The general public doesn't care about a $2500+ specialized machine like this.
I disagree. The general public has taken lots of interest in the Mac Pro and other pro machines from Apple over the years. The same could be said about the rMBP which can be nearly as expensive as the Mac Pro yet people do have an interest in the machine.
And other than specific model numbers of the known components and pricing options, it's a known commodity. There are no "one more thing" moments for this product.
Maybe too you. However do you really think Apple would throw this machine onto the market without any sort of announcement? More so would they do so without supporting hardware to go with it? I just don't see a silent release happening, Apple needs to instill in people minds that this is a credible system able to do the work they need to get done.
I'm sure they're waiting to ship this with Mavericks as that will be the only OS to support Thunderbolt 2 and have AMD Firepro drivers. If it doesn't just show up for preorder some sunny morning, it'll be a side note at the next hardware event.
The next hardware event is exactly what we are talking about which needs to happen real soon to get the Mini and MBP out the door also. Oh and launch Mavericks. How much time they devote to the Mac Pro, new monitors and what have you isn't the point. The point is the machines need to be rolled out and be made public ally available. I just think there is more going on here than can be covered in a press release buried on Apples web servers.
I think it's more likely that Apple simply wants the Pro to be the first machine out with TB2.
Announcing the MBP or Mini steals the spotlight from the new top-of-the-line Mac.
It may simply be scheduling. My understanding was that Intel didn't intend to ship TB 2 until next year and the early release is directly related to a push from Apple.
I also wouldn't get your hopes up about a Minitower.
If you call it a Minitower you have already biased your mind as to what the machine could be.
Apple know fully well that xMac partisans have always wanted a $1500. tower, and only offered a comparable product once. That is deliberate corporate strategy.
It is a corporate strategy that has hung around for a very long time developed under drastically different conditions. These day you have a Mini with tanking sales just like the rest of the desktop line up. You battle declining markets with new compelling products. Apple could very well revise the Mini simply in the hopes of spurring sales. Or they could do so to address the issue of supporting a bunch of incompatible hardware in a declining market. In fact the ability to use common parts between a Mac Pro and a Mini replacement could do much to keep both machines feasible.
The old iMac, Mini and Pro where great to have around when sales where strong with reasonable gains in sales every year. That time has passed for most desktop manufacture. The strategy laid out ten years ago simply is of no value today. The reality with Haswell is that Apple can offer far better value for most user with desktop components.
With TB2 offering expansion opportunities, Apple is not going to kill Pro sales with a bold Mini, or kill iMac sales with a $1500. tower.
The idea that a desktop chip with 2-4 cores can impact Mac Pro sales is a joke. Such a machine wouldn't impact Mac Pro sales anymore than the current iMac does. In any event let's be honest here iMac sales are flat if not in decline, Mini sales are in decline and as we all know Mac Pro sales have been so pathetic that it didn't bother Apple to do a prerelease of the new Mac Pro. That should tell you something right there.
The lineup needs a shake up. The new Mac Pro is part of that shake up. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised to shake things up a bit more and refactor the Mini. Maybe it won't be based on the Mac Pro, but it is likely to be significantly different from the iMac.
I'm just trying to resolve in my own mine why the iMac got a silent update and the Mini is currently the same old Box. Would they even put TB 2 in the Mini as that is kinda contra to its low cost nature?
It simply isn't going to happen.
Maybe maybe not, but do you really think the Mini will come in the same old chassis with TB 2 tacked on? Something doesn't add up here. Further if TB 2 was this close and Apple considered it an imperative for the low end machines why wasn't the iMac held for TB 2? I just find the situation interesting to say the least.
This is one reason I think some sort of announcement is coming. The fact the both the Mini and Mac Book Pro have yet to update highlights that more than a general rev of these machines is about to happen.
A mediaeval tower perhaps. No not an iPad spelling error! the idea just came to mind that if you put two new Mac Pros close together with a draw bridge in the center you have what looks like an ultra modern entrance to a castle. A sign of sleep depravation perhaps.
In any event I do have this feeling that more than the Mac Pro we know is coming. Even if the other macs are ignored we still have the fact that it would be best for Apple to have a few system components to go with the Mac Pro. For example the 4K monitor, a TB attached storage array maybe even a TB attached computational node. I just can't see the Mac Pro going on sale in a vacuum.
True. I doubt the new Landmark Pro will just arrive in isolation. It's Mavericks. The Pro. 4k Monitor (they've been on sale since earlier this year?) It's planets in alignment stuff. They've had several years to get this right. The components are there. It's just the timing.
It's not just going to arrive on its own with no studio display or Mavericks.
Similarly. No mini update alongside the iMac. Very intriguing.
Basically, the last pro was being chased down by the Mini it was so out of date.
But the new 'Pro' is so 'Mini' now...why not save production costs, do away with the Mini and just have the Pro with the internals you want? From Mini spec? iMac spec? Pro spec?
One 'box' or 'cylinder' to rule them all? The pro is a 'mini'.
So why not be able to have the 'mini' as the 'pro' but with an i7 in it and a 780MX and price it at £999 inc Vat and what it fly out stores?
One at £799 inc VAT, i7 with SSD and Iris graphics.
Prosumer Pro in Space Grey or Aluminium. Mac Pro in Black. See what I did there?
Would streamline teh desktop way more. And you don't have to worry about packing in the components in too small a space. You have a far more scaleable design for it to be a 'order whatever you components' you want to 'white box' (or black cylinder in this case...)
Offer a range of components. Let the user configure.
In fact, you could even wipe out the iMac with this idea. Just one cylinder. Studio display. One of each. One desktop. One monitor.
Config' with the Mini-iMac-Pro specs. Ultra steamlined.
I could go for that... Surely they'd save a fortune this way? And maximise desktop profits? It may even coax over some more PC switchers if they could just configure a 'tower' (cylinder) to just about any spec.
Maybe maybe not, but do you really think the Mini will come in the same old chassis with TB 2 tacked on? Something doesn't add up here. Further if TB 2 was this close and Apple considered it an imperative for the low end machines why wasn't the iMac held for TB 2? I just find the situation interesting to say the least.
But the new 'Pro' is so 'Mini' now...why not save production costs, do away with the Mini and just have the Pro with the internals you want? From Mini spec? iMac spec? Pro spec?
One 'box' or 'cylinder' to rule them all? The pro is a 'mini'.
...
In fact, you could even wipe out the iMac with this idea. Just one cylinder. Studio display. One of each. One desktop. One monitor.
Config' with the Mini-iMac-Pro specs. Ultra steamlined.
This is indeed a good idea. I would like to be offered the possibility to configure at will such a cylinder, from the Mini up to the Pro specifications, and just add a monitor to it.
What I don't know is how strong the all-in-one approach is still going in Apple. With all the i-devices, and especially with the new Pro concept, they seem to move to a more modular design. But I am afraid the thinned-out iMac form is too new to be phased out so quickly.
Maybe maybe not, but do you really think the Mini will come in the same old chassis with TB 2 tacked on? Something doesn't add up here. Further if TB 2 was this close and Apple considered it an imperative for the low end machines why wasn't the iMac held for TB 2? I just find the situation interesting to say the least.
You could be right, but the hope of a real midrange Mac alternative has been beaten out of me over the years.
I'd be totally happy if Apple just gave access to the 27" iMac's internal drive. Surely with SSDs an eject function can be added.
I still say that Apple wants TB2 to debut on the Pro as a talking point, so the iMac will get it in the first 2014 rev, and the TB2-less Mini will get announced silently the week the Pro debuts.
Experience triumphs over hope for me, especially when discussing Apple and their hardware margins.
True. I doubt the new Landmark Pro will just arrive in isolation. It's Mavericks. The Pro. 4k Monitor (they've been on sale since earlier this year?) It's planets in alignment stuff. They've had several years to get this right. The components are there. It's just the timing.
I'd actually have to ask what in hell is up at Apple if they didn't have a complete solution to debut with the new Mac Pro. It would be a huge mistake to throw the machine on the market alone.
It's not just going to arrive on its own with no studio display or Mavericks.
Similarly. No mini update alongside the iMac. Very intriguing.
I don't understand this one either, if the Mini doesn't get a silent update then what changed?
Basically, the last pro was being chased down by the Mini it was so out of date.
But the new 'Pro' is so 'Mini' now...why not save production costs, do away with the Mini and just have the Pro with the internals you want? From Mini spec? iMac spec? Pro spec?
The idea that Apple could throw a low cost board into that Mac Pro chassis is very intriguing to say the least. They might even be able to offer a server version with the single board computer on one side and SSDs or hard drives on the other two sides. Frankly it would make for a better server compared to the Mini.
One 'box' or 'cylinder' to rule them all? The pro is a 'mini'.
So why not be able to have the 'mini' as the 'pro' but with an i7 in it and a 780MX and price it at £999 inc Vat and what it fly out stores?
Here is the interesting thing, Haswell with Iris will be good enough for many. However there are those that need a bit more, so why not offer an option of a video card from the Pro machine. They can use a model that didn't reach the top of the "up to" label.
In effect this turns the Mini replacement into a two slot machine if they recycle as much of the Mac Pros hardware as possible. The chip sets might not support GPUs in both slots if you run out of PCI Express lanes (depends upon the Haswell choosen). With care though I think Apple could hit somewhere between $1200-1500 dollars US.
One at £799 inc VAT, i7 with SSD and Iris graphics.
Yep! People question the possibility should only look at MBA. Ditch the laptop parts and you have a similar price structure for the Mac Pro Jr.
Prosumer Pro in Space Grey or Aluminium. Mac Pro in Black. See what I did there?
I wouldn't even bother to change colors.
Would streamline teh desktop way more. And you don't have to worry about packing in the components in too small a space. You have a far more scaleable design for it to be a 'order whatever you components' you want to 'white box' (or black cylinder in this case...)
This is the thing, Apple could offer one unit with a 45 watt Haswell and another with a 75 watt Haswell. This would provide for a significant performance delta for MP Jr, while still leaving a huge gap between them and the pro machine. The big difference here being cores which is what many Pro apps are all about.
Offer a range of components. Let the user configure.
In fact, you could even wipe out the iMac with this idea. Just one cylinder. Studio display. One of each. One desktop. One monitor.
Wiping out the iMac concept would make my day. Not so much the machine but rather the idea that it isn't serviceable for the things most likely needing service. The Mini currently isn't as bad as the iMac but the Minis functionality delivered in a Mac Pro chassis should be far more serviceable.
Config' with the Mini-iMac-Pro specs. Ultra steamlined.
I could go for that... Surely they'd save a fortune this way? And maximise desktop profits? It may even coax over some more PC switchers if they could just configure a 'tower' (cylinder) to just about any spec.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Well the reality is this, they have to do something different to address the changing market! The Mini is a nice machine, don't get me wrong on that account, but sales are slipping and it isn't the Mini nor Apples fault. Desktop sales where on the decline well before iPad. A platform that can span user needs from near the bottom to as near the top as the Mac Pro goes would be ideal.
In any event I hope that in 11 days we see more than an iPad debut. It would be very frustrating to go through another Apple roll out that doesn't cover what you are interested in. Well OK everything you are interested in.
You could be right, but the hope of a real midrange Mac alternative has been beaten out of me over the years.
You and me both. When I purchased my MBP some years ago it was because I really didn't have an option in my mind for a Midrange performance machine. Especially after fulling out the iMac. So I understand totally the frustration with Apples take it or leave it desktop lineup.
I'd be totally happy if Apple just gave access to the 27" iMac's internal drive. Surely with SSDs an eject function can be added.
With Apples blade SSDs it ought to be easy to provide access. More so why wouldn't people want a machine that keeps repair costs low.
I still say that Apple wants TB2 to debut on the Pro as a talking point, so the iMac will get it in the first 2014 rev, and the TB2-less Mini will get announced silently the week the Pro debuts.
I'm hoping that means a whole system of Apple supplied TB 2 solutions.
Experience triumphs over hope for me, especially when discussing Apple and their hardware margins.
Yeah I know but maybe the Mac Pro will demonstrate a change of heart for Apple. It is the perfect box (tube) to cover a wide range of performance needs in.
I'm hoping for a Mac Pro with a baseline config that is not that much more than the top end spec'ed up imac 27" that offers a decent performance increase over it. Surely Apple can do that without the screen cost.
I'm hoping for a Mac Pro with a baseline config that is not that much more than the top end spec'ed up imac 27" that offers a decent performance increase over it. Surely Apple can do that without the screen cost.
That is actually the price I'm guessing they will start it off with. I don't care that the GPU costs several $1,000's; Apple prices their products seemingly 'as what works, what makes sense'. They can't kick off the Mac Pro as a 7k machine; the old one started at around $2800 (used to be 2500 with a slower, single-quad CPU). With a higher-end iMac with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD at around $2500 I'm guessing the Mac Pro with same RAM & SSD will be around $2750.
That is actually the price I'm guessing they will start it off with. I don't care that the GPU costs several $1,000's; Apple prices their products seemingly 'as what works, what makes sense'. They can't kick off the Mac Pro as a 7k machine; the old one started at around $2800 (used to be 2500 with a slower, single-quad CPU). With a higher-end iMac with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD at around $2500 I'm guessing the Mac Pro with same RAM & SSD will be around $2750.
I hope so, I'm just wondering what it's performance will be like and if it will be worth it over the iMac, I do love the look and screen of the iMac, not sure if i am getting a little greedy on spec, but i'd like to see a good performance gain.
I wouldn't like to see a crippled Mac Pro just to get the price lower when you would be better off with an iMac instead.
I hope so, I'm just wondering what it's performance will be like and if it will be worth it over the iMac, I do love the look and screen of the iMac, not sure if i am getting a little greedy on spec, but i'd like to see a good performance gain.
I wouldn't like to see a crippled Mac Pro just to get the price lower when you would be better off with an iMac instead.
Since they're offloading much of the processing power to the GPU I'd say it'll be way faster than the iMac, but this is highly 'opinionated'. I'm certain Marvin could give you a well-founded answer with facts to back it up, if he has the time...
I hope so, I'm just wondering what it's performance will be like and if it will be worth it over the iMac, I do love the look and screen of the iMac, not sure if i am getting a little greedy on spec, but i'd like to see a good performance gain.
I wouldn't like to see a crippled Mac Pro just to get the price lower when you would be better off with an iMac instead.
Since they're offloading much of the processing power to the GPU I'd say it'll be way faster than the iMac, but this is highly 'opinionated'. I'm certain Marvin could give you a well-founded answer with facts to back it up, if he has the time...
It depends which model is being compared and which software as the software has to be specially written to take advantage of GPUs. If the entry Mac Pro has a quad-core, 256GB SSD, 8GB RAM, dual W5000 GPUs for $2199-2499, it will perform quite close to the top spec iMac at the same price, same as the entry model did before and the iMac has a display as well as an NVidia GPU, which will handle CUDA too.
The highest-end 12-core Mac Pro should be about 2-2.5x the CPU performance of the iMac. Normally it would be 3x but the Mac Pro is on Ivy Bridge while the iMac is on Haswell.
The AMD GPUs are better for OpenCL than NVidia so software that takes advantage of this will run faster. Here is an OpenCL raytracing test:
This talk about a mini or mid range computer in the new Mac Pro case does sound intriguing.
Then (for those of us that do use them or at least want everything looking like it matches and goes together) someone could build an external case that is designed to fit under the computer.
Think square on the bottom curving into a round shape at the top.
I'm guessing the Mac Pro with same RAM & SSD will be around $2750.
That's my guess as well, since the system is a single CPU and working on the notion that Apple will provide graphic choices, that price seems to be very doable. We have just one more month left before we start selling our bodies in front of truck stops to afford this beauty. So I'm now off to bid on a pair of authentic, authorized, signed, reproduction pair of black Olivia Newton John's spanx and purchase a blonde wig from the store, "So You're Bald Now" in preparation of the big day. I hope they take Discover.
This talk about a mini or mid range computer in the new Mac Pro case does sound intriguing.
Then (for those of us that do use them or at least want everything looking like it matches and goes together) someone could build an external case that is designed to fit under the computer.
Say for example the new entry Mac Pro comes with a Xeon E5-1620v2:
the CPU wouldn't save money. They likely wouldn't leave one side of the machine empty so they'd use two Radeon 8970s, which would likely not be much cheaper to buy from AMD than the W5000s.
Then comes the biggest problem, which is the PCIe lanes. The Core-i CPUs have 16 lanes, the Xeons have 40. They need to support dual x16 GPUs + 6 Thunderbolt 2 + PCIe storage. They can add a PLX chip:
but that's still not enough for the Mac Pro setup. This may be why the iMac didn't get TB2. If the MBP doesn't get it, that will be clearer. It's not that big of a deal because peripheral manufacturers can use TB2 no problem and the devices will work with both.
The Mac Pro's price is because of higher margins. Tim Cook said that the average gross margins on the Macs are lower than the iOS devices so that has to be around the 30% mark. The Mac Pro is an exception because the target audience allows it to maintain high margins - this is true for all the workstation manufacturers. I doubt the new model has higher build costs than the iMac but the iMac doesn't ship with an SSD.
Say that the iMac has 30% margins, the model with the core-i7 and 780M with 256GB SSD at $2550 would cost $1785 to build.
Let's say that the $999 Thunderbolt Display has 30% margins and costs $699, deduct the cost of the casing, PSU etc to get a panel cost of about $500. Remove that from the iMac cost to get $1285. Now add in the second GPU to get $1485. Slap on 40% gross margins and you get an i7 Mac Pro to be $2475. It's no cheaper than the Xeon model.
They could build a machine to sell at whatever price and margins they wanted but for a headless machine with the iMac parts to be cheaper than the iMac, it has to sell more units to be worthwhile and the market volume just isn't in the $1000-2000 price range. When you look at PC tower manufacturers, the average selling prices are way down around $500 and the gross margins are terrible - 15% or less with net margins below 5%.
The best hope that people have of a cheap tower is with used models. Someone that buys the new model this year would sell it for about $1400 in a couple of years. There is a chance they can sell the new Mac Pro at a $2199 entry point by reducing margins but they just have no reason to do this. Realistically, what will happen is a $2499 entry price for a quad-core E5-1620v2, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD and dual W5000 GPUs.
Realistically, what will happen is a $2499 entry price for a quad-core E5-1620v2, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD and dual W5000 GPUs.
Oh gosh, I would take the 8970 over the W5000 any day of the week, there just isn't any comparison between the two. Need that FireGL support, no problem, just flash the 8970 into a FireGL card. Yes, this works, quite well actually, now there are differences, small differences in the hardware, mainly the ECC memory but the differences is mostly in the bios and drivers. The 8970 hasn't been released yet but people have been doing it to their 7970's for a while now, a flashed 7970 becomes a w8000, it's not as fast but it's very, very close, mainly because the W8000 has more memory, and it's ECC. There is no doubt though a flashed 8970 would destroy the W5000 every which way till Sunday, especially if you overclock it. The kicker, OSX supports these flashed cards, comes up as a W8000 and will even show the extra overclocked Ghz if you go that route as well.
I feel that a 256GB SSD would be an insult in a supposedly "professional" machine.
I still cringe when I think of the last radical Mac desktop, the Mac Pro G5. It was the worst Mac I've owned dating back to the SE. I hope they've done a better job this time.
Question, how well do the TB to FireWire adapters that Apple has on its website work?
I feel that a 256GB SSD would be an insult in a supposedly "professional" machine.
I agree, this ought to start of with 512GB. And 16GB RAM, as the iMacs start off with 8GB
I still cringe when I think of the last radical Mac desktop, the Mac Pro G5. It was the worst Mac I've owned dating back to the SE. I hope they've done a better job this time.
I've owned a few, including the very first one, single 1.6GHz (with 10.2.7) I think it was a fantastic machine, back then. Became even better when they kept on innovating the hardware design.
Question, how well do the TB to FireWire adapters that Apple has on its website work?
If they're selling it, it has been tested, no doubt about that one. So I'd say they work, and max out at 800Mb/s. Really, I don't understand the question. Have there been adapters like this one that they've sold before but didn't work?
Oh gosh, I would take the 8970 over the W5000 any day of the week, there just isn't any comparison between the two.
It might be a 2013 equivalent of the W5000 but the 8970 would probably still be higher raw performance. The FirePro is designed for certain workloads though, even if a lot of it is on the software level:
Need that FireGL support, no problem, just flash the 8970 into a FireGL card. Yes, this works, quite well actually, now there are differences, small differences in the hardware, mainly the ECC memory but the differences is mostly in the bios and drivers.
People don't expect to flash firmwares or switch drivers in an expensive machine they rely on for work. Macs are meant to work as intended out of the box for every user. You're still talking about dual W5000 (or 2013 equivalent) so the performance will be high. There's a habit of pointing at what Apple's using and suggesting there's a much better value alternative but this will probably happen until the end of time. They are a premium manufacturer and charge more for what you get spec-wise, this isn't news. Raw spec is not why Apple customers keep buying and hasn't been for the past 30 years.
I agree, this ought to start of with 512GB. And 16GB RAM, as the iMacs start off with 8GB
The base model on the store right now has 6GB RAM, a 1TB HDD and a single Radeon 5770. They are adding a second GPU and an SSD. They are removing some things too, which will lower some build costs and they will probably cut down on shipping charges. If they can pull off 512GB + 16GB, that would be great but people might then wonder why not offer a 256GB model with 8GB RAM for a lower price.
A 256GB SSD would be an ok amount for photographers and designers. 8GB RAM would be ok for video editing. 8GB + 256GB is the base spec of the 15" Macbook Pro. The one with 16GB + 512GB is $2799. There's a CPU bump on the higher model too but that's $100. The extra 8GB and 256GB SSD adds $500 to the retail price. If they are happy with the margins on a $2499 machine with 512GB + 16GB, they'd be able to offer a 256GB + 8GB for $1999. Either way, I think 256GB + 8GB will be the base spec.
I would say 256GB is cramped but it's not an issue if it's to be supplemented with bulk storage anyway. If you put video on a external drive like a 4TB and higher USB3, ethernet or Thunderbolt drive then very little will be going on the internal.
Comments
The next hardware event is exactly what we are talking about which needs to happen real soon to get the Mini and MBP out the door also. Oh and launch Mavericks. How much time they devote to the Mac Pro, new monitors and what have you isn't the point. The point is the machines need to be rolled out and be made public ally available. I just think there is more going on here than can be covered in a press release buried on Apples web servers.
The old iMac, Mini and Pro where great to have around when sales where strong with reasonable gains in sales every year. That time has passed for most desktop manufacture. The strategy laid out ten years ago simply is of no value today. The reality with Haswell is that Apple can offer far better value for most user with desktop components. The idea that a desktop chip with 2-4 cores can impact Mac Pro sales is a joke. Such a machine wouldn't impact Mac Pro sales anymore than the current iMac does. In any event let's be honest here iMac sales are flat if not in decline, Mini sales are in decline and as we all know Mac Pro sales have been so pathetic that it didn't bother Apple to do a prerelease of the new Mac Pro. That should tell you something right there.
The lineup needs a shake up. The new Mac Pro is part of that shake up. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised to shake things up a bit more and refactor the Mini. Maybe it won't be based on the Mac Pro, but it is likely to be significantly different from the iMac.
I'm just trying to resolve in my own mine why the iMac got a silent update and the Mini is currently the same old Box. Would they even put TB 2 in the Mini as that is kinda contra to its low cost nature?
Maybe maybe not, but do you really think the Mini will come in the same old chassis with TB 2 tacked on? Something doesn't add up here. Further if TB 2 was this close and Apple considered it an imperative for the low end machines why wasn't the iMac held for TB 2? I just find the situation interesting to say the least.
This is one reason I think some sort of announcement is coming. The fact the both the Mini and Mac Book Pro have yet to update highlights that more than a general rev of these machines is about to happen.
A mediaeval tower perhaps. No not an iPad spelling error! the idea just came to mind that if you put two new Mac Pros close together with a draw bridge in the center you have what looks like an ultra modern entrance to a castle. A sign of sleep depravation perhaps.
In any event I do have this feeling that more than the Mac Pro we know is coming. Even if the other macs are ignored we still have the fact that it would be best for Apple to have a few system components to go with the Mac Pro. For example the 4K monitor, a TB attached storage array maybe even a TB attached computational node. I just can't see the Mac Pro going on sale in a vacuum.
True. I doubt the new Landmark Pro will just arrive in isolation. It's Mavericks. The Pro. 4k Monitor (they've been on sale since earlier this year?) It's planets in alignment stuff. They've had several years to get this right. The components are there. It's just the timing.
It's not just going to arrive on its own with no studio display or Mavericks.
Similarly. No mini update alongside the iMac. Very intriguing.
Basically, the last pro was being chased down by the Mini it was so out of date.
But the new 'Pro' is so 'Mini' now...why not save production costs, do away with the Mini and just have the Pro with the internals you want? From Mini spec? iMac spec? Pro spec?
One 'box' or 'cylinder' to rule them all? The pro is a 'mini'.
So why not be able to have the 'mini' as the 'pro' but with an i7 in it and a 780MX and price it at £999 inc Vat and what it fly out stores?
One at £799 inc VAT, i7 with SSD and Iris graphics.
Prosumer Pro in Space Grey or Aluminium. Mac Pro in Black. See what I did there?
Would streamline teh desktop way more. And you don't have to worry about packing in the components in too small a space. You have a far more scaleable design for it to be a 'order whatever you components' you want to 'white box' (or black cylinder in this case...)
Offer a range of components. Let the user configure.
In fact, you could even wipe out the iMac with this idea. Just one cylinder. Studio display. One of each. One desktop. One monitor.
Config' with the Mini-iMac-Pro specs. Ultra steamlined.
I could go for that... Surely they'd save a fortune this way? And maximise desktop profits? It may even coax over some more PC switchers if they could just configure a 'tower' (cylinder) to just about any spec.
Lemon Bon Bon.
You could be onto something there...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
But the new 'Pro' is so 'Mini' now...why not save production costs, do away with the Mini and just have the Pro with the internals you want? From Mini spec? iMac spec? Pro spec?
One 'box' or 'cylinder' to rule them all? The pro is a 'mini'.
...
In fact, you could even wipe out the iMac with this idea. Just one cylinder. Studio display. One of each. One desktop. One monitor.
Config' with the Mini-iMac-Pro specs. Ultra steamlined.
This is indeed a good idea. I would like to be offered the possibility to configure at will such a cylinder, from the Mini up to the Pro specifications, and just add a monitor to it.
What I don't know is how strong the all-in-one approach is still going in Apple. With all the i-devices, and especially with the new Pro concept, they seem to move to a more modular design. But I am afraid the thinned-out iMac form is too new to be phased out so quickly.
Maybe maybe not, but do you really think the Mini will come in the same old chassis with TB 2 tacked on? Something doesn't add up here. Further if TB 2 was this close and Apple considered it an imperative for the low end machines why wasn't the iMac held for TB 2? I just find the situation interesting to say the least.
You could be right, but the hope of a real midrange Mac alternative has been beaten out of me over the years.
I'd be totally happy if Apple just gave access to the 27" iMac's internal drive. Surely with SSDs an eject function can be added.
I still say that Apple wants TB2 to debut on the Pro as a talking point, so the iMac will get it in the first 2014 rev, and the TB2-less Mini will get announced silently the week the Pro debuts.
Experience triumphs over hope for me, especially when discussing Apple and their hardware margins.
In effect this turns the Mini replacement into a two slot machine if they recycle as much of the Mac Pros hardware as possible. The chip sets might not support GPUs in both slots if you run out of PCI Express lanes (depends upon the Haswell choosen). With care though I think Apple could hit somewhere between $1200-1500 dollars US. Yep! People question the possibility should only look at MBA. Ditch the laptop parts and you have a similar price structure for the Mac Pro Jr. I wouldn't even bother to change colors. This is the thing, Apple could offer one unit with a 45 watt Haswell and another with a 75 watt Haswell. This would provide for a significant performance delta for MP Jr, while still leaving a huge gap between them and the pro machine. The big difference here being cores which is what many Pro apps are all about. Wiping out the iMac concept would make my day. Not so much the machine but rather the idea that it isn't serviceable for the things most likely needing service. The Mini currently isn't as bad as the iMac but the Minis functionality delivered in a Mac Pro chassis should be far more serviceable. Well the reality is this, they have to do something different to address the changing market! The Mini is a nice machine, don't get me wrong on that account, but sales are slipping and it isn't the Mini nor Apples fault. Desktop sales where on the decline well before iPad. A platform that can span user needs from near the bottom to as near the top as the Mac Pro goes would be ideal.
In any event I hope that in 11 days we see more than an iPad debut. It would be very frustrating to go through another Apple roll out that doesn't cover what you are interested in. Well OK everything you are interested in.
Yeah I know but maybe the Mac Pro will demonstrate a change of heart for Apple. It is the perfect box (tube) to cover a wide range of performance needs in.
I'm hoping for a Mac Pro with a baseline config that is not that much more than the top end spec'ed up imac 27" that offers a decent performance increase over it. Surely Apple can do that without the screen cost.
That is actually the price I'm guessing they will start it off with. I don't care that the GPU costs several $1,000's; Apple prices their products seemingly 'as what works, what makes sense'. They can't kick off the Mac Pro as a 7k machine; the old one started at around $2800 (used to be 2500 with a slower, single-quad CPU). With a higher-end iMac with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD at around $2500 I'm guessing the Mac Pro with same RAM & SSD will be around $2750.
That is actually the price I'm guessing they will start it off with. I don't care that the GPU costs several $1,000's; Apple prices their products seemingly 'as what works, what makes sense'. They can't kick off the Mac Pro as a 7k machine; the old one started at around $2800 (used to be 2500 with a slower, single-quad CPU). With a higher-end iMac with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD at around $2500 I'm guessing the Mac Pro with same RAM & SSD will be around $2750.
I hope so, I'm just wondering what it's performance will be like and if it will be worth it over the iMac, I do love the look and screen of the iMac, not sure if i am getting a little greedy on spec, but i'd like to see a good performance gain.
I wouldn't like to see a crippled Mac Pro just to get the price lower when you would be better off with an iMac instead.
Since they're offloading much of the processing power to the GPU I'd say it'll be way faster than the iMac, but this is highly 'opinionated'. I'm certain Marvin could give you a well-founded answer with facts to back it up, if he has the time...
It depends which model is being compared and which software as the software has to be specially written to take advantage of GPUs. If the entry Mac Pro has a quad-core, 256GB SSD, 8GB RAM, dual W5000 GPUs for $2199-2499, it will perform quite close to the top spec iMac at the same price, same as the entry model did before and the iMac has a display as well as an NVidia GPU, which will handle CUDA too.
The highest-end 12-core Mac Pro should be about 2-2.5x the CPU performance of the iMac. Normally it would be 3x but the Mac Pro is on Ivy Bridge while the iMac is on Haswell.
The AMD GPUs are better for OpenCL than NVidia so software that takes advantage of this will run faster. Here is an OpenCL raytracing test:
http://compubench.com/result.jsp
The W5000 on page 2 isn't much below the 780M in the iMac and the entry Mac Pro would have two.
This talk about a mini or mid range computer in the new Mac Pro case does sound intriguing.
Then (for those of us that do use them or at least want everything looking like it matches and goes together) someone could build an external case that is designed to fit under the computer.
Think square on the bottom curving into a round shape at the top.
Kind of like the base on a kitchen blender.
I'm guessing the Mac Pro with same RAM & SSD will be around $2750.
That's my guess as well, since the system is a single CPU and working on the notion that Apple will provide graphic choices, that price seems to be very doable. We have just one more month left before we start selling our bodies in front of truck stops to afford this beauty. So I'm now off to bid on a pair of authentic, authorized, signed, reproduction pair of black Olivia Newton John's spanx and purchase a blonde wig from the store, "So You're Bald Now" in preparation of the big day. I hope they take Discover.
Say for example the new entry Mac Pro comes with a Xeon E5-1620v2:
http://ark.intel.com/products/75779/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1620-v2-10M-Cache-3_70-GHz
and the dual W5000 GPU. If Apple was to use an entry model with a fast Core-i7 CPU:
http://ark.intel.com/products/75123
the CPU wouldn't save money. They likely wouldn't leave one side of the machine empty so they'd use two Radeon 8970s, which would likely not be much cheaper to buy from AMD than the W5000s.
Then comes the biggest problem, which is the PCIe lanes. The Core-i CPUs have 16 lanes, the Xeons have 40. They need to support dual x16 GPUs + 6 Thunderbolt 2 + PCIe storage. They can add a PLX chip:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6170/four-multigpu-z77-boards-from-280350-plx-pex-8747-featuring-gigabyte-asrock-ecs-and-evga
but that's still not enough for the Mac Pro setup. This may be why the iMac didn't get TB2. If the MBP doesn't get it, that will be clearer. It's not that big of a deal because peripheral manufacturers can use TB2 no problem and the devices will work with both.
The Mac Pro's price is because of higher margins. Tim Cook said that the average gross margins on the Macs are lower than the iOS devices so that has to be around the 30% mark. The Mac Pro is an exception because the target audience allows it to maintain high margins - this is true for all the workstation manufacturers. I doubt the new model has higher build costs than the iMac but the iMac doesn't ship with an SSD.
Say that the iMac has 30% margins, the model with the core-i7 and 780M with 256GB SSD at $2550 would cost $1785 to build.
Let's say that the $999 Thunderbolt Display has 30% margins and costs $699, deduct the cost of the casing, PSU etc to get a panel cost of about $500. Remove that from the iMac cost to get $1285. Now add in the second GPU to get $1485. Slap on 40% gross margins and you get an i7 Mac Pro to be $2475. It's no cheaper than the Xeon model.
They could build a machine to sell at whatever price and margins they wanted but for a headless machine with the iMac parts to be cheaper than the iMac, it has to sell more units to be worthwhile and the market volume just isn't in the $1000-2000 price range. When you look at PC tower manufacturers, the average selling prices are way down around $500 and the gross margins are terrible - 15% or less with net margins below 5%.
The best hope that people have of a cheap tower is with used models. Someone that buys the new model this year would sell it for about $1400 in a couple of years. There is a chance they can sell the new Mac Pro at a $2199 entry point by reducing margins but they just have no reason to do this. Realistically, what will happen is a $2499 entry price for a quad-core E5-1620v2, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD and dual W5000 GPUs.
Realistically, what will happen is a $2499 entry price for a quad-core E5-1620v2, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD and dual W5000 GPUs.
Oh gosh, I would take the 8970 over the W5000 any day of the week, there just isn't any comparison between the two. Need that FireGL support, no problem, just flash the 8970 into a FireGL card. Yes, this works, quite well actually, now there are differences, small differences in the hardware, mainly the ECC memory but the differences is mostly in the bios and drivers. The 8970 hasn't been released yet but people have been doing it to their 7970's for a while now, a flashed 7970 becomes a w8000, it's not as fast but it's very, very close, mainly because the W8000 has more memory, and it's ECC. There is no doubt though a flashed 8970 would destroy the W5000 every which way till Sunday, especially if you overclock it. The kicker, OSX supports these flashed cards, comes up as a W8000 and will even show the extra overclocked Ghz if you go that route as well.
I still cringe when I think of the last radical Mac desktop, the Mac Pro G5. It was the worst Mac I've owned dating back to the SE. I hope they've done a better job this time.
Question, how well do the TB to FireWire adapters that Apple has on its website work?
I agree, this ought to start of with 512GB. And 16GB RAM, as the iMacs start off with 8GB
I've owned a few, including the very first one, single 1.6GHz (with 10.2.7) I think it was a fantastic machine, back then. Became even better when they kept on innovating the hardware design.
If they're selling it, it has been tested, no doubt about that one. So I'd say they work, and max out at 800Mb/s. Really, I don't understand the question. Have there been adapters like this one that they've sold before but didn't work?
It might be a 2013 equivalent of the W5000 but the 8970 would probably still be higher raw performance. The FirePro is designed for certain workloads though, even if a lot of it is on the software level:
[VIDEO]
People don't expect to flash firmwares or switch drivers in an expensive machine they rely on for work. Macs are meant to work as intended out of the box for every user. You're still talking about dual W5000 (or 2013 equivalent) so the performance will be high. There's a habit of pointing at what Apple's using and suggesting there's a much better value alternative but this will probably happen until the end of time. They are a premium manufacturer and charge more for what you get spec-wise, this isn't news. Raw spec is not why Apple customers keep buying and hasn't been for the past 30 years.
The base model on the store right now has 6GB RAM, a 1TB HDD and a single Radeon 5770. They are adding a second GPU and an SSD. They are removing some things too, which will lower some build costs and they will probably cut down on shipping charges. If they can pull off 512GB + 16GB, that would be great but people might then wonder why not offer a 256GB model with 8GB RAM for a lower price.
A 256GB SSD would be an ok amount for photographers and designers. 8GB RAM would be ok for video editing. 8GB + 256GB is the base spec of the 15" Macbook Pro. The one with 16GB + 512GB is $2799. There's a CPU bump on the higher model too but that's $100. The extra 8GB and 256GB SSD adds $500 to the retail price. If they are happy with the margins on a $2499 machine with 512GB + 16GB, they'd be able to offer a 256GB + 8GB for $1999. Either way, I think 256GB + 8GB will be the base spec.
I would say 256GB is cramped but it's not an issue if it's to be supplemented with bulk storage anyway. If you put video on a external drive like a 4TB and higher USB3, ethernet or Thunderbolt drive then very little will be going on the internal.