They use the same basic protocols according to intel. For some reason everyone on here is convinced that they can only be routed through integrated graphics connections when intel has stated they support both displayport and PCIe protocols. A couple of them also claimed that it is impossible to route through PCIe or any machine with such a standard in place.
I knew this wouldn't be the case simply because Intel wants to encourage widespread adoption on the windows and linux side.
Intel has been pretty good about evolving hardware in a rational manner.
As to Linux I'm surprised that hardware and drivers haven't surfaced yet. I guess Apple must have gotten an exclusive here.
Intel has been pretty good about evolving hardware in a rational manner.
As to Linux I'm surprised that hardware and drivers haven't surfaced yet. I guess Apple must have gotten an exclusive here.
That makes me sad. I've always had a soft spot for Linux. Aside from that I'm not sure why so many people claimed it could be routed solely through intel's integrated graphics. Then there are the responses I get that the mac pro doesn't need it because it has PCI slots. To me it provides a cheap standard for attaching a secondary hard drive enclosure (a four drive limit is nothing ). I imagine there will soon be a way to attach it to a proper NAS, but regardless of that as more thunderbolt devices emerge we'll want the ability to share devices between a macbook pro and mac pro. It's really clunky when your laptop can run something that your desktop cannot.
I'm not sure why so many people claimed it could be routed solely through intel's integrated graphics. Then there are the responses I get that the mac pro doesn't need it because it has PCI slots. To me it provides a cheap standard for attaching a secondary hard drive enclosure (a four drive limit is nothing ). I imagine there will soon be a way to attach it to a proper NAS, but regardless of that as more thunderbolt devices emerge we'll want the ability to share devices between a macbook pro and mac pro. It's really clunky when your laptop can run something that your desktop cannot.
I haven't seen (or perhaps noticed) these claims that the next Mac Pro doesn't need or won't get Thunderbolt. I wouldn't take them at all seriously.
That makes me sad. I've always had a soft spot for Linux.
One of Linux's great weakness is the slow way hardware gets supported. Frankly I' m leaning towards AMD these days as a stronger supporter of Linux. At least from the standpoint of GPU support.
Then again if you are like Intel with crap GPUs your Linux support will likely be weak.
Quote:
Aside from that I'm not sure why so many people claimed it could be routed solely through intel's integrated graphics. Then there are the responses I get that the mac pro doesn't need it because it has PCI slots.
Some of the discussions I've seen clearly indicate that people think Thunderbolt replaces slots. This is contrary to what I think. Seriously if it is Apples intention to replace slots with TB ports they are in serious denial. Right now I'm hoping that they see TB as no more of a slot replacement than USB was.
Quote:
To me it provides a cheap standard for attaching a secondary hard drive enclosure (a four drive limit is nothing ).
I believe TB has a greater potential than that. However I can see TBs primary usage being disk array interfacing.
The thing here is there are lots things commonly used externally that can use the speed of TB. TB might even enable new uses or concepts, it seems like TB is destined for instrumentation interfacing. I suspect what will make TB interesting is the new or novel uses to come.
Quote:
I imagine there will soon be a way to attach it to a proper NAS, but regardless of that as more thunderbolt devices emerge we'll want the ability to share devices between a macbook pro and mac pro. It's really clunky when your laptop can run something that your desktop cannot.
I think this reflects upon the Mac Pros seriously bad sales figures. Apple most likely figures there is little to loose. It is the right machine for far to few people.
Some of the discussions I've seen clearly indicate that people think Thunderbolt replaces slots. This is contrary to what I think. Seriously if it is Apples intention to replace slots with TB ports they are in serious denial. Right now I'm hoping that they see TB as no more of a slot replacement than USB was.
Thunderbolt is an imperfect substitute for slots. From Apple's perspective, Thunderbolt is an improvement over slots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I think this reflects upon the Mac Pros seriously bad sales figures. Apple most likely figures there is little to loose. It is the right machine for far to few people.
Few customers are willing to screw around with slots.
Few customers are willing to screw around with slots.
They've just been forced to during their lives as PC owners. Apple removes that possibility from their realm and picks up people who couldn't care less how it works as long as it works.
They've just been forced to during their lives as PC owners. Apple removes that possibility from their realm and picks up people who couldn't care less how it works as long as it works.
We can think of customers as falling into three categories.
1. Customers who take their PeeCee to someone else because they absolutely won't screw around with slots.
2. Customers who will screw around with slots if they have to, but would rather be doing something else.
3. Customers who love screwing around with slots.
I'm in category 2, but I suspect well over 90% of customers are in category 1. I know very, very few people in category 3.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of current Mac Pro customers are in either category 1 or category 2 and would be happy with a slot-free Mac Pro. I believe that the number of category 1 customers that Apple would pick up by eliminating slots from a future Mac Pro would overwhelming exceed the number of category 3 customers they would lose as a result of such a move.
We can think of customers as falling into three categories.
1. Customers who take their PeeCee to someone else because they absolutely won't screw around with slots.
2. Customers who will screw around with slots if they have to, but would rather be doing something else.
3. Customers who love screwing around with slots.
The above is mostly non sense. The people that care about slots are the ones that use them. That should be pretty obvious and just as obvious is the idea that if you don't use them your input isn't needed as Apple has plenty of hardware for you.
As for category #3 it doesn't exist, people don't use slots to screw around. Rather they are used to configure a machine to their needs. What is sad about this debate is that people who have never touched a slot can't see what they have to offer a more advanced user.
Quote:
I'm in category 2, but I suspect well over 90% of customers are in category 1. I know very, very few people in category 3.
I think your trifecta is a bit of nonsense. If you need those slots their use is not screwing around.
Quote:
I believe that the overwhelming majority of current Mac Pro customers are in either category 1 or category 2 and would be happy with a slot-free Mac Pro.
Again garbage as one of the big reasons people buy Mac Pros is the slots, with the number one motivator being a high performance video card.
Quote:
I believe that the number of category 1 customers that Apple would pick up by eliminating slots from a future Mac Pro would overwhelming exceed the number of category 3 customers they would lose as a result of such a move.
That also makes no sense at all. Apple already has plenty of slot less machines to service the people that need that sort of hardware.
At least one of us (and perhaps both of us) has a screwed perspective.
I know three people who buy a new Mac Pro every time Apple release a new model. None of the three ever make use of the slots. One of them certainly knows about the slots, but I rather doubt the other two do. They buy these machines because they need the fastest machines they can get. Right now, all they have 12-core Mac Pro models with loads of RAM. These three people may or may not be representative of Mac Pro buyers, but I suspect they are. I haven't heard of anyone putting a card (not counting DIMM cards) into a Mac in this century, though obviously some people have.
I have a great deal of difficulty believing that most Mac Pro buyers would not be entirely satisfied with screaming fast graphics directly on the motherboard rather than on a replaceable card. I think nearly all Mac Pro buyers care about the machine's performance, not about opportunities to tweak that performance. My guess, which could be significantly wrong, is that about 1% of Mac Pro buyers care about slots.
The argument that there are plenty of Mac models without slots to satisfy people who don't care about slots is based on an implicit false premise: that people who don't need slots don't need a fast machine. I think the overwhelming reason why Mac Pro buyers buy a Mac Pro is for the performance. Anyway, I'm prepared to wait to see what Apple will do next.
At least one of us (and perhaps both of us) has a screwed perspective.
I know three people who buy a new Mac Pro every time Apple release a new model. None of the three ever make use of the slots. One of them certainly knows about the slots, but I rather doubt the other two do. They buy these machines because they need the fastest machines they can get. Right now, all they have 12-core Mac Pro models with loads of RAM. These three people may or may not be representative of Mac Pro buyers, but I suspect they are. I haven't heard of anyone putting a card (not counting DIMM cards) into a Mac in this century, though obviously some people have.
Though it could be possible, I don't think that many of these Pros are being installed without Video cards. Right now the only way to a high performance GPU is via a slot. Now I'd be the first to admit that the actual users may not care about where that GPU is, but never the less slots are required for the card.
Right now slots are the only way to high performance GPU technology. I'd also be the first to admit that at some point in the future this might not be the case. In a couple of generations or so the best performance will likely come from highly integrated GPUs and CPUs on System on Chips. That isn't today though.
In a nut shell every Mac Pro is employing it's slots to some extent.
Quote:
I have a great deal of difficulty believing that most Mac Pro buyers would not be entirely satisfied with screaming fast graphics directly on the motherboard rather than on a replaceable card.
Actually if you have read some of my XMac posts in the past you would see that we agree somewhat. But there are still qualifications. An XMac is not a Mac Pro, not by a long shot. Second I'd still want a couple of slots in the XMac. Ideally the slots could support an additional high performance video card.
To repeat my point made previously the Mac Pro is a good machine for those that need it. It is basically a workstation / server like machine. The problem is it is way to expensive for what many of us want. That is to put it simply a low cost machine with easy expansion.
Quote:
I think nearly all Mac Pro buyers care about the machine's performance, not about opportunities to tweak that performance. My guess, which could be significantly wrong, is that about 1% of Mac Pro buyers care about slots.
When you use the word tweak it tells me you dont have a grip on the issues involved. It isn't tweaking at all, rather it is configuring a machine to make it usable for a purpose. In other words it is about being able to use Apple hardware or being forced to use other hardware. If one can't build functional systems with Apple hardware the alternative is Linux machines on generic hardware.
Quote:
The argument that there are plenty of Mac models without slots to satisfy people who don't care about slots is based on an implicit false premise: that people who don't need slots don't need a fast machine.
Generally people that need solid or fast performance these days need slots. There is no way around it as that is where the fast GPUs are. Apple could certainly address this in a new machine, but they have repeatedly failed to do so. Even the new Mini with the discreet GPU is a half hearted effort, that leaves you feeling that they simply don't care about performance at any level. In the end if Apple did integrate a GPU on the motherboard of a suitable machine, they would likely castrate it to the point that a card in a slot would be required.
Quote:
I think the overwhelming reason why Mac Pro buyers buy a Mac Pro is for the performance. Anyway, I'm prepared to wait to see what Apple will do next.
Yes it is a long wait. I smell a major overhaul to the Mac Pro simply to save it from XServs fate. What Apple will deliver is a mystery. However I suspect it will distill some of the ideas we have discussed here.
As a side note from the land of dreams I kinda wish that Apple would implement AMDs coming Bulldozer base Fusion products in an XMac. That would allow for low cost and very good overall performance. It would give us a machine where the GPU is good enough for most and with slots capable of a quick boost in video or OpenCL performance.
You may note my focus on GPU performance which I consider to be very important and like to become even more important. There are a couple of reasons. The first is Retina class displays on laptops and desktops which could quadruple GPU demands. The second is the continued expansion of the use of GPUs for OpenCL and special purpose functions. The iPads highlight just how important GPUs are these days in delivering a good user experience.
Apple can't get rid of slots, period. Graphics cards, NICs, HBAs... too much backwards compatibility is needed for the Pro market
I'd like to believe that is the case. However Apple could go in a direction that leaves the Pros sitting high and dry. The problem with the current Mac Pro is getting enough business out of the platform to justify its existence.
Though it could be possible, I don't think that many of these Pros are being installed without Video cards. Right now the only way to a high performance GPU is via a slot. Now I'd be the first to admit that the actual users may not care about where that GPU is, but never the less slots are required for the card.
True, but completely irrelevant to the question of what Apple may do with a future Mac Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Right now slots are the only way to high performance GPU technology. I'd also be the first to admit that at some point in the future this might not be the case. In a couple of generations or so the best performance will likely come from highly integrated GPUs and CPUs on System on Chips. That isn't today though.
There is absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't take the very same chips that are now found on high-end graphics cards and use them directly on the motherboard of a future Mac Pro. Slots are absolutely not required for high performance GPU technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Actually if you have read some of my XMac posts in the past you would see that we agree somewhat. But there are still qualifications. An XMac is not a Mac Pro, not by a long shot. Second I'd still want a couple of slots in the XMac. Ideally the slots could support an additional high performance video card.
I understand that is what you and some other people want. I don't believe it makes any sense from Apple's perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
To repeat my point made previously the Mac Pro is a good machine for those that need it. It is basically a workstation / server like machine. The problem is it is way to expensive for what many of us want. That is to put it simply a low cost machine with easy expansion.
Yes, exactly! However, the xMac you propose would also be unnecessarily expensive. Drop the slots and you bring the cost down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
When you use the word tweak it tells me you dont have a grip on the issues involved. It isn't tweaking at all, rather it is configuring a machine to make it usable for a purpose.
If you want to hang your hat on some perceived nuance in meaning between "tweak" and "configure" to make a personal insult, then be my guest. It doesn't strengthen your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
In other words it is about being able to use Apple hardware or being forced to use other hardware. If one can't build functional systems with Apple hardware the alternative is Linux machines on generic hardware.
That's true, but you still haven't given a single example of a solution that is possible with slots but not possible with Thunderbolt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Generally people that need solid or fast performance these days need slots. There is no way around it as that is where the fast GPUs are. Apple could certainly address this in a new machine, but they have repeatedly failed to do so.
Exactly! Apple could address this in a new machine, you propose a new machine, but your xMac proposal doesn't address this. I believe the next Mac Pro (or whatever replaces it) will address this by dropping the slots and putting a fast GPU directly on the motherboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Even the new Mini with the discreet GPU is a half hearted effort, that leaves you feeling that they simply don't care about performance at any level.
The Mini is not a high-end, high-performance machine. It's a low-end, low-cost machine. Your complaint that the Mini doesn't include high-performance graphics does not even begin to suggest that a future Mac Pro won't include high-performance graphics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
In the end if Apple did integrate a GPU on the motherboard of a suitable machine, they would likely castrate it to the point that a card in a slot would be required.
You have provided no evidence, no facts, no logic, no argument to support this wild assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Yes it is a long wait. I smell a major overhaul to the Mac Pro simply to save it from XServs fate. What Apple will deliver is a mystery. However I suspect it will distill some of the ideas we have discussed here.
Yes, it would be a surprise if we're both wrong on every point in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As a side note from the land of dreams I kinda wish that Apple would implement AMDs coming Bulldozer base Fusion products in an XMac. That would allow for low cost and very good overall performance. It would give us a machine where the GPU is good enough for most and with slots capable of a quick boost in video or OpenCL performance.
I'm impressed by your remarkable ability to make your pitch for AMD over Intel in every thread regardless of the topic at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
You may note my focus on GPU performance which I consider to be very important and like to become even more important. There are a couple of reasons. The first is Retina class displays on laptops and desktops which could quadruple GPU demands. The second is the continued expansion of the use of GPUs for OpenCL and special purpose functions. The iPads highlight just how important GPUs are these days in delivering a good user experience.
I agree with you that GPU performance is increasingly important. Where I disagree is with the idea that it needs to be implemented on a discrete card rather than directly on the motherboard -- the possibility of which even you have conceded above, while denying it in other paragraphs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbwi
Apple can't get rid of slots, period. Graphics cards, NICs, HBAs... too much backwards compatibility is needed for the Pro market
All the items you list can be implemented with Thunderbolt.
All the items you list can be implemented with Thunderbolt.
No, they can't. Educate yourself.
Quote:
I'd like to believe that is the case. However Apple could go in a direction that leaves the Pros sitting high and dry. The problem with the current Mac Pro is getting enough business out of the platform to justify its existence.
I don't believe they make that mistake again (see Final Cut Pro X release). Apple re-learned a valuable lesson, the Pro market needs backwards compatibility features. I don't have any actual numbers but I believe the Pro market is justified, for now.
All the items you list can be implemented with Thunderbolt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbwi
No, they can't. Educate yourself.
Just because you don't how to implement graphics, Ethernet, and HBAs over Thunderbolt doesn't mean it can't be done. It can. Ethernet over Thunderbolt is trivially easy to demonstrate because Apple have already done it with the Thunderbolt Display. Implementing HBAs over Thunderbolt is a very similar problem. As for graphics, there is already work being done on HiDPI monitors with the GPU built-in to the monitor and driven by Thunderbolt.
True, but completely irrelevant to the question of what Apple may do with a future Mac Pro.
There is absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't take the very same chips that are now found on high-end graphics cards and use them directly on the motherboard of a future Mac Pro. Slots are absolutely not required for high performance GPU technology.
I never said that slots are required in the future what I've said is that right now it is the avenue to high performance GPUs. Even if integrated on the motherboard the chips interface will still be PCI Express.
Quote:
I understand that is what you and some other people want. I don't believe it makes any sense from Apple's perspective.
Nothing about Apples desktop line up makes any sense to me and stands in sharp contrast to their laptop line up. Think about it, Apples laptops are now easier to service and support than most of the desktop line.
Simply put the desktop line up needs to make sense from the customers perspective. In the end that is what grows sales. Apples approach to the desktop seems to be to throw their hands in the air and whine about the beauty of the iMac.
Quote:
Yes, exactly! However, the xMac you propose would also be unnecessarily expensive. Drop the slots and you bring the cost down.
BS. The whole point of this machine is to have the slots available. The machine would not be anymore expensive than any other desktop platform from any number of makers. XMac is by no means a Mac Pro replacement.
Quote:
If you want to hang your hat on some perceived nuance in meaning between "tweak" and "configure" to make a personal insult, then be my guest. It doesn't strengthen your argument.
Where is the insult???? Seriously you call people tweakers because they need slots to accomplish something important to them and you don't expect a response.
Quote:
That's true, but you still haven't given a single example of a solution that is possible with slots but not possible with Thunderbolt.
I gave you a single example already, that being video cards. I'm convinced though that you don't understand the difference between PCI - Express slots and TB. TB has three issues working against it, it is slow, external and it is serial.
You may ask what does external have to do with it to which I have to say look at the Mini Display Port connector, cabling requirements and external chassis.
Quote:
Exactly! Apple could address this in a new machine, you propose a new machine, but your xMac proposal doesn't address this. I believe the next Mac Pro (or whatever replaces it) will address this by dropping the slots and putting a fast GPU directly on the motherboard.
I have nothing against a fast GPU integrated on the motherboard but for the fact that Apples history here sucks royally. Even if they did implement a decent video subsystem that still doesn't eliminate the need for slots.
My fear here is that Apples motivation here is to make the video hardware easy to integrate with TB not to deliver good GPU performance.
Quote:
The Mini is not a high-end, high-performance machine. It's a low-end, low-cost machine. Your complaint that the Mini doesn't include high-performance graphics does not even begin to suggest that a future Mac Pro won't include high-performance graphics.
Why the need to twist things up here. I never said the Mini was a high performance machine, I said that the Radeon machine had a need for more video RAM. 512 MB of video RAM is not a high performance implementation these days.
In any event the current Mini in combination with Apples history dies indeed suggest that Apple would under deliver in such a Mac Pro. It is almost like it is in Apples DNA to minimize a given GPUs capability.
Quote:
You have provided no evidence, no facts, no logic, no argument to support this wild assertion.
All I need is Apples history here.
Quote:
Yes, it would be a surprise if we're both wrong on every point in this thread.
Sadly I'm hopeful but not convinced that anything compelling will come out this year nor even next.
Quote:
I'm impressed by your remarkable ability to make your pitch for AMD over Intel in every thread regardless of the topic at hand.
It takes talent!!!
On the serious side I think it is very important for AMD to remain viable as a competitor to Intel. We have seen how slow intel can become when not under pressure from rivals. Even more important is the idea that the GPU will just become more and more important over time which puts AMD at an advantage.
Frankly I wish that Apple would market at least one line of AMD based hardware, that is hardware with an AMD CPU in it. It would give people a choice and frankly keep Intel on it's toes.
As a side not it is really good to see Intel getting hit from different sides these days. AMD does what it can do from i86 space and the ARM camp is shooting from below. I have no doubt at all this is pushing things along at Intel like Haswell.
Quote:
I agree with you that GPU performance is increasingly important. Where I disagree is with the idea that it needs to be implemented on a discrete card rather than directly on the motherboard -- the possibility of which even you have conceded above, while denying it in other paragraphs.
Again I've never said that, I said we don't have a choice right now. Today, as in right now, if you want high performance graphics or GPU facilities you need to buy a card. I've also have pointed out that Apple doesn't have a history here worth admiration as they have constantly under powered the GPUs in their machines. They have only moved to respectable in the last couple of years on the iMac.
As to video facilities in general if you have followed my other posts you will see that I expect the need for discreet GPUs to rapidly decrease. This change over is actually happening right now but will be acceptable to a wider array of people with the next generation of chips. In effect you have your on motherboard video right there.
The question then becomes this how do you deal with the limited need from people that need or want a discreet GPU? The answer is that we are back to slots again. Other wise we end up with a Mini like solution. That is a basic Mini with SoC graphics and a discreet GPU in a half a$$ implementation.
Quote:
All the items you list can be implemented with Thunderbolt.
You can not do anything with Thunderbolt that requires more than 4x PCI - Express speeds and you can't even do that with all devices due to the serial bus nature of TB.
Just because you don't how to implement graphics, Ethernet, and HBAs over Thunderbolt doesn't mean it can't be done.
Your arguments here are non sense. Right now you can do Ethernet and video over USB, that doesn't make it acceptable for every use.
Quote:
It can. Ethernet over Thunderbolt is trivially easy to demonstrate because Apple have already done it with the Thunderbolt Display. Implementing HBAs over Thunderbolt is a very similar problem. As for graphics, there is already work being done on HiDPI monitors with the GPU built-in to the monitor and driven by Thunderbolt.
As to those HiDPI displays, do you really think that TB has the bandwidth to do that well for every application? Especially when that TB port may have other devices dangling off it. Consider this those USB to video adapters do function but who amongst us wants his primary display ran through one? Go to a Hi DPI display via TB and the situation is much the same, your bandwidth isn't there. Even if you manage to compress the data and commands down you are still trying to push to much through a tiny hose.
Oh by the way do you really want to go to the trouble of these adapters when things like Ethernet can be built into a computer trivially? This whole adapter mentality just drives me nuts.
Ethernet over Thunderbolt is trivially easy to demonstrate because Apple have already done it with the Thunderbolt Display.
Belkin has a FW800, ethernet and USB 2 dock connecting over Thunderbolt. Sonnet has FW800 and ExpressCard (which itself has USB 3). ViDock and Sonnet have Thunderbolt solutions for running an external GPU.
So yeah, there are products to do pretty much anything and everything internal PCI expansion slots can do. At the moment, the bandwidth is just lower, which will impact a small minority of internal slot usage.
Looking inside desktop PCs, it's clear to see even at a glance how much space it saves removing internal slots. Smaller power supply, at least 1/3rd of the internal volume reduced, no requirements set for the thickness of the machine to allow for card height, no giant holes at the back of the machine, fewer fans required, smaller enclosure (reducing weight).
I never said that slots are required in the future what I've said is that right now it is the avenue to high performance GPUs.
The discussion is about the next Mac Pro. That the current Mac Pro implements graphics on cards is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Nothing about Apples desktop line up makes any sense to me and stands in sharp contrast to their laptop line up.
It makes perfect sense to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Simply put the desktop line up needs to make sense from the customers perspective. In the end that is what grows sales.
Products need to make sense from the mainstream buyer's perspective, in this case mainstream Pro buyers. Mainstream Pro buyers just want performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Apples approach to the desktop seems to be to throw their hands in the air and whine about the beauty of the iMac.
Apple's approach is making billions of dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
BS. The whole point of this machine is to have the slots available. The machine would not be anymore expensive than any other desktop platform from any number of makers. XMac is by no means a Mac Pro replacement.
That's why Apple will never make the xMac you want. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Your xMac is a nice fantasy, but it makes zero sense from a business perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I have nothing against a fast GPU integrated on the motherboard but for the fact that Apples history here sucks royally.
In any event the current Mini in combination with Apples history dies indeed suggest that Apple would under deliver in such a Mac Pro. It is almost like it is in Apples DNA to minimize a given GPUs capability.
All I need is Apples history here.
Apple's history here is putting very fast graphics in the Mac Pro. I have no reason to think Apple would change that if they integrate the graphics onto the motherboard in a future Mac Pro. You have given no reason think Apple would suddenly start putting "castrated" graphics into the Mac Pro, which they've never done before. The fact that low-end Macs like the Mini ship with "castrated" graphics is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
On the serious side I think it is very important for AMD to remain viable as a competitor to Intel. We have seen how slow intel can become when not under pressure from rivals. Even more important is the idea that the GPU will just become more and more important over time which puts AMD at an advantage.
Frankly I wish that Apple would market at least one line of AMD based hardware, that is hardware with an AMD CPU in it. It would give people a choice and frankly keep Intel on it's toes.
As a side not it is really good to see Intel getting hit from different sides these days. AMD does what it can do from i86 space and the ARM camp is shooting from below. I have no doubt at all this is pushing things along at Intel like Haswell.
I agree that competition is important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Again I've never said that, I said we don't have a choice right now. Today, as in right now, if you want high performance graphics or GPU facilities you need to buy a card.
Again, the design of the current Mac Pro is not a constraint on the design of the next Mac Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I've also have pointed out that Apple doesn't have a history here worth admiration as they have constantly under powered the GPUs in their machines. They have only moved to respectable in the last couple of years on the iMac.
Again, you're comparing grapes to watermelons. A history of weak graphics at the low end and very fast graphics at the high end does not suggest that the future high end will have weak graphics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As to video facilities in general if you have followed my other posts you will see that I expect the need for discreet GPUs to rapidly decrease. This change over is actually happening right now but will be acceptable to a wider array of people with the next generation of chips. In effect you have your on motherboard video right there.
The question then becomes this how do you deal with the limited need from people that need or want a discreet GPU? The answer is that we are back to slots again. Other wise we end up with a Mini like solution. That is a basic Mini with SoC graphics and a discreet GPU in a half a$$ implementation.
Another grapes to watermelons comparison. There is no reason why graphics on the motherboard cannot be just as fast as graphics on a card in a slot. There is no reason to expect that Apple would cripple the graphics of a future Mac Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Your arguments here are non sense. Right now you can do Ethernet and video over USB, that doesn't make it acceptable for every use.
Oh by the way do you really want to go to the trouble of these adapters when things like Ethernet can be built into a computer trivially? This whole adapter mentality just drives me nuts.
What are you on about? First, Ethernet over Thunderbolt is fast enough for everyday use. Second, no one has suggested that a future Mac Pro won't come with a gigabit Ethernet port. The only reason we're discussing Ethernet on a card in a slot versus Ethernet over Thunderbolt is for the applications that require a second Ethernet port.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As to those HiDPI displays, do you really think that TB has the bandwidth to do that well for every application? Especially when that TB port may have other devices dangling off it. Consider this those USB to video adapters do function but who amongst us wants his primary display ran through one? Go to a Hi DPI display via TB and the situation is much the same, your bandwidth isn't there. Even if you manage to compress the data and commands down you are still trying to push to much through a tiny hose.
First of all, you demonstrate that you're out of arguments when you call Thunderbolt "a tiny hose".
More interestingly, no Mac Pro can be optimal for every application. I've already stipulated that Thunderbolt is an imperfect substitute for slots. Some customers would be better off with slots. Most customers would be better off without slots. Again, we're back to giving up a few customers with arcane needs in order to pick up far more customers with more mainstream needs. That sucks for the customers with arcane needs that can't be satisfied by Thunderbolt, but it's good business for a company the size of Apple.
The discussion is about the next Mac Pro. That the current Mac Pro implements graphics on cards is irrelevant.
It gives a benchmark to judge against. No matter what Apple does with the mac Pro it will be judged against previous versions.
Quote:
It makes perfect sense to me.
Well maybe that is why we disagree.
Quote:
Products need to make sense from the mainstream buyer's perspective, in this case mainstream Pro buyers. Mainstream Pro buyers just want performance.
Yep! Seriously we agree here, the question is will a Mac Pro with a built in video card give pros the performance they want. It certainly could be done, but what i'm saying is that Apples history sucks here. There is no way we can be certain that Apple would implement the type of GPU performance Pros want.
Quote:
Apple's approach is making billions of dollars.
Off laptops but little if any off the desktop lineups. I wouldn't be surprised to find out they are in the red with the Mac Pro.
Quote:
That's why Apple will never make the xMac you want. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Your xMac is a nice fantasy, but it makes zero sense from a business perspective.
How is what I said an example of why Apple would never produce a XMac? it makes all the sense in the world from a business perspective as they can pick up a whole class of users they currently can't reach. So really I don't get what you are saying, is it that Apple isn't capable of designing a desktop machine.
Quote:
Apple's history here is putting very fast graphics in the Mac Pro. I have no reason to think Apple would change that if they integrate the graphics onto the motherboard in a future Mac Pro. You have given no reason think Apple would suddenly start putting "castrated" graphics into the Mac Pro, which they've never done before. The fact that low-end Macs like the Mini ship with "castrated" graphics is irrelevant.
Every implementation of the Mac Pro up until now has come with a marginal GPU card. I can't even imagine how you came up with the above statements.
Quote:
I agree that competition is important.
I like that intel is feeling the heat from multiple directions, it makes for more innovation and novel thinking.
Quote:
Again, the design of the current Mac Pro is not a constraint on the design of the next Mac Pro.
Are you being dense on purpose here?
Quote:
Again, you're comparing grapes to watermelons. A history of weak graphics at the low end and very fast graphics at the high end does not suggest that the future high end will have weak graphics.
OK lets just say you are the only one here that believes the Mac Pros come with high end graphics.
Quote:
Another grapes to watermelons comparison. There is no reason why graphics on the motherboard cannot be just as fast as graphics on a card in a slot. There is no reason to expect that Apple would cripple the graphics of a future Mac Pro.
Actually there are technical issues to consider. A lot of engineering goes into making those graphics cards work. Thermal engineering being a big part of the effort. While Apple can certainly manage this if they really wanted too, I'm simply not convinced they would want to.
Quote:
What are you on about? First, Ethernet over Thunderbolt is fast enough for everyday use. Second, no one has suggested that a future Mac Pro won't come with a gigabit Ethernet port. The only reason we're discussing Ethernet on a card in a slot versus Ethernet over Thunderbolt is for the applications that require a second Ethernet port.
Lets face it the phrase "Ethernet over Thunderbolt is fast enough for everyday use" could be and has been replaced with: "Ethernet over (USB, SD, Firewire) is fast enough for everyday use" in the past. The problem is it is less than optimal solution and there is no reason to believe it would be any better on Thunderbolt.
Quote:
First of all, you demonstrate that you're out of arguments when you call Thunderbolt "a tiny hose".
Nope it is entirely fitting because that is exactly what it is compared to 16X PCI, especially if that is next ten PCI-Express. Thunderbolt is a serial channel or hose if you will that has a limited capacity. You can't really argue the point here.
Quote:
More interestingly, no Mac Pro can be optimal for every application. I've already stipulated that Thunderbolt is an imperfect substitute for slots. Some customers would be better off with slots. Most customers would be better off without slots.
This is where I disagree, especially in the context of a Mac Pro. Slots make the machine a pro level tool. If you remove the slots you end up with a fat Mini with all the draw that device has for pro usage.
Quote:
Again, we're back to giving up a few customers with arcane needs in order to pick up far more customers with more mainstream needs.
That is total rubbish. Are you actually saying that Apple can manage to have one machine in its entire line up of Macs that comes with slots? Seriously, the removal of such a device would be a very significant blow to Apples credibility with respect to the Pro market.
Quote:
That sucks for the customers with arcane needs that can't be satisfied by Thunderbolt, but it's good business for a company the size of Apple.
So it is good business to eliminate the one option that customers have to use Apple hardware in anything more than a trivial manner? This I just can't agree with.
Comments
They use the same basic protocols according to intel. For some reason everyone on here is convinced that they can only be routed through integrated graphics connections when intel has stated they support both displayport and PCIe protocols. A couple of them also claimed that it is impossible to route through PCIe or any machine with such a standard in place.
I knew this wouldn't be the case simply because Intel wants to encourage widespread adoption on the windows and linux side.
Intel has been pretty good about evolving hardware in a rational manner.
As to Linux I'm surprised that hardware and drivers haven't surfaced yet. I guess Apple must have gotten an exclusive here.
Intel has been pretty good about evolving hardware in a rational manner.
As to Linux I'm surprised that hardware and drivers haven't surfaced yet. I guess Apple must have gotten an exclusive here.
That makes me sad. I've always had a soft spot for Linux. Aside from that I'm not sure why so many people claimed it could be routed solely through intel's integrated graphics. Then there are the responses I get that the mac pro doesn't need it because it has PCI slots. To me it provides a cheap standard for attaching a secondary hard drive enclosure (a four drive limit is nothing
I'm not sure why so many people claimed it could be routed solely through intel's integrated graphics. Then there are the responses I get that the mac pro doesn't need it because it has PCI slots. To me it provides a cheap standard for attaching a secondary hard drive enclosure (a four drive limit is nothing
I haven't seen (or perhaps noticed) these claims that the next Mac Pro doesn't need or won't get Thunderbolt. I wouldn't take them at all seriously.
That makes me sad. I've always had a soft spot for Linux.
One of Linux's great weakness is the slow way hardware gets supported. Frankly I' m leaning towards AMD these days as a stronger supporter of Linux. At least from the standpoint of GPU support.
Then again if you are like Intel with crap GPUs your Linux support will likely be weak.
Aside from that I'm not sure why so many people claimed it could be routed solely through intel's integrated graphics. Then there are the responses I get that the mac pro doesn't need it because it has PCI slots.
Some of the discussions I've seen clearly indicate that people think Thunderbolt replaces slots. This is contrary to what I think. Seriously if it is Apples intention to replace slots with TB ports they are in serious denial. Right now I'm hoping that they see TB as no more of a slot replacement than USB was.
To me it provides a cheap standard for attaching a secondary hard drive enclosure (a four drive limit is nothing
I believe TB has a greater potential than that. However I can see TBs primary usage being disk array interfacing.
The thing here is there are lots things commonly used externally that can use the speed of TB. TB might even enable new uses or concepts, it seems like TB is destined for instrumentation interfacing. I suspect what will make TB interesting is the new or novel uses to come.
I imagine there will soon be a way to attach it to a proper NAS, but regardless of that as more thunderbolt devices emerge we'll want the ability to share devices between a macbook pro and mac pro. It's really clunky when your laptop can run something that your desktop cannot.
I think this reflects upon the Mac Pros seriously bad sales figures. Apple most likely figures there is little to loose. It is the right machine for far to few people.
Some of the discussions I've seen clearly indicate that people think Thunderbolt replaces slots. This is contrary to what I think. Seriously if it is Apples intention to replace slots with TB ports they are in serious denial. Right now I'm hoping that they see TB as no more of a slot replacement than USB was.
Thunderbolt is an imperfect substitute for slots. From Apple's perspective, Thunderbolt is an improvement over slots.
I think this reflects upon the Mac Pros seriously bad sales figures. Apple most likely figures there is little to loose. It is the right machine for far to few people.
Few customers are willing to screw around with slots.
Few customers are willing to screw around with slots.
They've just been forced to during their lives as PC owners. Apple removes that possibility from their realm and picks up people who couldn't care less how it works as long as it works.
Don't sue me, Matrix franchise.
They've just been forced to during their lives as PC owners. Apple removes that possibility from their realm and picks up people who couldn't care less how it works as long as it works.
We can think of customers as falling into three categories.
1. Customers who take their PeeCee to someone else because they absolutely won't screw around with slots.
2. Customers who will screw around with slots if they have to, but would rather be doing something else.
3. Customers who love screwing around with slots.
I'm in category 2, but I suspect well over 90% of customers are in category 1. I know very, very few people in category 3.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of current Mac Pro customers are in either category 1 or category 2 and would be happy with a slot-free Mac Pro. I believe that the number of category 1 customers that Apple would pick up by eliminating slots from a future Mac Pro would overwhelming exceed the number of category 3 customers they would lose as a result of such a move.
We can think of customers as falling into three categories.
1. Customers who take their PeeCee to someone else because they absolutely won't screw around with slots.
2. Customers who will screw around with slots if they have to, but would rather be doing something else.
3. Customers who love screwing around with slots.
The above is mostly non sense. The people that care about slots are the ones that use them. That should be pretty obvious and just as obvious is the idea that if you don't use them your input isn't needed as Apple has plenty of hardware for you.
As for category #3 it doesn't exist, people don't use slots to screw around. Rather they are used to configure a machine to their needs. What is sad about this debate is that people who have never touched a slot can't see what they have to offer a more advanced user.
I'm in category 2, but I suspect well over 90% of customers are in category 1. I know very, very few people in category 3.
I think your trifecta is a bit of nonsense. If you need those slots their use is not screwing around.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of current Mac Pro customers are in either category 1 or category 2 and would be happy with a slot-free Mac Pro.
Again garbage as one of the big reasons people buy Mac Pros is the slots, with the number one motivator being a high performance video card.
I believe that the number of category 1 customers that Apple would pick up by eliminating slots from a future Mac Pro would overwhelming exceed the number of category 3 customers they would lose as a result of such a move.
That also makes no sense at all. Apple already has plenty of slot less machines to service the people that need that sort of hardware.
Your perspective is screwed.
At least one of us (and perhaps both of us) has a screwed perspective.
I know three people who buy a new Mac Pro every time Apple release a new model. None of the three ever make use of the slots. One of them certainly knows about the slots, but I rather doubt the other two do. They buy these machines because they need the fastest machines they can get. Right now, all they have 12-core Mac Pro models with loads of RAM. These three people may or may not be representative of Mac Pro buyers, but I suspect they are. I haven't heard of anyone putting a card (not counting DIMM cards) into a Mac in this century, though obviously some people have.
I have a great deal of difficulty believing that most Mac Pro buyers would not be entirely satisfied with screaming fast graphics directly on the motherboard rather than on a replaceable card. I think nearly all Mac Pro buyers care about the machine's performance, not about opportunities to tweak that performance. My guess, which could be significantly wrong, is that about 1% of Mac Pro buyers care about slots.
The argument that there are plenty of Mac models without slots to satisfy people who don't care about slots is based on an implicit false premise: that people who don't need slots don't need a fast machine. I think the overwhelming reason why Mac Pro buyers buy a Mac Pro is for the performance. Anyway, I'm prepared to wait to see what Apple will do next.
At least one of us (and perhaps both of us) has a screwed perspective.
I know three people who buy a new Mac Pro every time Apple release a new model. None of the three ever make use of the slots. One of them certainly knows about the slots, but I rather doubt the other two do. They buy these machines because they need the fastest machines they can get. Right now, all they have 12-core Mac Pro models with loads of RAM. These three people may or may not be representative of Mac Pro buyers, but I suspect they are. I haven't heard of anyone putting a card (not counting DIMM cards) into a Mac in this century, though obviously some people have.
Though it could be possible, I don't think that many of these Pros are being installed without Video cards. Right now the only way to a high performance GPU is via a slot. Now I'd be the first to admit that the actual users may not care about where that GPU is, but never the less slots are required for the card.
Right now slots are the only way to high performance GPU technology. I'd also be the first to admit that at some point in the future this might not be the case. In a couple of generations or so the best performance will likely come from highly integrated GPUs and CPUs on System on Chips. That isn't today though.
In a nut shell every Mac Pro is employing it's slots to some extent.
I have a great deal of difficulty believing that most Mac Pro buyers would not be entirely satisfied with screaming fast graphics directly on the motherboard rather than on a replaceable card.
Actually if you have read some of my XMac posts in the past you would see that we agree somewhat. But there are still qualifications. An XMac is not a Mac Pro, not by a long shot. Second I'd still want a couple of slots in the XMac. Ideally the slots could support an additional high performance video card.
To repeat my point made previously the Mac Pro is a good machine for those that need it. It is basically a workstation / server like machine. The problem is it is way to expensive for what many of us want. That is to put it simply a low cost machine with easy expansion.
I think nearly all Mac Pro buyers care about the machine's performance, not about opportunities to tweak that performance. My guess, which could be significantly wrong, is that about 1% of Mac Pro buyers care about slots.
When you use the word tweak it tells me you dont have a grip on the issues involved. It isn't tweaking at all, rather it is configuring a machine to make it usable for a purpose. In other words it is about being able to use Apple hardware or being forced to use other hardware. If one can't build functional systems with Apple hardware the alternative is Linux machines on generic hardware.
The argument that there are plenty of Mac models without slots to satisfy people who don't care about slots is based on an implicit false premise: that people who don't need slots don't need a fast machine.
Generally people that need solid or fast performance these days need slots. There is no way around it as that is where the fast GPUs are. Apple could certainly address this in a new machine, but they have repeatedly failed to do so. Even the new Mini with the discreet GPU is a half hearted effort, that leaves you feeling that they simply don't care about performance at any level. In the end if Apple did integrate a GPU on the motherboard of a suitable machine, they would likely castrate it to the point that a card in a slot would be required.
I think the overwhelming reason why Mac Pro buyers buy a Mac Pro is for the performance. Anyway, I'm prepared to wait to see what Apple will do next.
Yes it is a long wait. I smell a major overhaul to the Mac Pro simply to save it from XServs fate. What Apple will deliver is a mystery. However I suspect it will distill some of the ideas we have discussed here.
As a side note from the land of dreams I kinda wish that Apple would implement AMDs coming Bulldozer base Fusion products in an XMac. That would allow for low cost and very good overall performance. It would give us a machine where the GPU is good enough for most and with slots capable of a quick boost in video or OpenCL performance.
You may note my focus on GPU performance which I consider to be very important and like to become even more important. There are a couple of reasons. The first is Retina class displays on laptops and desktops which could quadruple GPU demands. The second is the continued expansion of the use of GPUs for OpenCL and special purpose functions. The iPads highlight just how important GPUs are these days in delivering a good user experience.
Apple can't get rid of slots, period. Graphics cards, NICs, HBAs... too much backwards compatibility is needed for the Pro market
I'd like to believe that is the case. However Apple could go in a direction that leaves the Pros sitting high and dry. The problem with the current Mac Pro is getting enough business out of the platform to justify its existence.
Though it could be possible, I don't think that many of these Pros are being installed without Video cards. Right now the only way to a high performance GPU is via a slot. Now I'd be the first to admit that the actual users may not care about where that GPU is, but never the less slots are required for the card.
True, but completely irrelevant to the question of what Apple may do with a future Mac Pro.
Right now slots are the only way to high performance GPU technology. I'd also be the first to admit that at some point in the future this might not be the case. In a couple of generations or so the best performance will likely come from highly integrated GPUs and CPUs on System on Chips. That isn't today though.
There is absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't take the very same chips that are now found on high-end graphics cards and use them directly on the motherboard of a future Mac Pro. Slots are absolutely not required for high performance GPU technology.
Actually if you have read some of my XMac posts in the past you would see that we agree somewhat. But there are still qualifications. An XMac is not a Mac Pro, not by a long shot. Second I'd still want a couple of slots in the XMac. Ideally the slots could support an additional high performance video card.
I understand that is what you and some other people want. I don't believe it makes any sense from Apple's perspective.
To repeat my point made previously the Mac Pro is a good machine for those that need it. It is basically a workstation / server like machine. The problem is it is way to expensive for what many of us want. That is to put it simply a low cost machine with easy expansion.
Yes, exactly! However, the xMac you propose would also be unnecessarily expensive. Drop the slots and you bring the cost down.
When you use the word tweak it tells me you dont have a grip on the issues involved. It isn't tweaking at all, rather it is configuring a machine to make it usable for a purpose.
If you want to hang your hat on some perceived nuance in meaning between "tweak" and "configure" to make a personal insult, then be my guest. It doesn't strengthen your argument.
In other words it is about being able to use Apple hardware or being forced to use other hardware. If one can't build functional systems with Apple hardware the alternative is Linux machines on generic hardware.
That's true, but you still haven't given a single example of a solution that is possible with slots but not possible with Thunderbolt.
Generally people that need solid or fast performance these days need slots. There is no way around it as that is where the fast GPUs are. Apple could certainly address this in a new machine, but they have repeatedly failed to do so.
Exactly! Apple could address this in a new machine, you propose a new machine, but your xMac proposal doesn't address this. I believe the next Mac Pro (or whatever replaces it) will address this by dropping the slots and putting a fast GPU directly on the motherboard.
Even the new Mini with the discreet GPU is a half hearted effort, that leaves you feeling that they simply don't care about performance at any level.
The Mini is not a high-end, high-performance machine. It's a low-end, low-cost machine. Your complaint that the Mini doesn't include high-performance graphics does not even begin to suggest that a future Mac Pro won't include high-performance graphics.
In the end if Apple did integrate a GPU on the motherboard of a suitable machine, they would likely castrate it to the point that a card in a slot would be required.
You have provided no evidence, no facts, no logic, no argument to support this wild assertion.
Yes it is a long wait. I smell a major overhaul to the Mac Pro simply to save it from XServs fate. What Apple will deliver is a mystery. However I suspect it will distill some of the ideas we have discussed here.
Yes, it would be a surprise if we're both wrong on every point in this thread.
As a side note from the land of dreams I kinda wish that Apple would implement AMDs coming Bulldozer base Fusion products in an XMac. That would allow for low cost and very good overall performance. It would give us a machine where the GPU is good enough for most and with slots capable of a quick boost in video or OpenCL performance.
I'm impressed by your remarkable ability to make your pitch for AMD over Intel in every thread regardless of the topic at hand.
You may note my focus on GPU performance which I consider to be very important and like to become even more important. There are a couple of reasons. The first is Retina class displays on laptops and desktops which could quadruple GPU demands. The second is the continued expansion of the use of GPUs for OpenCL and special purpose functions. The iPads highlight just how important GPUs are these days in delivering a good user experience.
I agree with you that GPU performance is increasingly important. Where I disagree is with the idea that it needs to be implemented on a discrete card rather than directly on the motherboard -- the possibility of which even you have conceded above, while denying it in other paragraphs.
Apple can't get rid of slots, period. Graphics cards, NICs, HBAs... too much backwards compatibility is needed for the Pro market
All the items you list can be implemented with Thunderbolt.
All the items you list can be implemented with Thunderbolt.
No, they can't. Educate yourself.
I'd like to believe that is the case. However Apple could go in a direction that leaves the Pros sitting high and dry. The problem with the current Mac Pro is getting enough business out of the platform to justify its existence.
I don't believe they make that mistake again (see Final Cut Pro X release). Apple re-learned a valuable lesson, the Pro market needs backwards compatibility features. I don't have any actual numbers but I believe the Pro market is justified, for now.
All the items you list can be implemented with Thunderbolt.
No, they can't. Educate yourself.
Just because you don't how to implement graphics, Ethernet, and HBAs over Thunderbolt doesn't mean it can't be done. It can. Ethernet over Thunderbolt is trivially easy to demonstrate because Apple have already done it with the Thunderbolt Display. Implementing HBAs over Thunderbolt is a very similar problem. As for graphics, there is already work being done on HiDPI monitors with the GPU built-in to the monitor and driven by Thunderbolt.
True, but completely irrelevant to the question of what Apple may do with a future Mac Pro.
There is absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't take the very same chips that are now found on high-end graphics cards and use them directly on the motherboard of a future Mac Pro. Slots are absolutely not required for high performance GPU technology.
I never said that slots are required in the future what I've said is that right now it is the avenue to high performance GPUs. Even if integrated on the motherboard the chips interface will still be PCI Express.
I understand that is what you and some other people want. I don't believe it makes any sense from Apple's perspective.
Nothing about Apples desktop line up makes any sense to me and stands in sharp contrast to their laptop line up. Think about it, Apples laptops are now easier to service and support than most of the desktop line.
Simply put the desktop line up needs to make sense from the customers perspective. In the end that is what grows sales. Apples approach to the desktop seems to be to throw their hands in the air and whine about the beauty of the iMac.
Yes, exactly! However, the xMac you propose would also be unnecessarily expensive. Drop the slots and you bring the cost down.
BS. The whole point of this machine is to have the slots available. The machine would not be anymore expensive than any other desktop platform from any number of makers. XMac is by no means a Mac Pro replacement.
If you want to hang your hat on some perceived nuance in meaning between "tweak" and "configure" to make a personal insult, then be my guest. It doesn't strengthen your argument.
Where is the insult???? Seriously you call people tweakers because they need slots to accomplish something important to them and you don't expect a response.
That's true, but you still haven't given a single example of a solution that is possible with slots but not possible with Thunderbolt.
I gave you a single example already, that being video cards. I'm convinced though that you don't understand the difference between PCI - Express slots and TB. TB has three issues working against it, it is slow, external and it is serial.
You may ask what does external have to do with it to which I have to say look at the Mini Display Port connector, cabling requirements and external chassis.
Exactly! Apple could address this in a new machine, you propose a new machine, but your xMac proposal doesn't address this. I believe the next Mac Pro (or whatever replaces it) will address this by dropping the slots and putting a fast GPU directly on the motherboard.
I have nothing against a fast GPU integrated on the motherboard but for the fact that Apples history here sucks royally. Even if they did implement a decent video subsystem that still doesn't eliminate the need for slots.
My fear here is that Apples motivation here is to make the video hardware easy to integrate with TB not to deliver good GPU performance.
The Mini is not a high-end, high-performance machine. It's a low-end, low-cost machine. Your complaint that the Mini doesn't include high-performance graphics does not even begin to suggest that a future Mac Pro won't include high-performance graphics.
Why the need to twist things up here. I never said the Mini was a high performance machine, I said that the Radeon machine had a need for more video RAM. 512 MB of video RAM is not a high performance implementation these days.
In any event the current Mini in combination with Apples history dies indeed suggest that Apple would under deliver in such a Mac Pro. It is almost like it is in Apples DNA to minimize a given GPUs capability.
You have provided no evidence, no facts, no logic, no argument to support this wild assertion.
All I need is Apples history here.
Yes, it would be a surprise if we're both wrong on every point in this thread.
Sadly I'm hopeful but not convinced that anything compelling will come out this year nor even next.
I'm impressed by your remarkable ability to make your pitch for AMD over Intel in every thread regardless of the topic at hand.
It takes talent!!!
On the serious side I think it is very important for AMD to remain viable as a competitor to Intel. We have seen how slow intel can become when not under pressure from rivals. Even more important is the idea that the GPU will just become more and more important over time which puts AMD at an advantage.
Frankly I wish that Apple would market at least one line of AMD based hardware, that is hardware with an AMD CPU in it. It would give people a choice and frankly keep Intel on it's toes.
As a side not it is really good to see Intel getting hit from different sides these days. AMD does what it can do from i86 space and the ARM camp is shooting from below. I have no doubt at all this is pushing things along at Intel like Haswell.
I agree with you that GPU performance is increasingly important. Where I disagree is with the idea that it needs to be implemented on a discrete card rather than directly on the motherboard -- the possibility of which even you have conceded above, while denying it in other paragraphs.
Again I've never said that, I said we don't have a choice right now. Today, as in right now, if you want high performance graphics or GPU facilities you need to buy a card. I've also have pointed out that Apple doesn't have a history here worth admiration as they have constantly under powered the GPUs in their machines. They have only moved to respectable in the last couple of years on the iMac.
As to video facilities in general if you have followed my other posts you will see that I expect the need for discreet GPUs to rapidly decrease. This change over is actually happening right now but will be acceptable to a wider array of people with the next generation of chips. In effect you have your on motherboard video right there.
The question then becomes this how do you deal with the limited need from people that need or want a discreet GPU? The answer is that we are back to slots again. Other wise we end up with a Mini like solution. That is a basic Mini with SoC graphics and a discreet GPU in a half a$$ implementation.
All the items you list can be implemented with Thunderbolt.
You can not do anything with Thunderbolt that requires more than 4x PCI - Express speeds and you can't even do that with all devices due to the serial bus nature of TB.
Just because you don't how to implement graphics, Ethernet, and HBAs over Thunderbolt doesn't mean it can't be done.
Your arguments here are non sense. Right now you can do Ethernet and video over USB, that doesn't make it acceptable for every use.
It can. Ethernet over Thunderbolt is trivially easy to demonstrate because Apple have already done it with the Thunderbolt Display. Implementing HBAs over Thunderbolt is a very similar problem. As for graphics, there is already work being done on HiDPI monitors with the GPU built-in to the monitor and driven by Thunderbolt.
As to those HiDPI displays, do you really think that TB has the bandwidth to do that well for every application? Especially when that TB port may have other devices dangling off it. Consider this those USB to video adapters do function but who amongst us wants his primary display ran through one? Go to a Hi DPI display via TB and the situation is much the same, your bandwidth isn't there. Even if you manage to compress the data and commands down you are still trying to push to much through a tiny hose.
Oh by the way do you really want to go to the trouble of these adapters when things like Ethernet can be built into a computer trivially? This whole adapter mentality just drives me nuts.
Ethernet over Thunderbolt is trivially easy to demonstrate because Apple have already done it with the Thunderbolt Display.
Belkin has a FW800, ethernet and USB 2 dock connecting over Thunderbolt. Sonnet has FW800 and ExpressCard (which itself has USB 3). ViDock and Sonnet have Thunderbolt solutions for running an external GPU.
So yeah, there are products to do pretty much anything and everything internal PCI expansion slots can do. At the moment, the bandwidth is just lower, which will impact a small minority of internal slot usage.
Looking inside desktop PCs, it's clear to see even at a glance how much space it saves removing internal slots. Smaller power supply, at least 1/3rd of the internal volume reduced, no requirements set for the thickness of the machine to allow for card height, no giant holes at the back of the machine, fewer fans required, smaller enclosure (reducing weight).
I never said that slots are required in the future what I've said is that right now it is the avenue to high performance GPUs.
The discussion is about the next Mac Pro. That the current Mac Pro implements graphics on cards is irrelevant.
Nothing about Apples desktop line up makes any sense to me and stands in sharp contrast to their laptop line up.
It makes perfect sense to me.
Simply put the desktop line up needs to make sense from the customers perspective. In the end that is what grows sales.
Products need to make sense from the mainstream buyer's perspective, in this case mainstream Pro buyers. Mainstream Pro buyers just want performance.
Apples approach to the desktop seems to be to throw their hands in the air and whine about the beauty of the iMac.
Apple's approach is making billions of dollars.
BS. The whole point of this machine is to have the slots available. The machine would not be anymore expensive than any other desktop platform from any number of makers. XMac is by no means a Mac Pro replacement.
That's why Apple will never make the xMac you want. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Your xMac is a nice fantasy, but it makes zero sense from a business perspective.
I have nothing against a fast GPU integrated on the motherboard but for the fact that Apples history here sucks royally.
In any event the current Mini in combination with Apples history dies indeed suggest that Apple would under deliver in such a Mac Pro. It is almost like it is in Apples DNA to minimize a given GPUs capability.
All I need is Apples history here.
Apple's history here is putting very fast graphics in the Mac Pro. I have no reason to think Apple would change that if they integrate the graphics onto the motherboard in a future Mac Pro. You have given no reason think Apple would suddenly start putting "castrated" graphics into the Mac Pro, which they've never done before. The fact that low-end Macs like the Mini ship with "castrated" graphics is irrelevant.
On the serious side I think it is very important for AMD to remain viable as a competitor to Intel. We have seen how slow intel can become when not under pressure from rivals. Even more important is the idea that the GPU will just become more and more important over time which puts AMD at an advantage.
Frankly I wish that Apple would market at least one line of AMD based hardware, that is hardware with an AMD CPU in it. It would give people a choice and frankly keep Intel on it's toes.
As a side not it is really good to see Intel getting hit from different sides these days. AMD does what it can do from i86 space and the ARM camp is shooting from below. I have no doubt at all this is pushing things along at Intel like Haswell.
I agree that competition is important.
Again I've never said that, I said we don't have a choice right now. Today, as in right now, if you want high performance graphics or GPU facilities you need to buy a card.
Again, the design of the current Mac Pro is not a constraint on the design of the next Mac Pro.
I've also have pointed out that Apple doesn't have a history here worth admiration as they have constantly under powered the GPUs in their machines. They have only moved to respectable in the last couple of years on the iMac.
Again, you're comparing grapes to watermelons. A history of weak graphics at the low end and very fast graphics at the high end does not suggest that the future high end will have weak graphics.
As to video facilities in general if you have followed my other posts you will see that I expect the need for discreet GPUs to rapidly decrease. This change over is actually happening right now but will be acceptable to a wider array of people with the next generation of chips. In effect you have your on motherboard video right there.
The question then becomes this how do you deal with the limited need from people that need or want a discreet GPU? The answer is that we are back to slots again. Other wise we end up with a Mini like solution. That is a basic Mini with SoC graphics and a discreet GPU in a half a$$ implementation.
Another grapes to watermelons comparison. There is no reason why graphics on the motherboard cannot be just as fast as graphics on a card in a slot. There is no reason to expect that Apple would cripple the graphics of a future Mac Pro.
Your arguments here are non sense. Right now you can do Ethernet and video over USB, that doesn't make it acceptable for every use.
Oh by the way do you really want to go to the trouble of these adapters when things like Ethernet can be built into a computer trivially? This whole adapter mentality just drives me nuts.
What are you on about? First, Ethernet over Thunderbolt is fast enough for everyday use. Second, no one has suggested that a future Mac Pro won't come with a gigabit Ethernet port. The only reason we're discussing Ethernet on a card in a slot versus Ethernet over Thunderbolt is for the applications that require a second Ethernet port.
As to those HiDPI displays, do you really think that TB has the bandwidth to do that well for every application? Especially when that TB port may have other devices dangling off it. Consider this those USB to video adapters do function but who amongst us wants his primary display ran through one? Go to a Hi DPI display via TB and the situation is much the same, your bandwidth isn't there. Even if you manage to compress the data and commands down you are still trying to push to much through a tiny hose.
First of all, you demonstrate that you're out of arguments when you call Thunderbolt "a tiny hose".
More interestingly, no Mac Pro can be optimal for every application. I've already stipulated that Thunderbolt is an imperfect substitute for slots. Some customers would be better off with slots. Most customers would be better off without slots. Again, we're back to giving up a few customers with arcane needs in order to pick up far more customers with more mainstream needs. That sucks for the customers with arcane needs that can't be satisfied by Thunderbolt, but it's good business for a company the size of Apple.
The discussion is about the next Mac Pro. That the current Mac Pro implements graphics on cards is irrelevant.
It gives a benchmark to judge against. No matter what Apple does with the mac Pro it will be judged against previous versions.
It makes perfect sense to me.
Well maybe that is why we disagree.
Products need to make sense from the mainstream buyer's perspective, in this case mainstream Pro buyers. Mainstream Pro buyers just want performance.
Yep! Seriously we agree here, the question is will a Mac Pro with a built in video card give pros the performance they want. It certainly could be done, but what i'm saying is that Apples history sucks here. There is no way we can be certain that Apple would implement the type of GPU performance Pros want.
Apple's approach is making billions of dollars.
Off laptops but little if any off the desktop lineups. I wouldn't be surprised to find out they are in the red with the Mac Pro.
That's why Apple will never make the xMac you want. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Your xMac is a nice fantasy, but it makes zero sense from a business perspective.
How is what I said an example of why Apple would never produce a XMac? it makes all the sense in the world from a business perspective as they can pick up a whole class of users they currently can't reach. So really I don't get what you are saying, is it that Apple isn't capable of designing a desktop machine.
Apple's history here is putting very fast graphics in the Mac Pro. I have no reason to think Apple would change that if they integrate the graphics onto the motherboard in a future Mac Pro. You have given no reason think Apple would suddenly start putting "castrated" graphics into the Mac Pro, which they've never done before. The fact that low-end Macs like the Mini ship with "castrated" graphics is irrelevant.
Every implementation of the Mac Pro up until now has come with a marginal GPU card. I can't even imagine how you came up with the above statements.
I agree that competition is important.
I like that intel is feeling the heat from multiple directions, it makes for more innovation and novel thinking.
Again, the design of the current Mac Pro is not a constraint on the design of the next Mac Pro.
Are you being dense on purpose here?
Again, you're comparing grapes to watermelons. A history of weak graphics at the low end and very fast graphics at the high end does not suggest that the future high end will have weak graphics.
OK lets just say you are the only one here that believes the Mac Pros come with high end graphics.
Another grapes to watermelons comparison. There is no reason why graphics on the motherboard cannot be just as fast as graphics on a card in a slot. There is no reason to expect that Apple would cripple the graphics of a future Mac Pro.
Actually there are technical issues to consider. A lot of engineering goes into making those graphics cards work. Thermal engineering being a big part of the effort. While Apple can certainly manage this if they really wanted too, I'm simply not convinced they would want to.
What are you on about? First, Ethernet over Thunderbolt is fast enough for everyday use. Second, no one has suggested that a future Mac Pro won't come with a gigabit Ethernet port. The only reason we're discussing Ethernet on a card in a slot versus Ethernet over Thunderbolt is for the applications that require a second Ethernet port.
Lets face it the phrase "Ethernet over Thunderbolt is fast enough for everyday use" could be and has been replaced with: "Ethernet over (USB, SD, Firewire) is fast enough for everyday use" in the past. The problem is it is less than optimal solution and there is no reason to believe it would be any better on Thunderbolt.
First of all, you demonstrate that you're out of arguments when you call Thunderbolt "a tiny hose".
Nope it is entirely fitting because that is exactly what it is compared to 16X PCI, especially if that is next ten PCI-Express. Thunderbolt is a serial channel or hose if you will that has a limited capacity. You can't really argue the point here.
More interestingly, no Mac Pro can be optimal for every application. I've already stipulated that Thunderbolt is an imperfect substitute for slots. Some customers would be better off with slots. Most customers would be better off without slots.
This is where I disagree, especially in the context of a Mac Pro. Slots make the machine a pro level tool. If you remove the slots you end up with a fat Mini with all the draw that device has for pro usage.
Again, we're back to giving up a few customers with arcane needs in order to pick up far more customers with more mainstream needs.
That is total rubbish. Are you actually saying that Apple can manage to have one machine in its entire line up of Macs that comes with slots? Seriously, the removal of such a device would be a very significant blow to Apples credibility with respect to the Pro market.
That sucks for the customers with arcane needs that can't be satisfied by Thunderbolt, but it's good business for a company the size of Apple.
So it is good business to eliminate the one option that customers have to use Apple hardware in anything more than a trivial manner? This I just can't agree with.