I mean, I'm a Mac user through and through, but man if my livelihood counted on render times more than it does now, I'd probably be strongly considering biting the bullet and getting one of these to get my work done.
I'm optimistic that Apple is aware of these issues by now and did not go into this Mac Pro thing to half-ass it, but we'll see soon enough I guess.
Wow, who would have thought that a workstation from 2018 / 2019 would ever beat the 2013 Mac Pro...?!?
That kind of goes hand in hand with my point, doesn't it?
Like I said, I am optimistic that Apple has been paying closer attention to the discrepancies between what they offer and what people are jumping to PCs for, and will do something about it. Kind of like when Craig heard claims that Safari wasn't the fastest browser on the Mac, and doubled down to make sure that it was.
I mean, I'm a Mac user through and through, but man if my livelihood counted on render times more than it does now, I'd probably be strongly considering biting the bullet and getting one of these to get my work done.
I'm optimistic that Apple is aware of these issues by now and did not go into this Mac Pro thing to half-ass it, but we'll see soon enough I guess.
Wow, who would have thought that a workstation from 2018 / 2019 would ever beat the 2013 Mac Pro...?!?
When there's a more recent Mac Pro to compare to then you can whine about fairness.
I mean, I'm a Mac user through and through, but man if my livelihood counted on render times more than it does now, I'd probably be strongly considering biting the bullet and getting one of these to get my work done.
I'm optimistic that Apple is aware of these issues by now and did not go into this Mac Pro thing to half-ass it, but we'll see soon enough I guess.
Wow, who would have thought that a workstation from 2018 / 2019 would ever beat the 2013 Mac Pro...?!?
Yeah, but that's also called a 2019 Mac Pro (as has been mentioned above)...
So basically a larger Mac Mini ( a Mac MAXI lol ) with Xeon, better cooling & Many more Thunderbolt connections coming . Just hook it to a egpu ( upgradeable ) ..
Windows PC ( pause for vomit ) here i come
I personally predict that whatever the new Mac Pro turns out to be it will be trashed viciously by the self-agrandized techie crowd. These types want to be able to saunter into a Fry’s or Micro Center, pick out some weird peripheral, stick it into their “Mac Pro” and have it work. That doesn’t even happen with self-assembled PCs but it will be a requirement for any new Mac Pro. You just watch and see.
I personally predict that certain AI subscribers will characterize any criticism of Apple and any Apple product as unreasonable. As they are want to do. All the time. Like clockwork.
I don’t know what “modular” means but I do know what “more expandability, more upgradeability” (quoting Schiller) means.
“To do something that can be supported for a long time with customers with updates and upgrades throughout the years.” (also Schiller)
I take this to mean CPU and GPU replacements — I think it’s hard to see it any other way. Upgradeable memory and storage are a given, and already part of the Mac Pro — that would not be new and worth emphasizing. GPU at the very least, but socketed Xeon scalable fits this so well that I’ve got to think it was being seriously considered as well.
Maybe a sort of internal, embedded eGPU module, with its own thermals — the CPU includes Intel’s built-in graphics, but you can add another GPU on top of it, via the module. Or the space can be used for other modules, like one designed for massive storage, or one with standard expansion slots.
But just one embedded module — if you need more, they become external modules...
Maybe a sort of internal, embedded eGPU module, with its own thermals — the CPU includes Intel’s built-in graphics, but you can add another GPU on top of it, via the module. Or the space can be used for other modules, like one designed for massive storage, or one with standard expansion slots.
But just one embedded module — if you need more, they become external modules...
Xeons do not have integrated Intel graphics...
No one wants a Mac Pro that relies upon an eGPU for its main graphics system...
Why have a module with standard expansion slots when you could just have, well, standard expansion slots...
Maybe a sort of internal, embedded eGPU module, with its own thermals — the CPU includes Intel’s built-in graphics, but you can add another GPU on top of it, via the module. Or the space can be used for other modules, like one designed for massive storage, or one with standard expansion slots.
But just one embedded module — if you need more, they become external modules...
Xeons do not have integrated Intel graphics...
No one wants a Mac Pro that relies upon an eGPU for its main graphics system...
Why have a module with standard expansion slots when you could just have, well, standard expansion slots...
Okay, so much for that. Let me see if I can expose even more of my ignorance:
Having just been at the Intel site confirming that only Xeon-E comes with (optional) Intel graphics, and Xeon-W and Xeon-Scalable do not, you really have to wonder about Intel's Optane DC persistent memory modules (PMM) appearing in the new Mac Pro. I don't think it will be out-of-this-world expensive, but I don't know. The Optane SSDs aren't. If anybody can make optimal use of it, it's probably macOS. Certainly it would explain the long wait since 2017. Here's the competition:
The PMM configurations are not yet available, or at least I couldn't find them...
Apple won't try to compete with that, of course. They never have. But they could make balanced selections that compete well at certain points in that range. See here for a list of processors that support PMM (Optane DCPMM):
The low end is the Xeon Silver 4215 (8 Core, 85W TDP) and Xeon Gold 5215 (10 Core, 85W TDP), the rest are all Gold and Platinum, and higher TDP. 125W has two options: Gold 5218 (16 Core) and Gold 6230 (20 Core). 150W is even higher end at Gold 62xx, with a range from 8 all the way up to 24 Cores.
Maybe they could offer two base CPU modules, one with 85W socket(s?) and another with 125W socket(s?)...
I mean, I'm a Mac user through and through, but man if my livelihood counted on render times more than it does now, I'd probably be strongly considering biting the bullet and getting one of these to get my work done.
I'm optimistic that Apple is aware of these issues by now and did not go into this Mac Pro thing to half-ass it, but we'll see soon enough I guess.
Wow, who would have thought that a workstation from 2018 / 2019 would ever beat the 2013 Mac Pro...?!?
When there's a more recent Mac Pro to compare to then you can whine about fairness.
The iMac Pro is the most recent Mac Pro, people just don't think of it that way because it's stuck to the back of a display. The internals are all workstation parts. The 2013 Mac Pro is up to 12-core and 7TFLOP GPU. The 2017 iMac Pro is up to 18-core and 12TFLOP GPU.
The fastest GPU available just now is the Titan V ($3k) at 15TFLOPs, the Vega 64x in the iMac Pro is within 30-40% of that. The iMac Pro 18-core CPU scores around 3000 Cinebench, the dual 12-core Xeon in the quoted Premiere test scores around 3500. Generally creative software is better optimized for NVidia so it's still a sore point for some that Apple won't offer NVidia options but software developers could optimize their software for AMD GPUs if they wanted to.
The iMac Pro is competitive with newer workstation PCs and the 2013 Mac Pro holds up pretty well:
There are some variables like which media format is used. RED performs worse but DNxHR, H.264, ArriRaw and Apple's ProRes perform the same or better.
The iMac Pro sits in a forced blind spot among internet commenters but a new Mac Pro will have largely the same internals as it, just multiples of the same kind or higher clocked versions and for many thousands of dollars more. Apple can only put in the parts that Intel and AMD make and they put some of the fastest parts in the iMac Pro already. If you start with that base model 18-core at $7400, you can add another $3k CPU and be twice as fast, maybe 2 and be 3x faster. Then you get a $13k+ Mac Pro. Maybe they'll allow multiple GPUs so say 12TFLOPs x2 or x3. For software that only supports a single GPU, it will run the same as an iMac Pro.
There are benefits to modularity and configurability, especially on expensive workstations but we're reaching the limits of performance advances. The Titan V is on 12nm and gets 15TFLOPs at 250W (60GFLOPs/Watt). 7nm GPUs (this year) should manage ~100GFLOPs/Watt. Then there's 5nm, maybe 3nm. Then what? There's only realistically 2 future GPU upgrades left for the Mac Pro, which is why it made sense for Apple to replace it with an iMac Pro but there's some value in having a machine with a higher thermal capacity as it can always be 2-3x the performance for people who are willing to invest in the upgrade cost.
Most buyers of any computer lineup are at the lower-end of the scale so assuming they start the Mac Pro with 1 CPU and 1 GPU, that's what the majority of buyers will get and never upgrade them, just like with every Mac Pro before it. It will perform and cost around the same as an iMac Pro for the majority of buyers. For the <5% who buy above $10k, it will outperform the iMac Pro. This purchase volume is < 10,000 units per year and represents < 0.01% of Apple's total customer base.
I mean, I'm a Mac user through and through, but man if my livelihood counted on render times more than it does now, I'd probably be strongly considering biting the bullet and getting one of these to get my work done.
I'm optimistic that Apple is aware of these issues by now and did not go into this Mac Pro thing to half-ass it, but we'll see soon enough I guess.
Wow, who would have thought that a workstation from 2018 / 2019 would ever beat the 2013 Mac Pro...?!?
When there's a more recent Mac Pro to compare to then you can whine about fairness.
The iMac Pro is the most recent Mac Pro, people just don't think of it that way because it's stuck to the back of a display. The internals are all workstation parts. The 2013 Mac Pro is up to 12-core and 7TFLOP GPU. The 2017 iMac Pro is up to 18-core and 12TFLOP GPU.
The fastest GPU available just now is the Titan V ($3k) at 15TFLOPs, the Vega 64x in the iMac Pro is within 30-40% of that. The iMac Pro 18-core CPU scores around 3000 Cinebench, the dual 12-core Xeon in the quoted Premiere test scores around 3500. Generally creative software is better optimized for NVidia so it's still a sore point for some that Apple won't offer NVidia options but software developers could optimize their software for AMD GPUs if they wanted to.
The iMac Pro is competitive with newer workstation PCs and the 2013 Mac Pro holds up pretty well:
There are some variables like which media format is used. RED performs worse but DNxHR, H.264, ArriRaw and Apple's ProRes perform the same or better.
The iMac Pro sits in a forced blind spot among internet commenters but a new Mac Pro will have largely the same internals as it, just multiples of the same kind or higher clocked versions and for many thousands of dollars more. Apple can only put in the parts that Intel and AMD make and they put some of the fastest parts in the iMac Pro already. If you start with that base model 18-core at $7400, you can add another $3k CPU and be twice as fast, maybe 2 and be 3x faster. Then you get a $13k+ Mac Pro. Maybe they'll allow multiple GPUs so say 12TFLOPs x2 or x3. For software that only supports a single GPU, it will run the same as an iMac Pro.
There are benefits to modularity and configurability, especially on expensive workstations but we're reaching the limits of performance advances. The Titan V is on 12nm and gets 15TFLOPs at 250W (60GFLOPs/Watt). 7nm GPUs (this year) should manage ~100GFLOPs/Watt. Then there's 5nm, maybe 3nm. Then what? There's only realistically 2 future GPU upgrades left for the Mac Pro, which is why it made sense for Apple to replace it with an iMac Pro but there's some value in having a machine with a higher thermal capacity as it can always be 2-3x the performance for people who are willing to invest in the upgrade cost.
Most buyers of any computer lineup are at the lower-end of the scale so assuming they start the Mac Pro with 1 CPU and 1 GPU, that's what the majority of buyers will get and never upgrade them, just like with every Mac Pro before it. It will perform and cost around the same as an iMac Pro for the majority of buyers. For the <5% who buy above $10k, it will outperform the iMac Pro. This purchase volume is < 10,000 units per year and represents < 0.01% of Apple's total customer base.
Which to me is why the best think the new modular Mac Pro could offer over the iMacPro is distance between hot (noisy) parts and the user. Indeed would seem to be very important for all the workflows that make a MacPro needed. Talking 30-50metres not below the desk.
I mean, I'm a Mac user through and through, but man if my livelihood counted on render times more than it does now, I'd probably be strongly considering biting the bullet and getting one of these to get my work done.
I'm optimistic that Apple is aware of these issues by now and did not go into this Mac Pro thing to half-ass it, but we'll see soon enough I guess.
Wow, who would have thought that a workstation from 2018 / 2019 would ever beat the 2013 Mac Pro...?!?
When there's a more recent Mac Pro to compare to then you can whine about fairness.
The iMac Pro is the most recent Mac Pro, people just don't think of it that way because it's stuck to the back of a display. The internals are all workstation parts. The 2013 Mac Pro is up to 12-core and 7TFLOP GPU. The 2017 iMac Pro is up to 18-core and 12TFLOP GPU.
The fastest GPU available just now is the Titan V ($3k) at 15TFLOPs, the Vega 64x in the iMac Pro is within 30-40% of that. The iMac Pro 18-core CPU scores around 3000 Cinebench, the dual 12-core Xeon in the quoted Premiere test scores around 3500. Generally creative software is better optimized for NVidia so it's still a sore point for some that Apple won't offer NVidia options but software developers could optimize their software for AMD GPUs if they wanted to.
The iMac Pro is competitive with newer workstation PCs and the 2013 Mac Pro holds up pretty well:
There are some variables like which media format is used. RED performs worse but DNxHR, H.264, ArriRaw and Apple's ProRes perform the same or better.
The iMac Pro sits in a forced blind spot among internet commenters but a new Mac Pro will have largely the same internals as it, just multiples of the same kind or higher clocked versions and for many thousands of dollars more. Apple can only put in the parts that Intel and AMD make and they put some of the fastest parts in the iMac Pro already. If you start with that base model 18-core at $7400, you can add another $3k CPU and be twice as fast, maybe 2 and be 3x faster. Then you get a $13k+ Mac Pro. Maybe they'll allow multiple GPUs so say 12TFLOPs x2 or x3. For software that only supports a single GPU, it will run the same as an iMac Pro.
There are benefits to modularity and configurability, especially on expensive workstations but we're reaching the limits of performance advances. The Titan V is on 12nm and gets 15TFLOPs at 250W (60GFLOPs/Watt). 7nm GPUs (this year) should manage ~100GFLOPs/Watt. Then there's 5nm, maybe 3nm. Then what? There's only realistically 2 future GPU upgrades left for the Mac Pro, which is why it made sense for Apple to replace it with an iMac Pro but there's some value in having a machine with a higher thermal capacity as it can always be 2-3x the performance for people who are willing to invest in the upgrade cost.
Most buyers of any computer lineup are at the lower-end of the scale so assuming they start the Mac Pro with 1 CPU and 1 GPU, that's what the majority of buyers will get and never upgrade them, just like with every Mac Pro before it. It will perform and cost around the same as an iMac Pro for the majority of buyers. For the <5% who buy above $10k, it will outperform the iMac Pro. This purchase volume is < 10,000 units per year and represents < 0.01% of Apple's total customer base.
Which to me is why the best think the new modular Mac Pro could offer over the iMacPro is distance between hot (noisy) parts and the user. Indeed would seem to be very important for all the workflows that make a MacPro needed. Talking 30-50metres not below the desk.
So each 32" Apple Thunderbolt Display has BlueTooth & comes with a 150 foot TB3 cable...?
Marvin's comment above underlines this -- a ~ 250W GPU remains the industry sweet spot and I think we can expect that the 2019 Mac Pro will be designed for that. I think the question of whether Apple will design their own cards or use standard PCIe video cards is not a sure thing -- Anandtech doesn't think this is a big problem: "this isn't a daunting task" -- so custom video cards are still quite possible, but Apple will make it clear that they will keep them up-to-date, so users can easily upgrade to the latest AMD tech. So then the question becomes whether they will just design for one card (whether standard or otherwise), or will there be room for two or more?
The same basic question applies to the CPU(s) -- I think they will be socketed and thus upgradeable, but the big question [assuming Intel] is Xeon-W versus Xeon-Scalable. Like Marvin says, the current Mac Pro is attached to the back of the iMac Pro display, and the question at hand is will the 2019 Mac Pro be basically an upgradeable, modular edition of the same thing, i.e., a single-socket Xeon-W machine?
If I were a betting man, I think that's what I'd go with. But the other option, to make it a dual-socket Xeon-Scalable machine must be tempting. The Gold 5200 and 6200 seem like the realistic options here, this shows the prices:
Ignore the ones with letters (L, M, N, S, T, V, Y) -- "normal" parameters apply for the Mac Pro. The bottom end is the Silver 4215 8 Core 85W at $794. Then comes the Gold 5215 10 Core 85W at $1221. The next progression is at 125W: Gold 5218 16 Core at $1273, then Gold 5220 18 Core at $1555, then 6230 20 Core at $1894. I'm skipping a few that don't fit into the neat core count progression.
The next big step is the 150W 6200 series, but the bottom end there (Gold 6240 18 Core) is $2445 with the top end (Gold 6252 24 Core) at $3665. That seems beyond what the Mac Pro market can sustain. So that seems out.
Like Marvin says, you make it a dual-socket machine that comes with just a single processor in the base configurations.
All of these support Optane and PMM -- it's a long shot but I don't think it would be that hard to design to incorporate PMMs as an option. HP seems to be able to incorporate it into their existing tower design without major internal changes, although they haven't actually released the PMM configurations yet.
So any Mac Pro user who only needs a single CPU has to pay for that second socket & everything involved with making it work...?
Threadripper 3, please..
Apple's thinking on that might be that the user looking for good value on a single-CPU Mac Pro can buy an iMac Pro. You buy the scalable Mac Pro for future expandability -- if you're sure you'll never need that then Apple offers you the iMac Pro.
[EDIT: Also, the Intel C621 chipset for Xeon-Scalable is designed for that, multiple sockets -- I don't think there is a lot of extra silicon for up to four processors. IANAE, but that's whole point of "Scalable" ...]
Not that I think that is likely -- the scalable, modular Mac Pro is a dream. Far more likely we get a Xeon-W Mac Pro that offers upgradeability and changeability-configurability that the iMac Pro doesn't, but isn't in a different class with regard to performance.
On Threadripper, more power to you, but unlikely at this stage, I'll guess. Unless you've got inside information that Lisa Su will be backstage at the keynote ...
So any Mac Pro user who only needs a single CPU has to pay for that second socket & everything involved with making it work...?
Threadripper 3, please..
Apple's thinking on that might be that the user looking for good value on a single-CPU Mac Pro can buy an iMac Pro. You buy the scalable Mac Pro for future expandability -- if you're sure you'll never need that then Apple offers you the iMac Pro.
Not that I think that is likely -- the scalable, modular Mac Pro is a different dream. Far more likely we get a Xeon-W Mac Pro that offers upgradeability and changeability-configurability that the iMac Pro doesn't, but isn't in a different class with regard to performance.
On Threadripper, more power to you, but unlikely at this stage, I'll guess. Unless you've got inside information that Lisa Su will be backstage at the keynote ...
24C/48T CPU (64C/128T maximum BTO) Eight DIMM slots (4@16GB standard; 256GB maximum BTO) T2 / NVME SSD(s) system (2TB standard, 8TB maximum BTO) Two PCIe 4.0 x16 slots One PCIe 4.0 x8 slot Four TB3 / USB-C ports Four USB-A ports One 10Gb Ethernet port One 1Gb Ethernet port One 3.5mm headphone jack 1.5kW PSU
Radeon VII & RX 5000-series GPUs BTO (low end Navi GPU standard) Navi 20 / Big Navi available Q2 2020 BTO
Third-party PCIe 4.0 x16 RAID cards available at launch (holds up to four M.2 NVMe SSDs, 15GB/s read/writes) Third-party PCIe 4.0 x8 12G 8K SDI video I/O cards available at launch
Base modular xMac - $1999
6C/12T CPU (16C/32T maximum BTO Four DIMM slots (2@16GB standard; 128GB maximum BTO) T2 / NVME SSD system (1TB standard, 4TB maximum BTO) One PCIe 4.0 x16 slot Four TB3 / USB-C ports Four USB-A ports One 1Gb Ethernet port (10Gb Ethernet port BTO) One 3.5mm headphone jack 750W PSU
Radeon VII & RX 5000-series GPUs BTO (low end Navi GPU standard) Navi 20 / Big Navi available Q2 2020 BTO
The iMac Pro sits in a forced blind spot among internet commenters but a new Mac Pro will have largely the same internals as it, just multiples of the same kind or higher clocked versions and for many thousands of dollars more. Apple can only put in the parts that Intel and AMD make and they put some of the fastest parts in the iMac Pro already.
Yeah, there aren’t any good options currently imo. Neither AMD nor Intel provide great options to improve upon the iMac Pro right now, and Apple is probably exclusively sticking with AMD GPUs for awhile longer.
Last I looked, there were only 2 good Xeon-SP options, otherwise, all the multi-socket options take a pretty big single thread hit. These processors are basically designed just for servers, not desktops. Then, the Xeon W-3175X is a 255 Watt TDP monster, and it is had to believe that Apple would offer that. Otherwise, it’s either Ryzen/Epyc (which aren’t power efficient chips either) or sticking with 2 year old Xeon W chips that are in the iMac Pro. Ryzen will offer more cores, but there’s a limit to how more cores are really useful for desktops, so hard to see 32 to 64 cores being a saleable feature for a desktop.
For GPUs, it’s a 7 nm Vega. We all wish Apple and Nvidia would get over it, but there has been zero evidence of it so far.
From a performance standpoint, the new Mac Pro will surely have Apple’s typical features of being quiet with unique ID, Apple may have a unique advantage with a prospective T3 co-processor. If they expand on the capabilities of the T2 with more codec support, including audio, a neural unit, and optimize FCPX and LPX for it, hmm.
However, at this point, if the Mac Pro just had iMac Pro internals, but with accessible PCIe slots, RAM slots, SSD slots, and socketed CPUs all in one box, I think the vast majority of potential customers will be happy.
Comments
That kind of goes hand in hand with my point, doesn't it?
Like I said, I am optimistic that Apple has been paying closer attention to the discrepancies between what they offer and what people are jumping to PCs for, and will do something about it. Kind of like when Craig heard claims that Safari wasn't the fastest browser on the Mac, and doubled down to make sure that it was.
“To do something that can be supported for a long time with customers with updates and upgrades throughout the years.” (also Schiller)
I take this to mean CPU and GPU replacements — I think it’s hard to see it any other way. Upgradeable memory and storage are a given, and already part of the Mac Pro — that would not be new and worth emphasizing. GPU at the very least, but socketed Xeon scalable fits this so well that I’ve got to think it was being seriously considered as well.
But just one embedded module — if you need more, they become external modules...
No one wants a Mac Pro that relies upon an eGPU for its main graphics system...
Why have a module with standard expansion slots when you could just have, well, standard expansion slots...
Having just been at the Intel site confirming that only Xeon-E comes with (optional) Intel graphics, and Xeon-W and Xeon-Scalable do not, you really have to wonder about Intel's Optane DC persistent memory modules (PMM) appearing in the new Mac Pro. I don't think it will be out-of-this-world expensive, but I don't know. The Optane SSDs aren't. If anybody can make optimal use of it, it's probably macOS. Certainly it would explain the long wait since 2017. Here's the competition:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14198/hps-new-z6-z8-workstations-powered-by-xeon-cascade-lake-optane-dc-dimms
The PMM configurations are not yet available, or at least I couldn't find them...
Apple won't try to compete with that, of course. They never have. But they could make balanced selections that compete well at certain points in that range. See here for a list of processors that support PMM (Optane DCPMM):
http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/getpdf.aspx/c05527761.pdf
The low end is the Xeon Silver 4215 (8 Core, 85W TDP) and Xeon Gold 5215 (10 Core, 85W TDP), the rest are all Gold and Platinum, and higher TDP. 125W has two options: Gold 5218 (16 Core) and Gold 6230 (20 Core). 150W is even higher end at Gold 62xx, with a range from 8 all the way up to 24 Cores.
Maybe they could offer two base CPU modules, one with 85W socket(s?) and another with 125W socket(s?)...
The fastest GPU available just now is the Titan V ($3k) at 15TFLOPs, the Vega 64x in the iMac Pro is within 30-40% of that. The iMac Pro 18-core CPU scores around 3000 Cinebench, the dual 12-core Xeon in the quoted Premiere test scores around 3500. Generally creative software is better optimized for NVidia so it's still a sore point for some that Apple won't offer NVidia options but software developers could optimize their software for AMD GPUs if they wanted to.
The iMac Pro is competitive with newer workstation PCs and the 2013 Mac Pro holds up pretty well:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2018-iMac-Pro-Mac-Pro-vs-PC-Workstation-1142/
There are some variables like which media format is used. RED performs worse but DNxHR, H.264, ArriRaw and Apple's ProRes perform the same or better.
The iMac Pro sits in a forced blind spot among internet commenters but a new Mac Pro will have largely the same internals as it, just multiples of the same kind or higher clocked versions and for many thousands of dollars more. Apple can only put in the parts that Intel and AMD make and they put some of the fastest parts in the iMac Pro already. If you start with that base model 18-core at $7400, you can add another $3k CPU and be twice as fast, maybe 2 and be 3x faster. Then you get a $13k+ Mac Pro. Maybe they'll allow multiple GPUs so say 12TFLOPs x2 or x3. For software that only supports a single GPU, it will run the same as an iMac Pro.
There are benefits to modularity and configurability, especially on expensive workstations but we're reaching the limits of performance advances. The Titan V is on 12nm and gets 15TFLOPs at 250W (60GFLOPs/Watt). 7nm GPUs (this year) should manage ~100GFLOPs/Watt. Then there's 5nm, maybe 3nm. Then what? There's only realistically 2 future GPU upgrades left for the Mac Pro, which is why it made sense for Apple to replace it with an iMac Pro but there's some value in having a machine with a higher thermal capacity as it can always be 2-3x the performance for people who are willing to invest in the upgrade cost.
Most buyers of any computer lineup are at the lower-end of the scale so assuming they start the Mac Pro with 1 CPU and 1 GPU, that's what the majority of buyers will get and never upgrade them, just like with every Mac Pro before it. It will perform and cost around the same as an iMac Pro for the majority of buyers. For the <5% who buy above $10k, it will outperform the iMac Pro. This purchase volume is < 10,000 units per year and represents < 0.01% of Apple's total customer base.
There's a good Anandtech article from 2017 that focuses on the GPU cooling catastrophe in the 2013 Mac Pro:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11245/apple-to-redesign-mac-pro-gpu-heat-a-concern
Marvin's comment above underlines this -- a ~ 250W GPU remains the industry sweet spot and I think we can expect that the 2019 Mac Pro will be designed for that. I think the question of whether Apple will design their own cards or use standard PCIe video cards is not a sure thing -- Anandtech doesn't think this is a big problem: "this isn't a daunting task" -- so custom video cards are still quite possible, but Apple will make it clear that they will keep them up-to-date, so users can easily upgrade to the latest AMD tech. So then the question becomes whether they will just design for one card (whether standard or otherwise), or will there be room for two or more?
The same basic question applies to the CPU(s) -- I think they will be socketed and thus upgradeable, but the big question [assuming Intel] is Xeon-W versus Xeon-Scalable. Like Marvin says, the current Mac Pro is attached to the back of the iMac Pro display, and the question at hand is will the 2019 Mac Pro be basically an upgradeable, modular edition of the same thing, i.e., a single-socket Xeon-W machine?
If I were a betting man, I think that's what I'd go with. But the other option, to make it a dual-socket Xeon-Scalable machine must be tempting. The Gold 5200 and 6200 seem like the realistic options here, this shows the prices:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14146/intel-xeon-scalable-cascade-lake-deep-dive-now-with-optane
Ignore the ones with letters (L, M, N, S, T, V, Y) -- "normal" parameters apply for the Mac Pro. The bottom end is the Silver 4215 8 Core 85W at $794. Then comes the Gold 5215 10 Core 85W at $1221. The next progression is at 125W: Gold 5218 16 Core at $1273, then Gold 5220 18 Core at $1555, then 6230 20 Core at $1894. I'm skipping a few that don't fit into the neat core count progression.
The next big step is the 150W 6200 series, but the bottom end there (Gold 6240 18 Core) is $2445 with the top end (Gold 6252 24 Core) at $3665. That seems beyond what the Mac Pro market can sustain. So that seems out.
Like Marvin says, you make it a dual-socket machine that comes with just a single processor in the base configurations.
All of these support Optane and PMM -- it's a long shot but I don't think it would be that hard to design to incorporate PMMs as an option. HP seems to be able to incorporate it into their existing tower design without major internal changes, although they haven't actually released the PMM configurations yet.
Threadripper 3, please..
[EDIT: Also, the Intel C621 chipset for Xeon-Scalable is designed for that, multiple sockets -- I don't think there is a lot of extra silicon for up to four processors. IANAE, but that's whole point of "Scalable" ...]
Not that I think that is likely -- the scalable, modular Mac Pro is a dream. Far more likely we get a Xeon-W Mac Pro that offers upgradeability and changeability-configurability that the iMac Pro doesn't, but isn't in a different class with regard to performance.
On Threadripper, more power to you, but unlikely at this stage, I'll guess. Unless you've got inside information that Lisa Su will be backstage at the keynote ...
Base modular Mac Pro - $3799
Last I looked, there were only 2 good Xeon-SP options, otherwise, all the multi-socket options take a pretty big single thread hit. These processors are basically designed just for servers, not desktops. Then, the Xeon W-3175X is a 255 Watt TDP monster, and it is had to believe that Apple would offer that. Otherwise, it’s either Ryzen/Epyc (which aren’t power efficient chips either) or sticking with 2 year old Xeon W chips that are in the iMac Pro. Ryzen will offer more cores, but there’s a limit to how more cores are really useful for desktops, so hard to see 32 to 64 cores being a saleable feature for a desktop.
For GPUs, it’s a 7 nm Vega. We all wish Apple and Nvidia would get over it, but there has been zero evidence of it so far.
From a performance standpoint, the new Mac Pro will surely have Apple’s typical features of being quiet with unique ID, Apple may have a unique advantage with a prospective T3 co-processor. If they expand on the capabilities of the T2 with more codec support, including audio, a neural unit, and optimize FCPX and LPX for it, hmm.
However, at this point, if the Mac Pro just had iMac Pro internals, but with accessible PCIe slots, RAM slots, SSD slots, and socketed CPUs all in one box, I think the vast majority of potential customers will be happy.