up to date and it's affordable.
The limitations of this iMac are getting on my nerves, and the hard drive warranty issue simply made things worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It's Ivy Bridge EP, it'll have USB 3.
I'd fully expect to see USB 3 on machines that ship in the current year, but where did you read that this would be chipset native? For reference EP = E5s. EN (E3) is based on the "mainstream" chip designs, so that came out last year. EX (E7) is only used in servers. They rarely change EP chipsets after one cycle. Did you read something different? I expect it will continue to use X79, and I haven't read about any replacements to this.
Quote:
He just said 'something really great'. If you got a new haircut and someone said it was 'really great', it wouldn't fill you with much confidence. Maybe he's just trying to downplay it but the safest bet is still them doing almost nothing to the design at all and just dropping Ivy Bridge EP in with modern GPUs and USB 3.
I guess it depends on how long they intend to keep something in that spot. I actually got a comment like that on a haircut a while back. I chopped off the long crazy hair, and the receptionist said it looked great. That immediately made me paranoid even though I liked it prior to the statement. It was a great haircut, but the comment still had the effect you just mentioned.
Originally Posted by Marvin
I take it you mean from a storage point of view? It should hold 2x 3.5" drives up to 4TB each and I'd say 2xSSD blades up to 1.5TB. There's no reason it couldn't hold the fastest desktop GPU - they are only about 200W maximum. With one half-length PCI 3 slot, it allows any kind of PCI expansion. It also allows up to a 10-core CPU. It's 1/6th the size while being more powerful and only lacking minor things vs the huge box.
I suppose if I move things around locally I could get my four drives cut down to two. By moving my Time Machine backup to just my AirPort, basically. But then I'll need another one somewhere…
And wouldn't a half-length slot limit the GPUs it could use?
You're right, still USB 2 on Ivy Bridge EP chipsets so they'd have to use a separate controller:
http://technorati.com/technology/article/x79-the-last-intel-enthusiast-platform/
http://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/us/en/chipsets/server-chipsets/server-chipset-c600.html
http://wccftech.com/intels-leaked-roadmap-shows-ivy-bridgeepen-processors-12-cores-30mb-cache-130w-tdp/
Only 2x 6G SATA ports too. That doesn't sound 'really great'. I don't suppose HDDs need SATA 6G but it limits the performance of SSDs put into those bays. They can't just have USB 2, especially without Thunderbolt. It sounds like Intel really wants to get out of that market entirely but why bother making the chips so fast?
The 10-core CPU is noted as being 70W, that would fit in an iMac. It would be nice if the only cost in going up to these Xeon chips was the processor itself and you get the benefits of the desktop chipsets with Thunderbolt and USB 3.
It would limit it to ones Apple supplies mostly but that's usually the case now anyway. Ideally (for them) they'd solder the GPUs in forcing people to upgrade.
A machine that converts easily from desktop to rack top should be fairly easy to accomplish. The electronics industry does it all the time with portable instruments that can be racked mounted. Half width would be versatile but I could see Apple going with an odd size relative to rack spacing, 12" or so would allow for a significant amount of space that can lead to a nice cube looking desktop. I doubt they would go full width as that would go against a design parameter which I believe would be a lower cost.
XServes problem was a lack of buyers and maybe expansion capability. It was a great server only platform but couldn't really draw customers who needed a more flexible machine. At least Apple never marketed it such that non server users took an interest. Functionality is huge consideration for pro users. My idea revolves around a platform that easily morphs into a machine suitable for a wide array of users. No idea is perfect but Apple needs to reduce the resistance that the current design creates with respect to Mac Pro sales. The more people that can say, ahh that will do the job for me and it is reasonably priced, the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
I think some of the mock ups posted look good and pretty much all have their merits.
Personally, I go with the wiz's rack concept. I think that offers the best way forward.
Apple could accomodate all users and third party hardware with that. Modular in a strong chassis that could be added to. Base model that can expand as you need, with a couple of higher end options. Even if they didn't go full width but went half that could still look great.
It would also clearly differentiate the product line.
That's what I would hope for.
(Always loved the look of the xServe RIP)
I wouldn't dismiss the idea that Intel and Apple are working on a solution to the new Mac Pro chipset problem. Intel has become awfully secretive of late, this could reflect an influence from Apple to keep future technologies out of the public eye. So an IB chipset with USB 3 support could be possible. What I do know is impossible, or certainly ill advised, is Apple releasing a new Mac Pro without USB3.
The lack of SATA ports isn't a huge issue if Apple goes to a SSD in a PCI-Express interfaced card. Of course there are a limited number of PCI ports for any given chip sets but Apple can reallocate PCI lanes and reduce lane usage via an upgrade to PCI Express.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You're right, still USB 2 on Ivy Bridge EP chipsets so they'd have to use a separate controller:
http://technorati.com/technology/article/x79-the-last-intel-enthusiast-platform/
http://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/us/en/chipsets/server-chipsets/server-chipset-c600.html
http://wccftech.com/intels-leaked-roadmap-shows-ivy-bridgeepen-processors-12-cores-30mb-cache-130w-tdp/
Only 2x 6G SATA ports too. That doesn't sound 'really great'. I don't suppose HDDs need SATA 6G but it limits the performance of SSDs put into those bays. They can't just have USB 2, especially without Thunderbolt. It sounds like Intel really wants to get out of that market entirely but why bother making the chips so fast?
The 10-core CPU is noted as being 70W, that would fit in an iMac. It would be nice if the only cost in going up to these Xeon chips was the processor itself and you get the benefits of the desktop chipsets with Thunderbolt and USB 3.
It would limit it to ones Apple supplies mostly but that's usually the case now anyway. Ideally (for them) they'd solder the GPUs in forcing people to upgrade.
It is pretty amazing to think about ten cores at 70 watts. However the GPU issue is still a mystery in as we don't know how Apple will deal with the TB hardware. A soldered in GPU may simply be one solution to the technical problem TB creates. Custom GPU cards are another solution as is simply giving up on the video support on the TB interfaces.
In any event I suspect Apple and Intel are in bed together so to speak with this new Mac Pro design. It just seems odd that Intel has become so quiet lately with respect to some of their initiatives. They have for example become very quiet with respect to chips for super computing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It sounds like Intel really wants to get out of that market entirely but why bother making the chips so fast?
I disagree here. These chips are shared between servers and workstations. In both cases intel tends to be very conservative in favor of stability. Note how many things pushed them back already. They have high margins and limited competition in this segment. As I mentioned the chipsets tend to be one for every two cycles. This allows for some amount of stability and controls costs for motherboard manufacturers who must overcome fixed development costs in a lower volume segment. Other workstation vendors all shipped usb3 with sandy bridge ep workstations, so it's not impossible. The further up you go, the more conservative intel remains. If you look at the EX lines, they only seem to show on die shrink years. The last one was Westmere. There is no Sandy Bridge EX. Of course those only appear in servers. I think you're reading into this on the false assumption that these only appear in workstation use.
I forgot to add, it might fit in an imac in terms of tdp, yet they still won't use the same board. They didn't use Ivy Bridge E3s either. We'll see what actually happens, but I don't expect Apple to design extra logic boards just to accommodate a slightly wider range of cpu offerings in the imac. I could be wrong as they've turned less conservative on hardware choices lately.
While it is true that Intel is more conservative with the workstation chipsets that doesn't mean that they need to be stuck with USB 3 until the next major rev. USB 3 would be valuable even in the workstation market and could be implemented without much external change to the chipset. It might be out of character but I think market demand is strong enough that Intel could rev a chipset early.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I disagree here. These chips are shared between servers and workstations. In both cases intel tends to be very conservative in favor of stability. Note how many things pushed them back already. They have high margins and limited competition in this segment. As I mentioned the chipsets tend to be one for every two cycles. This allows for some amount of stability and controls costs for motherboard manufacturers who must overcome fixed development costs in a lower volume segment. Other workstation vendors all shipped usb3 with sandy bridge ep workstations, so it's not impossible. The further up you go, the more conservative intel remains. If you look at the EX lines, they only seem to show on die shrink years. The last one was Westmere. There is no Sandy Bridge EX. Of course those only appear in servers. I think you're reading into this on the false assumption that these only appear in workstation use.
I forgot to add, it might fit in an imac in terms of tdp, yet they still won't use the same board. They didn't use Ivy Bridge E3s either. We'll see what actually happens, but I don't expect Apple to design extra logic boards just to accommodate a slightly wider range of cpu offerings in the imac. I could be wrong as they've turned less conservative on hardware choices lately.
This is exactly the problem the iMac currently is the only Mac that has the volume that could even remotely justify alternative motherboards. Conversely this is one of the reasons that I see that justifies a complete redesign of the Mac Pro, maybe even incorporating the Mac Pro and Mini concepts into the same chassis. They need to get the volume up on the Pro chassis. With sufficient sales of the general machine the lower volume "Pro" motherboard is less of an issues.
Now I'd be the first to admit that nobody would like this. The Mini users like their tiny foot point machine and the Pro users like the idea of their big format machines. Both users will eventually have to realize that Apple needs to do something to assure desktops in the future. The idea of a chassis with a low performance low power option, as seen in the Mini along with a high performance board option seems to be the only rational approach to dwindling sales.
You are correct they are more secretive than the CIA. Who really knows when this Mac Pro will come out?They are a weird company.