Apple could bring back the trash can Mac as the problem was thermal capacity. The Apple Silicon generates much less heat.
There’s still the issue of raw power. It has yet to be proven that Apple can provide a workhorse machine like the current Mac Pro when their own SOC is used, instead of Intel Xeons. Also the RAM issue...
No it isn’t proven that Apple could replace the Mac Pro with their own silicon. That said, I think if they said that they could replace all their Macs with Apple silicon ones within two years that they will have something with the power and equivalent ram to replace the Mac Pro.
Or it could be that Apple plans to sell the current Intel Mac Pro & the new Apple Silicon Mac Pro side by side, giving Pro users time to switch over their workflows. Once that happens, they will stop selling the Intel Mac Pro.
I sure hope they design the glued screen out of the iMacs and make them upgradeable. But I think Apple’s gradually getting back to common sense design decisions since Ive’s gone.
I suspect you’re s**t out of luck. All signs are pointing to a giant iPad on a stand...
There's absolutely NO nostalgia for that white elephant.
Speak for yourself.
Here's another data point: I think it's the most gorgeous-looking computer that Apple has created. (The mid-2015 MBP15 is a close second -- perhaps Apple's most perfect computer).
There's absolutely NO nostalgia for that white elephant.
Speak for yourself.
Here's another data point: I think it's the most gorgeous-looking computer that Apple has created. (The mid-2015 MBP15 is a close second -- perhaps Apple's most perfect computer).
Regardless of how beautiful it looked, it ended up being a failure in the marketplace.
I sure hope they design the glued screen out of the iMacs and make them upgradeable. But I think Apple’s gradually getting back to common sense design decisions since Ive’s gone.
I suspect you’re s**t out of luck. All signs are pointing to a giant iPad on a stand...
MAC is going to be great. So going forward, the most important job of
MAC users is to rescue, gently help our fellow humans who suffered long using
Windows to move/convert to MAC.
The previous times Apple has made a small pro desktop, things have gone terribly wrong. The Cube was a real miss, and we all know how the 2013 Mac Pro turned out. Hopefully the third time is the charm.
I don’t think they will introduce any far-out cutting edge designer case for the Mac Pro Midi. Instead it will be a scaled down cheese-grater enclosure with fold down access to the internals. I expect M.2 ssd slots for the drives but maybe 2 half-sized PCI-E slots for I/O options beyond the standard Thunderbolt/HDMI/USB/100b Ethernet.
MAC is going to be great. So going forward, the most important job of
MAC users is to rescue, gently help our fellow humans who suffered long using
Windows to move/convert to MAC.
Tell me what is this MAC you are talking about?
Machined and Cleaned.
Mad At Canada?
made Auntie Cry?
Marched Against Congress?
Military Attitude Correction?
Manly Aroma Corporation
Macintosh—>Mac it’s an abbreviation, not an acronym
sorry to be “that guy” but it’s such a simple thing to get right, not doing so is a real sign of disrespect to the company and to the reader.
As I recall, the Mac cube’s biggest problem was mediocre performance at a ludicrous price. Given the similarly ludicrous price positioning of the HomePod and AirPods Max, I fear Tim Apple might try the same trick again.
It actually had good performance. The problem was that it was introduced during a recession with the high end PPC. It was poor marketing by Apple that killed it. First was the erroneous “crack” issue, which turned out to be a molding line. I believe that was what caused Jobs to become obsessive about every tiny detail. The other problem was that Apple failed to market the fact that the model was almost completely modular, with slots for everything, including an extra slot.
since the public didn’t really understand what this was, it failed. After selling 50,000 units in the first quarter, Jobs killed it. I think that was a mistake.
I sure hope they design the glued screen out of the iMacs and make them upgradeable. But I think Apple’s gradually getting back to common sense design decisions since Ive’s gone.
Glued to what? Apple is replacing a bad screen in my daughter’s iMac. I removed the screen to my wife’s iMac a few years ago when I upgraded her drive. It wasn’t glued to anything.
Ok,mahatma I just read is that Apple is indeed planning a smaller Mac Pro in addition to the current Intel model that will have an Apple,chip inside. Depending on how they do it, that would be what I would prefer anyway. Alongside that, a less expensive pro monitor. That would be good too. I still think that Intel Mac Pro will be gone early 2022.
Obviously these are just rumors, but if they are true, then my guess that Apple will use a chiplet approach is likely wrong, at least for 2021. This smaller Mac Pro sounds kind of like a headless iMac — essentially the legendary xMac. Such a machine could share the same SOC with the iMac and large MacBook Pro, perhaps running at a higher sustained clock speed and with more cores enabled.
A Big Mac Pro with Intel might get Ice Lake and the latest AMD GPUs.
Maybe Apple will wait for 3nm to replace Intel in the highest end Mac pro. Maybe then they will go chiplet.... or maybe they will never go chiplet and instead people who can benefit from that much parallelism can just buy multiple Macs pro.
This is 36 cores on Intel’s 10nm process which is analogous to TSMC 7nm. Intel’s process that is competitive with TSMC 5nm is delayed until maybe 2023.
So in 2022, if Apple were to come out with a 32 core SOC on 3nm process, it would be a full two nodes ahead of Intel. That process advantage might negate the need for a chiplet approach.
Of course, that ignores AMD, who also uses TSMC, lags Apple by just one node rather than two, and uses a chiplet approach. Apple might not match AMD at the very highest end. But that’s true now, too.
AMD, Intel. The same thing. A difference in performance here and there. Intel is talking to TSMC now about producing chips, and it’s known that TSMC already does do some chips for Intel, but not sure what.
apple’s chips are well ahead because of a number of reasons. Raw CPU numbers don’t tell the entire story. and just announced new chips with a 20% increase in CPU numbers. Maybe they’ll reach that, maybe not. We don’t know what Apple is going to do with an M1x. Maybe the same performance, but more cores. Maybe enhanced performance and increased cores. We don’t know when they will come out with an M2. We do know, because that’s the way it works, that they began work on an M2 over a year ago. What increase in performance will we see? and is claiming that 20% on the same node as their Zen 3. If they can do that, so can Apple.
we don’t know anything, unfortunately. But I doubt very much that Apple will take two years to fill out their entire line. A year, plus or minus a couple of months is what I expect.
Apple could bring back the trash can Mac as the problem was thermal capacity. The Apple Silicon generates much less heat.
There’s still the issue of raw power. It has yet to be proven that Apple can provide a workhorse machine like the current Mac Pro when their own SOC is used, instead of Intel Xeons. Also the RAM issue...
I don’t think that’s an issue. Do you believe that Apple is winging it? That they don’t know what their chips can, and will be able to do? That they took a chance that could cost them hundreds of billions in company value if they fail without being certain they can pull ALL of it off? I don’t think so.
Ok,mahatma I just read is that Apple is indeed planning a smaller Mac Pro in addition to the current Intel model that will have an Apple,chip inside. Depending on how they do it, that would be what I would prefer anyway. Alongside that, a less expensive pro monitor. That would be good too. I still think that Intel Mac Pro will be gone early 2022.
It seems not long ago many of us were pleading for a mid-sized Mac Pro only to be shouted down. It is now clear why it was delayed but the need was always there for the smaller professionals' requirements of flexibility and power but without the resources to buy the big beast. I am so pleased this is coming I truly believe it fills a huge need. Ironically it will probably be far more powerful than the current high-end Mac Pro so one has to wonder what is in store for that? Maybe multiple SoCs in one machine?
Fool me once (Cube), shame on you; Fool me twice (Trash), shame on me; Fool me three times...
jk.
My question though: I don’t see problem fitting a 300-watt processor (mostly CPU), but what about graphics? The new MPX bay? Especially the current design exceeds in passive cooling.
I also don’t know how many PCIe lanes this thing will get, if the new design is destined to be “the one” for the next decade.
Ok,mahatma I just read is that Apple is indeed planning a smaller Mac Pro in addition to the current Intel model that will have an Apple,chip inside. Depending on how they do it, that would be what I would prefer anyway. Alongside that, a less expensive pro monitor. That would be good too. I still think that Intel Mac Pro will be gone early 2022.
It seems not long ago many of us were pleading for a mid-sized Mac Pro only to be shouted down. It is now clear why it was delayed but the need was always there for the smaller professionals' requirements of flexibility and power but without the resources to buy the big beast. I am so pleased this is coming I truly believe it fills a huge need. Ironically it will probably be far more powerful than the current high-end Mac Pro so one has to wonder what is in store for that? Maybe multiple SoCs in one machine?
I’ve always thought that a mid sized model would sell. But Apple has the right to sell what they want. Hopefully, they now want to sell one.
Apple could bring back the trash can Mac as the problem was thermal capacity. The Apple Silicon generates much less heat.
There’s still the issue of raw power. It has yet to be proven that Apple can provide a workhorse machine like the current Mac Pro when their own SOC is used, instead of Intel Xeons. Also the RAM issue...
I don’t think that’s an issue. Do you believe that Apple is winging it? That they don’t know what their chips can, and will be able to do? That they took a chance that could cost them hundreds of billions in company value if they fail without being certain they can pull ALL of it off? I don’t think so.
there is no RAM issue.
Maybe he’s referring the trash can which we may not seen in a decade or so.
At what size you think will be optimal for the next Mac Pro?
Apple could bring back the trash can Mac as the problem was thermal capacity. The Apple Silicon generates much less heat.
There’s still the issue of raw power. It has yet to be proven that Apple can provide a workhorse machine like the current Mac Pro when their own SOC is used, instead of Intel Xeons. Also the RAM issue...
I don’t think that’s an issue. Do you believe that Apple is winging it? That they don’t know what their chips can, and will be able to do? That they took a chance that could cost them hundreds of billions in company value if they fail without being certain they can pull ALL of it off? I don’t think so.
there is no RAM issue.
Maybe he’s referring the trash can which we may not seen in a decade or so.
At what size you think will be optimal for the next Mac Pro?
2RU would be amazing but 3 would be fine as well. ;-)
In the new article I cite above, Apple Insider didn't even mention this news story about a possible future Apple display. It doesn't say much for their own belief in their own rumours.
Apple could bring back the trash can Mac as the problem was thermal capacity. The Apple Silicon generates much less heat.
There’s still the issue of raw power. It has yet to be proven that Apple can provide a workhorse machine like the current Mac Pro when their own SOC is used, instead of Intel Xeons. Also the RAM issue...
I don’t think that’s an issue. Do you believe that Apple is winging it? That they don’t know what their chips can, and will be able to do? That they took a chance that could cost them hundreds of billions in company value if they fail without being certain they can pull ALL of it off? I don’t think so.
there is no RAM issue.
Maybe he’s referring the trash can which we may not seen in a decade or so.
At what size you think will be optimal for the next Mac Pro?
Are you asking about the amount of RAM? Max RAM sizes are funny things. Does the current Mac Pro really NEED such a high RAM Max? Really, how many users are going to need more than a TB of RAM? We’re talking about the very top of the pyramid, and by definition, that’s a very small number.
from my use of the new Macbook Pro, with 16GB, I've found that I can do the same things with this, without problems, that I could do with 32GB. After that, it becomes hazy. I can’t show, for certain that it’s the equal, in function, to 64GB, or maybe even 48GB. But it never feels as though I’m under RAM pressure. It’s difficult to compare this to my older Macbook Pro with separate GPU though. And comparing it to the much poorer performing Intel IG doesn’t seem like a comparable test either, even though I’ve been trying to figure out how everything does compare. I have to make allowances in the fact that the IG performance, by itself, is so much poorer, and the fact that my Macbook Pro has 32GB RAM, plus the RAM from the GPU.
if the next Macbook Pro, a high performance model, we’re all reading about has 32GB, then that’s what the older model has, though it won’t have, I’m assuming, separate GPU RAM, so it won’t be exactly the same. But nevertheless, to me, from what I’m finding here, it should perform as though it has more RAM than it does—64GB, maybe? Assuming things are consistent from one model to the other.
other than Apple’s memory model, these new machines have fast SSDs. At least, as long as you don’t buy the 256GB version, which I keep warning people not to buy if the want to do anything performant. There’s no much Apple can do about the performance of the 256GB drive, as that’s subject to the normal consequences of using half the NAND packages of larger drives, and therefor being a lot slower. I recommend at least the 512 model for performance. I a,ways get a 1TB drive for the main startup drive, and that’s what I bought.
drive speed is very important. And now, where it’s hitting above 2GB/s, it has a major influence on the overall performance of the system. If the machine is paging in and out of the drive, and it’s slow, there will be a noticeable performance hit. But if the drive is fast, then really, you won’t feel that it’s doing that. I’ve had that happen, while monitoring, and trying to use up all the RAM. There’s no really noticeable slowdown. And this impacts the amount of RAM needed.
so between Apple’s unified memory model and fast drives, you need less RAM than before. But that’s with these M1 chips. Nobody knows how Apple is going to handle the new chips with 8 or more CPU cores and 16 or more GPU cores. I don’t see how they can put all of that on chip without almost doubling the area. Will they want to do that, and increase the price of he chip by that much?
I see no problem with doubling the amount of RAM, because it’s off chip, but on the substrate board. Just replace the two 8GB RAM packages with 16GB packages. That’s a no brainer. I imagine they could go to two 32GB packages, at high cost, but I can’t find a 64GB package that would fit. But they could simply extend the substrate further to the right, and add two more RAM packages. So they could go to four 32GB packages, with current RAM packaging, if they want to. I’ve said this before. In reality, they could continue extending the substrate as far as they want, and keep adding packages. They could even use packages with side pins, and use the very small sockets that fit them, and give upgradable RAM.
they have a lot of options. They could also, in a Mac Pro, use two, or even more, SoCs. They have the tech for that. It wouldn’t be the first time. They did it with the G4, which wasn’t designed for multi socket use. And then the G5, and of course, dual Xeons. I would think that if they did, each chip could have its own RAM, and that Apple could pool it, if they thought it would be advantageous. So I suppose they could add as much RAM as they wanted to, when cost isn’t much of an issue.
Comments
https://www.wired.com/story/20-years-ago-steve-jobs-built-the-coolest-computer-ever-it-bombed/
it’s an abbreviation, not an acronym
sorry to be “that guy” but it’s such a simple thing to get right, not doing so is a real sign of disrespect to the company and to the reader.
since the public didn’t really understand what this was, it failed. After selling 50,000 units in the first quarter, Jobs killed it. I think that was a mistake.
AMD, Intel. The same thing. A difference in performance here and there. Intel is talking to TSMC now about producing chips, and it’s known that TSMC already does do some chips for Intel, but not sure what.
apple’s chips are well ahead because of a number of reasons. Raw CPU numbers don’t tell the entire story. and just announced new chips with a 20% increase in CPU numbers. Maybe they’ll reach that, maybe not. We don’t know what Apple is going to do with an M1x. Maybe the same performance, but more cores. Maybe enhanced performance and increased cores. We don’t know when they will come out with an M2. We do know, because that’s the way it works, that they began work on an M2 over a year ago. What increase in performance will we see? and is claiming that 20% on the same node as their Zen 3. If they can do that, so can Apple.
we don’t know anything, unfortunately. But I doubt very much that Apple will take two years to fill out their entire line. A year, plus or minus a couple of months is what I expect.
I don’t think that’s an issue. Do you believe that Apple is winging it? That they don’t know what their chips can, and will be able to do? That they took a chance that could cost them hundreds of billions in company value if they fail without being certain they can pull ALL of it off? I don’t think so.
there is no RAM issue.
Fool me twice (Trash), shame on me;
Fool me three times...
jk.
My question though:
I don’t see problem fitting a 300-watt processor (mostly CPU), but what about graphics? The new MPX bay? Especially the current design exceeds in passive cooling.
I also don’t know how many PCIe lanes this thing will get, if the new design is destined to be “the one” for the next decade.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/05/13/anticipation-over-apples-new-modular-mac-pro-mounts-as-first-phony-renderings-hit-the-web/amp/
It could be closer than what we’ve thought.
At what size you think will be optimal for the next Mac Pro?
In the new article I cite above, Apple Insider didn't even mention this news story about a possible future Apple display. It doesn't say much for their own belief in their own rumours.
from my use of the new Macbook Pro, with 16GB, I've found that I can do the same things with this, without problems, that I could do with 32GB. After that, it becomes hazy. I can’t show, for certain that it’s the equal, in function, to 64GB, or maybe even 48GB. But it never feels as though I’m under RAM pressure. It’s difficult to compare this to my older Macbook Pro with separate GPU though. And comparing it to the much poorer performing Intel IG doesn’t seem like a comparable test either, even though I’ve been trying to figure out how everything does compare. I have to make allowances in the fact that the IG performance, by itself, is so much poorer, and the fact that my Macbook Pro has 32GB RAM, plus the RAM from the GPU.
if the next Macbook Pro, a high performance model, we’re all reading about has 32GB, then that’s what the older model has, though it won’t have, I’m assuming, separate GPU RAM, so it won’t be exactly the same. But nevertheless, to me, from what I’m finding here, it should perform as though it has more RAM than it does—64GB, maybe? Assuming things are consistent from one model to the other.
other than Apple’s memory model, these new machines have fast SSDs. At least, as long as you don’t buy the 256GB version, which I keep warning people not to buy if the want to do anything performant. There’s no much Apple can do about the performance of the 256GB drive, as that’s subject to the normal consequences of using half the NAND packages of larger drives, and therefor being a lot slower. I recommend at least the 512 model for performance. I a,ways get a 1TB drive for the main startup drive, and that’s what I bought.
drive speed is very important. And now, where it’s hitting above 2GB/s, it has a major influence on the overall performance of the system. If the machine is paging in and out of the drive, and it’s slow, there will be a noticeable performance hit. But if the drive is fast, then really, you won’t feel that it’s doing that. I’ve had that happen, while monitoring, and trying to use up all the RAM. There’s no really noticeable slowdown. And this impacts the amount of RAM needed.
so between Apple’s unified memory model and fast drives, you need less RAM than before. But that’s with these M1 chips. Nobody knows how Apple is going to handle the new chips with 8 or more CPU cores and 16 or more GPU cores. I don’t see how they can put all of that on chip without almost doubling the area. Will they want to do that, and increase the price of he chip by that much?
I see no problem with doubling the amount of RAM, because it’s off chip, but on the substrate board. Just replace the two 8GB RAM packages with 16GB packages. That’s a no brainer. I imagine they could go to two 32GB packages, at high cost, but I can’t find a 64GB package that would fit. But they could simply extend the substrate further to the right, and add two more RAM packages. So they could go to four 32GB packages, with current RAM packaging, if they want to. I’ve said this before. In reality, they could continue extending the substrate as far as they want, and keep adding packages. They could even use packages with side pins, and use the very small sockets that fit them, and give upgradable RAM.
they have a lot of options. They could also, in a Mac Pro, use two, or even more, SoCs. They have the tech for that. It wouldn’t be the first time. They did it with the G4, which wasn’t designed for multi socket use. And then the G5, and of course, dual Xeons. I would think that if they did, each chip could have its own RAM, and that Apple could pool it, if they thought it would be advantageous. So I suppose they could add as much RAM as they wanted to, when cost isn’t much of an issue.