Hmm. Thanks for your X-Mac machine description. It doesn't seem like anything remarkable. But you get the access you crave and reasonable performance with a monitor of your choice.
I project it will arrive next year in the form of a Haswell Mac Mini. Without the easy access to everything, of course.
What actually work do you do? It can't be that demanding if you 'only' use a 'laptop' AIO..?
Lemon Bon Bon.
It is a mid range desktop computer. It isn't supposed to be anything remarkable. We just want one that isn't an all in one. One that is easy to open and has internal expansion room. Right now Apple has two offerings. The mini which can't even accommodate an optical drive for those of us that still use one or the Mac Pro which is simply overkill for many in size, price and capability. As Wizard said, that is a huge gulf between products.
I'm targeting a 'HiDPI' monitor, Haswell cpu, 8000m series GPU iMac with SDD drive to go and a side order of fries. I guess that's next year then.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Intel always wants to convince you that you'll always need something more. Software demands are all over the place, but we're not really in an era where newer isn't always a definitive upgrade. The gains have become much more abstract at times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
As for the hacktintosh route. Yes. We sometimes forget about prices in the 'real world' being on Apple forums.
Just go to overclockers.co.uk for the value bitch of your choice.
Not as sexy as the 'badge' though...plus you don't get your ass reamed on the price. Another fringe benefit of being an Apple customer. :P
Lemon Bon Bon.
I never compare the price of off the shelf components with pre-built machines. If I want to compare other machines to the mac pro, I look for many points of reference rather than just finding one model/configuration that fits an agenda and posting links on here. I always hate it when people do that. They could at least try to be objective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by not1lost
He sits in his office chair staring aimlessly into space with eyes glossed over with emblems of an apple with a bite taken out of it reflecting from his pupils. Occasionally angrily glancing over at the Dell PC on his desk with reflections of nothing on it's shiny black front cover except for the round Dell emblem with sticky smudges leftover from when he had tried to hide it with a beautiful white Apple sticker. His bottom lip begins to quiver and a tear trickles slowly down his cheek as he looks down the list of Apple Insider articles without a hint of any news of the new Mac Pro his heart so desperately longs for.... Blaaahhhaaa Blaaahaaa Aaahhhhh!!!!
You should write chick novels. Anyway that did make me laugh, and I remember those Apple stickers that they included. I'm not sure if they still include them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTac
It is a mid range desktop computer. It isn't supposed to be anything remarkable. We just want one that isn't an all in one. One that is easy to open and has internal expansion room. Right now Apple has two offerings. The mini which can't even accommodate an optical drive for those of us that still use one or the Mac Pro which is simply overkill for many in size, price and capability. As Wizard said, that is a huge gulf between products.
In terms of raw computing power, there isn't so much of a gulf. The mac pro just isn't that great in its base configuration. You pay quite a high premium for its advantages. A couple years in, it's much harder to justify.
I love my iMac. Plug and play, baby. *(Former Power Mac 'clone war' owner which cost £6000 with an Adobe suite and a big Diamondtron monitor. (Back and bank breaker.) Put that into American Dollars. Needless to say I won't be paying that for a Mac ever again.)
Lemon Bon Bon.
My first 'Mac' was also a refugee from the Clone Wars…
Power Computing PowerTower Pro (200MHz PowerPC 604e CPU & a MASSIVE 64MB of RAM), 17" mid-range CRT & an educational priced license of EIAS (Electric Image Animation System); only a paltry US$7,500…!
It is a mid range desktop computer. It isn't supposed to be anything remarkable. We just want one that isn't an all in one. One that is easy to open and has internal expansion room. Right now Apple has two offerings. The mini which can't even accommodate an optical drive for those of us that still use one or the Mac Pro which is simply overkill for many in size, price and capability. As Wizard said, that is a huge gulf between products.
I tend to agree but I suspect that Apple doesn't want to offer something in that mid-range because it will tend to compete with the iMac. Of course, I don't see any problem with products from the same company competing against each other, in fact I think it should be encouraged (i.e. let the market decide), but Apple has a tendency of carefully crafting niches for each of its products.
I for one love my Mac Pro. The iMac can't support a full-sized graphics card and it squeezes too many heat-producing products into too small a package (including the display, which produces quite a bit of heat itself).
I hope that Apple properly supports two full-sized graphics cards (i.e. two 5870s) in the next version. Currently Apple only supplies enough power to drive one 5870 or equavalent. I've seen people hack a solution be re-routing the power for the second optical drive but it's not ideal and may draw too much than it's designed for. The Mac Pro's main PSU is very highly rated and can easily accommodate two 5870's along with everything else.
I hope that Apple properly supports two full-sized graphics cards (i.e. two 5870s) in the next version. Currently Apple only supplies enough power to drive one 5870 or equavalent. I've seen people hack a solution be re-routing the power for the second optical drive but it's not ideal and may draw too much than it's designed for. The Mac Pro's main PSU is very highly rated and can easily accommodate two 5870's along with everything else.
If Apple is going to support Thunderbolt (which you'd expect), the Mac Pro can only have one GPU. I'd expect it will be upgradeable like the iMac one but might be a custom-built one so limited options.
If Apple is going to support Thunderbolt (which you'd expect), the Mac Pro can only have one GPU. I'd expect it will be upgradeable like the iMac one but might be a custom-built one so limited options.
Why? You just need 4x lanes connected to the PCH and there are plenty of lanes in the new chipset. So then you have several options:
1) a dedicated GPU on the motherboard feeding the TB port. Use the same one as in the iMac.
2) an extra displayport out on the graphics card you plug into the motherboard that feeds thunderbolt.
3) Thunderbolt chip on a PCIe card as in the prototype that connects to GPUs via internal DP cables
4) Thunderbolt chip directly on a double slot GPU.
All the other GPUs work as normal feeding their signal out the back via DisplayPort 1.2. Which TB can't support anyway.
For the Mac Pro Thunderbolt on a PCIe card is best given some users wont use it and doesn't want the idle thunderbolt chip occupying 4x lanes needed for other things.
With Apple you never quite know what they'll do for Pro folks and what they wont. But there's no inherent one GPU limit for Thunderbolt equipped Mac Pros. You should be able to plug in as many as you have enough slots/lanes/power for.
Care to explain why? Especially given that the Intel LightPeak prototype was a Mac Pro motherboard and a PCIe card...
In any case, even if you are right it certainly doesn't mean you can't put in multiple GPUs in a Mac Pro. Even if only one special one works with Thunderbolt the rest will work the way they always do.
Care to explain why? Especially given that the Intel LightPeak prototype was a Mac Pro motherboard and a PCIe card...
Yes, prototype. A prototype that was based on USB, no less. I got the impression a long time ago that Thunderbolt MUST be on the main board. Not a daughterboard, not a PCIe card, the main board. And it's not part of the Thunderbolt spec if it doesn't do the same thing that every other Thunderbolt port does. So you can't just have a PCIe card that gives you Thunderbolt ports for data transmission; the ports have to push graphics, too.
Yes, prototype. A prototype that was based on USB, no less. I got the impression a long time ago that Thunderbolt MUST be on the main board. Not a daughterboard, not a PCIe card, the main board. And it's not part of the Thunderbolt spec if it doesn't do the same thing that every other Thunderbolt port does. So you can't just have a PCIe card that gives you Thunderbolt ports for data transmission; the ports have to push graphics, too.
So why would a graphics card with an internal Display Port output connection to a Display Port input connection on the motherboard not work?
So why would a Thunderbolt PCIe card sitting in a slot with a 4x lane connection to the PCH and a cable to the GPU not work?
So why would a graphics card with the Thunderbolt chip connected to the PCH via a 4x lane not work?
All of these are electrically similar/identical to what's happening on the motherboard with a discrete GPU built onto it.
Answer: You don't know beyond some vague impression from a long time ago.
The primary sticking point is providing the DisplayPort output from the graphics card to something internal that isn't a mess. The mac pro is not exactly overflowing with GPU options today so special mac only cards that are physically different from their PC versions is probably not in the cards.
Finally, as near as I can tell, display is not a required element of LightPeak/Thunderbolt but rather than confusing everyone with data only Thunderbolt ports they've wisely punted that for the future.
I think the two easiest options are to either not support TB on the next Mac Pro or include a dedicated GPU on board the motherboard and the stock MP wont need any card anymore.
Of course you lose lanes this way so maybe just not supporting TB on the MP is the way to go or offering a data only Thunderbolt card to access TB peripherals.
The primary sticking point is providing the DisplayPort output from the graphics card to something internal that isn't a mess.
The mac pro is not exactly overflowing with GPU options today so special mac only cards that are physically different from their PC versions is probably not in the cards.
Finally, as near as I can tell, display is not a required element of LightPeak/Thunderbolt but rather than confusing everyone with data only Thunderbolt ports they've wisely punted that for the future.
I think the two easiest options are to either not support TB on the next Mac Pro or include a dedicated GPU on board the motherboard and the stock MP wont need any card anymore.
Intel's spec dictates that in order for you to use the Thunderbolt brand, your implementation has to comply with all peripheral hardware bearing the same brand. If someone tried to implement data-only Thunderbolt, it wouldn't work with the Cinema displays or in fact any daisy-chainable device that expects to be able to be able to pass on display signals and Intel wouldn't allow it. That's why Sony's implementation isn't called Thunderbolt.
Given that Thunderbolt indisputably requires PCI and displayport to pass through it, that means there is no choice but to send the output of a dedicated GPU through the Thunderbolt controller on the motherboard. They might be able to do this with a modified driver that makes the GPU pass the display output back through the PCI slot. Question is, would they still allow standard GPU outputs as well as channeling displayport through the controller? I doubt it.
Also consider that there are 40 PCI lanes. If they use 16 for the GPU slot and have a minimum of two Thunderbolt ports, that leaves 16 lanes. So they can only put one extra x16 slot in. But, they only supply 300W just now so why bother? It's not as if you can fit two high-end GPUs in there anyway. There's also the possibility that you can fit a 3rd party GPU where the drivers don't support passing display signals out the Thunderbolt controller, leaving your machine in a state that is incompatible with the Thunderbolt brand.
I accept the point about the custom GPU not being a good idea but it wouldn't have to be an entirely custom GPU. It would basically be your standard desktop GPU with the ports sawn off.
I think the way they will go is 1 internal x16 slot with a GPU in it with no direct display outputs and 6x Thunderbolt ports driven by that one GPU.
What would be nice is if they got an exclusive on Knights Corner:
1TFLOP double precision with standard x86 code would make up for Sandy Bridge Xeons. So much in fact that they could drop to single processor models. They could also build an 8" cube that way. While it may not be ideal for gaming, it should be able to holds its own beside the highest-end NVidia and AMD cards as its compute performance is over 50% higher than what they offer and you can't run standard code. Of course if GPU performance is lacking:
Also consider that there are 40 PCI lanes. If they use 16 for the GPU slot and have a minimum of two Thunderbolt ports, that leaves 16 lanes. So they can only put one extra x16 slot in. But, they only supply 300W just now so why bother? It's not as if you can fit two high-end GPUs in there anyway. There's also the possibility that you can fit a 3rd party GPU where the drivers don't support passing display signals out the Thunderbolt controller, leaving your machine in a state that is incompatible with the Thunderbolt brand.
You seem to be slipping into "Marvin math" again >=). Okay thunderbolt controller bandwidth isn't scheduled for any kind of change. Sandy Bridge E is using PCI 3.0, so your lane allocation shouldn't be so much of a problem. Beyond that we've seen many people install more than just a graphics card on there. With heavy cards, they have used separate power connections rather than running off the PCI bus. If it's that big of a headache to implement, I don't see it as a guarantee. Also you should hope that adoption goes well on the PC end. It would help bring more peripherals to the thunderbolt connection.
Intel's spec dictates that in order for you to use the Thunderbolt brand, your implementation has to comply with all peripheral hardware bearing the same brand. If someone tried to implement data-only Thunderbolt, it wouldn't work with the Cinema displays or in fact any daisy-chainable device that expects to be able to be able to pass on display signals and Intel wouldn't allow it. That's why Sony's implementation isn't called Thunderbolt.
Specs can be updated and I would think that Apple has sufficient leeway if they wanted to do this but I don't believe they do.
Quote:
Given that Thunderbolt indisputably requires PCI and displayport to pass through it, that means there is no choice but to send the output of a dedicated GPU through the Thunderbolt controller on the motherboard. They might be able to do this with a modified driver that makes the GPU pass the display output back through the PCI slot. Question is, would they still allow standard GPU outputs as well as channeling displayport through the controller? I doubt it.
Why not? There's not a shred of logic that would demand this. It would be like asserting that because Thunderbolt is on the Mini they would never ever allow HDMI output from the GPU as well. Oh...wait...
Quote:
Also consider that there are 40 PCI lanes. If they use 16 for the GPU slot and have a minimum of two Thunderbolt ports, that leaves 16 lanes. So they can only put one extra x16 slot in. But, they only supply 300W just now so why bother? It's not as if you can fit two high-end GPUs in there anyway. There's also the possibility that you can fit a 3rd party GPU where the drivers don't support passing display signals out the Thunderbolt controller, leaving your machine in a state that is incompatible with the Thunderbolt brand.
Dual socket Mac pros will have 80 PCIe 3.0 lanes.
"The Intel® Xeon® processor E5-2600 product family is the first to have the I/O subsystem integrated on the processor die, reducing latency by up to 30 percent2, with up to 80 PCIe lanes per two-socket server, plus support for PCIe 3.0, improving bandwidth by as much as 2x."
And you can put more than just power hungry GPUs in there. There are other things that desire high bandwidth.
Quote:
I accept the point about the custom GPU not being a good idea but it wouldn't have to be an entirely custom GPU. It would basically be your standard desktop GPU with the ports sawn off.
Eliminating any hope of supporting DP 1.2, costs more to do and is, again, require custom graphics card for the Mac Pro which virtually no one will build. For what gain? So Pro users never get expanded color space?
And how are they going to support Pro users that need 3+ 30" ACDs by only allowing one GPU?
They'll sell far fewer Mac Pros if they do this.
Quote:
I think the way they will go is 1 internal x16 slot with a GPU in it with no direct display outputs and 6x Thunderbolt ports driven by that one GPU.
What is the point of 6 x thunderbolt ports other than to burn PCIe lanes for no good reason? They need two. Maybe 4 if they want to stick some in the front. Everything else can be either daisy chained or far more effectively supported through a PCIe card (read as faster).
They will not likely drop back from the current capability of four PCIe x16 slots, two GPUs, six displays. Drop to 1 internal x16 slot and they might as well just kill the Mac Pro.
I can see having a dedicated GPU on the motherboard and running the two Thunderbolt ports that way. While that burns around 12 lanes it leaves all the slots empty for whatever the user needs if they don't have very graphics intensive needs.
Quote:
What would be nice is if they got an exclusive on Knights Corner:
1TFLOP double precision with standard x86 code would make up for Sandy Bridge Xeons. So much in fact that they could drop to single processor models. They could also build an 8" cube that way. While it may not be ideal for gaming, it should be able to holds its own beside the highest-end NVidia and AMD cards as its compute performance is over 50% higher than what they offer and you can't run standard code. Of course if GPU performance is lacking:
why not use all three? A 6-core Xeon + Knights Corner + single high-end GPU.
The number of Knights Corners in Nov 2011 was measured in the "tens". No way they are appearing in the next Mac Pro. And if you drop to single processor models you lose 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes. And I can safely assert that dual 8-core Xeon + 2xKnights Corner + 2xGPUs will be much faster.
/shrug
I'm all for arguing that the iMac will meet the needs of the Pros apple cares about and kill the Mac Pro line. I think it's unlikely that they will do so but the argument makes some sense.
I think it's nuts to believe that Apple will carry a neutered Mac Pro with one slot. It wont be a pro machine and for everyone else the iMac is suitable.
Specs can be updated and I would think that Apple has sufficient leeway if they wanted to do this but I don't believe they do.
Intel has no reason to update the specs to break compatibility. That's a sure way to kill a standard. They obviously decided to merge the two for good reason.
Why not? There's not a shred of logic that would demand this. It would be like asserting that because Thunderbolt is on the Mini they would never ever allow HDMI output from the GPU as well. Oh...wait...
Fair point, if that's the way it's connected up. Still, there's no way of breaking the Thunderbolt spec by using a non-standard GPU.
Eliminating any hope of supporting DP 1.2, costs more to do and is, again, require custom graphics card for the Mac Pro which virtually no one will build. For what gain? So Pro users never get expanded color space?
10-bit GPU output only works in Windows but there are Thunderbolt peripherals for 10-bit (don't need DP 1.2):
And how are they going to support Pro users that need 3+ 30" ACDs by only allowing one GPU?
A single card can power that many (up to 6 should be possible), here's an example:
The 5870 can do 1 billion pixels per second. 2560 x 1600 x 6 x 30fps = 0.7 billion.
We're getting into these theoretical high-end usage cases again though that generally just don't happen. Who are these 'pro' users that have requirements for 6 x 30" 10-bit display outputs?
It's just arbitrary requirements to eliminate certain hardware designs people don't like without reason. Yes 80 PCI lanes is higher than 40, yes 256GB RAM is higher than 128GB, yes 4x GTX 580s are faster than 1 but why should the Mac Pro continue to be an overpriced behemoth of a machine to satisfy theoretical use cases that are rarely, if ever, realised? The Mac Pro in its current form has limitations and that includes a single high power GPU. People ('pros' if you will) have worked to those limitations just fine. I think it's better to design the machine around those limitations and offer better value for money.
They will not likely drop back from the current capability of four PCIe x16 slots, two GPUs, six displays. Drop to 1 internal x16 slot and they might as well just kill the Mac Pro.
The current Mac Pro only has 2 x16 and 2 x4 but the next one would support 4 x16 plus 4x Thunderbolt. You could put in multiple GPUs but as I say, a single GPU will run 6x displays just fine.
RAM drives, mid range GPUs, Fiber channel cards, Red Rocket, etc. 4 slots is very useful. Especially considering many high end gear exist only in card form and often used on both Windows and OSX.
Few will move to thunderbolt.
Quote:
We're getting into these theoretical high-end usage cases again though that generally just don't happen. Who are these 'pro' users that have requirements for 6 x 30" 10-bit display outputs?
It's just arbitrary requirements to eliminate certain hardware designs people don't like without reason. Yes 80 PCI lanes is higher than 40, yes 256GB RAM is higher than 128GB, yes 4x GTX 580s are faster than 1 but why should the Mac Pro continue to be an overpriced behemoth of a machine to satisfy theoretical use cases that are rarely, if ever, realised? The Mac Pro in its current form has limitations and that includes a single high power GPU. People ('pros' if you will) have worked to those limitations just fine. I think it's better to design the machine around those limitations and offer better value for money.
They are display outputs too but it offers the equivalent of 6 x4 slots instead of 3.
The current Mac Pro only has 2 x16 and 2 x4 but the next one would support 4 x16 plus 4x Thunderbolt. You could put in multiple GPUs but as I say, a single GPU will run 6x displays just fine.
If Apple only makes one tower it best be one that can kick ass and take names. And that means being able to handle these high end use cases because everything that a 1 slot single CPU Mac Pro can handle can be done with a top end iMac. Just because you don't need/want 4 PCIe cards doesn't mean that folks don't need them or that they are "theoretical". I've seen a few high end rigs.
Forcing these users to attach a slower TB PCIe expansion chassis so they can have PCIe slots would be insane. In order to see "six x4 slots" they'd have to run SIX thunderbolt cables to the chassis. If that would even work right.
You CAN do 4K editing, even on a MBA via a Red Rocket. But again, most of these expansion chassis ends the TB chain. Instead of a machine with the cards you need inside of it you have a rats nest of TB cables and little boxes attached to yet another mass of video cabling and fiber. WHEN it even works.
Here's a very simple use case you can't handle in your design and fairly common for high end 4K workflows:
Current Mac Pro:
Slot 1 16x GPU (runs as 8 lane in the current Mac Pro)
Slot 2 8x 4 channel 4 Gbps Fiber Channel HBA
Slot 3 1x card or empty
Slot 4 8x AJA video capture card (the new Riker 5K, the current 4K card, etc)
What they'd WANT to run in a future Mac Pro is this:
Slot 1 16x GPU full speed
Slot 2 8x Fiber channel HBA
Slot 3 8x Red Rocket
Slot 4 8x AJA Riker
You can run the Red Rocket x4 mode but obviously it's slower. Some pros do that now.
Pros will be throwing rocks at the glass Apple stores and with good cause.
What can't you do with the top end iMac that you can do with your Mac Pro design with one CPU and 1 x16 slot? I really can't think of anything beyond "I wish I could more easily replace my internal boot drive and GPU". Not any actual jobs. Not even true high end gaming without dual GPUs. Any improvement is very incremental at the cost of completely hosing pros that need the slots of the current Mac Pro.
And the Mac Pro can still meet your needs. It just costs more. But even then $2500 isn't all that much.
And size is meaningless for most pros. Being able to rack mount the Mac Pro more easily is far more valuable than your mini-tower design. Anyone that needs a smaller desktop footprint is already sporting an iMac.
RAM drives, mid range GPUs, Fiber channel cards, Red Rocket, etc.
SSD is better than a PCI RAM drive, mutiple mid-range GPUs are not really better than a single high-end GPU and probably draw more power at idle. Fiber channel is slower than Thunderbolt and there's an adapter if needs be:
Red Rocket can be hooked up as you said via an expansion port:
Yeah, it is a bit counter-intuitive to remove the slots and then stick one on the outside but ideally you shouldn't need a special card for 4K. You might not if Apple gets native RED editing in FCPX and it saves you a few thousand dollars.
If Apple only makes one tower it best be one that can kick ass and take names. And that means being able to handle these high end use cases because everything that a 1 slot single CPU Mac Pro can handle can be done with a top end iMac. Just because you don't need/want 4 PCIe cards doesn't mean that folks don't need them or that they are "theoretical". I've seen a few high end rigs.
I don't think an iMac could quite do the same as it doesn't have enough PCI lanes but it's not far off. I don't see that as a bad thing. Apple should be driving more users to iMacs by allowing high-end jobs to be done on them. Right now, the high-end workflows are dictating the form factors and prices of the machines and that doesn't really have to be the case.
Instead of a machine with the cards you need inside of it you have a rats nest of TB cables and little boxes attached to yet another mass of video cabling and fiber.
To match the capability of the Pro, you'd have 3 boxes at most = 6 cables. An adaptor doesn't need much power so it's just the box itself. The Red Rocket would need two cables and the AJA Riker would have one cable, same as with the PCI version. You're really only talking about PCI cards that have no special hardware. Overall, 2 additional cables and two additional boxes.
For high-end users that need no peripherals, they get smaller enclosures and cheaper prices.
What they'd WANT to run in a future Mac Pro is this:
Slot 1 16x GPU full speed
Slot 2 8x Fiber channel HBA
Slot 3 8x Red Rocket
Slot 4 8x AJA Riker
They'd have the GPU in an x16 slot, the fiber channel connection can be done with an adapter (but optical Thunderbolt is better), the red rocket would be in an enclosure and the AJA Riker is a standalone box anyway with both Thunderbolt and PCI connections. The Riker box would be better with Thunderbolt as you don't have to install a PCI card.
SSD is better than a PCI RAM drive, mutiple mid-range GPUs are not really better than a single high-end GPU and probably draw more power at idle. Fiber channel is slower than Thunderbolt and there's an adapter if needs be:
Red Rocket can be hooked up as you said via an expansion port:
Yeah, it is a bit counter-intuitive to remove the slots and then stick one on the outside but ideally you shouldn't need a special card for 4K. You might not if Apple gets native RED editing in FCPX and it saves you a few thousand dollars.
RED has come out with some of the cheapest solutions for things on the market. They bring a lot of cool stuff to sort of the mainstream. Anyway... I am angered you did not respond to my "Marvin math" note there. I still wonder when we'll see machine updates. I'm kind of expecting them to be around Mountain Lion since they've dragged on this far. It makes sense from a support standpoint.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
Hmm. Thanks for your X-Mac machine description. It doesn't seem like anything remarkable. But you get the access you crave and reasonable performance with a monitor of your choice.
I project it will arrive next year in the form of a Haswell Mac Mini. Without the easy access to everything, of course.
What actually work do you do? It can't be that demanding if you 'only' use a 'laptop' AIO..?
Lemon Bon Bon.
It is a mid range desktop computer. It isn't supposed to be anything remarkable. We just want one that isn't an all in one. One that is easy to open and has internal expansion room. Right now Apple has two offerings. The mini which can't even accommodate an optical drive for those of us that still use one or the Mac Pro which is simply overkill for many in size, price and capability. As Wizard said, that is a huge gulf between products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
I'm targeting a 'HiDPI' monitor, Haswell cpu, 8000m series GPU iMac with SDD drive to go and a side order of fries. I guess that's next year then.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Intel always wants to convince you that you'll always need something more. Software demands are all over the place, but we're not really in an era where newer isn't always a definitive upgrade. The gains have become much more abstract at times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
As for the hacktintosh route. Yes. We sometimes forget about prices in the 'real world' being on Apple forums.
Just go to overclockers.co.uk for the value bitch of your choice.
Not as sexy as the 'badge' though...plus you don't get your ass reamed on the price. Another fringe benefit of being an Apple customer.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I never compare the price of off the shelf components with pre-built machines. If I want to compare other machines to the mac pro, I look for many points of reference rather than just finding one model/configuration that fits an agenda and posting links on here. I always hate it when people do that. They could at least try to be objective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by not1lost
He sits in his office chair staring aimlessly into space with eyes glossed over with emblems of an apple with a bite taken out of it reflecting from his pupils. Occasionally angrily glancing over at the Dell PC on his desk with reflections of nothing on it's shiny black front cover except for the round Dell emblem with sticky smudges leftover from when he had tried to hide it with a beautiful white Apple sticker. His bottom lip begins to quiver and a tear trickles slowly down his cheek as he looks down the list of Apple Insider articles without a hint of any news of the new Mac Pro his heart so desperately longs for.... Blaaahhhaaa Blaaahaaa Aaahhhhh!!!!
You should write chick novels. Anyway that did make me laugh, and I remember those Apple stickers that they included. I'm not sure if they still include them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTac
It is a mid range desktop computer. It isn't supposed to be anything remarkable. We just want one that isn't an all in one. One that is easy to open and has internal expansion room. Right now Apple has two offerings. The mini which can't even accommodate an optical drive for those of us that still use one or the Mac Pro which is simply overkill for many in size, price and capability. As Wizard said, that is a huge gulf between products.
In terms of raw computing power, there isn't so much of a gulf. The mac pro just isn't that great in its base configuration. You pay quite a high premium for its advantages. A couple years in, it's much harder to justify.
If only single processors will survive the logicboard better have infiniband to interconnect the boxes.
Removed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
I love my iMac. Plug and play, baby. *(Former Power Mac 'clone war' owner which cost £6000 with an Adobe suite and a big Diamondtron monitor. (Back and bank breaker.) Put that into American Dollars. Needless to say I won't be paying that for a Mac ever again.)
Lemon Bon Bon.
My first 'Mac' was also a refugee from the Clone Wars…
Power Computing PowerTower Pro (200MHz PowerPC 604e CPU & a MASSIVE 64MB of RAM), 17" mid-range CRT & an educational priced license of EIAS (Electric Image Animation System); only a paltry US$7,500…!
The building Lord really invincible, thought very have routines.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
You may also like:[url=http://www.rs4play.com/]Rs Gold[/url]|[url=http://www.rs4play.com/gold/]Cheap runescape gold[/url]
|[url=http://www.mmohome.com/]runescape gold[/url]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTac
It is a mid range desktop computer. It isn't supposed to be anything remarkable. We just want one that isn't an all in one. One that is easy to open and has internal expansion room. Right now Apple has two offerings. The mini which can't even accommodate an optical drive for those of us that still use one or the Mac Pro which is simply overkill for many in size, price and capability. As Wizard said, that is a huge gulf between products.
I tend to agree but I suspect that Apple doesn't want to offer something in that mid-range because it will tend to compete with the iMac. Of course, I don't see any problem with products from the same company competing against each other, in fact I think it should be encouraged (i.e. let the market decide), but Apple has a tendency of carefully crafting niches for each of its products.
I for one love my Mac Pro. The iMac can't support a full-sized graphics card and it squeezes too many heat-producing products into too small a package (including the display, which produces quite a bit of heat itself).
I hope that Apple properly supports two full-sized graphics cards (i.e. two 5870s) in the next version. Currently Apple only supplies enough power to drive one 5870 or equavalent. I've seen people hack a solution be re-routing the power for the second optical drive but it's not ideal and may draw too much than it's designed for. The Mac Pro's main PSU is very highly rated and can easily accommodate two 5870's along with everything else.
If Apple is going to support Thunderbolt (which you'd expect), the Mac Pro can only have one GPU. I'd expect it will be upgradeable like the iMac one but might be a custom-built one so limited options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If Apple is going to support Thunderbolt (which you'd expect), the Mac Pro can only have one GPU. I'd expect it will be upgradeable like the iMac one but might be a custom-built one so limited options.
Why? You just need 4x lanes connected to the PCH and there are plenty of lanes in the new chipset. So then you have several options:
1) a dedicated GPU on the motherboard feeding the TB port. Use the same one as in the iMac.
2) an extra displayport out on the graphics card you plug into the motherboard that feeds thunderbolt.
3) Thunderbolt chip on a PCIe card as in the prototype that connects to GPUs via internal DP cables
4) Thunderbolt chip directly on a double slot GPU.
All the other GPUs work as normal feeding their signal out the back via DisplayPort 1.2. Which TB can't support anyway.
For the Mac Pro Thunderbolt on a PCIe card is best given some users wont use it and doesn't want the idle thunderbolt chip occupying 4x lanes needed for other things.
With Apple you never quite know what they'll do for Pro folks and what they wont. But there's no inherent one GPU limit for Thunderbolt equipped Mac Pros. You should be able to plug in as many as you have enough slots/lanes/power for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
2) an extra displayport out on the graphics card you plug into the motherboard that feeds thunderbolt.
3) Thunderbolt chip on a PCIe card as in the prototype that connects to GPUs via internal DP cables
4) Thunderbolt chip directly on a double slot GPU.
Except these cannot be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Except these cannot be done.
Care to explain why? Especially given that the Intel LightPeak prototype was a Mac Pro motherboard and a PCIe card...
In any case, even if you are right it certainly doesn't mean you can't put in multiple GPUs in a Mac Pro. Even if only one special one works with Thunderbolt the rest will work the way they always do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Care to explain why? Especially given that the Intel LightPeak prototype was a Mac Pro motherboard and a PCIe card...
Yes, prototype. A prototype that was based on USB, no less. I got the impression a long time ago that Thunderbolt MUST be on the main board. Not a daughterboard, not a PCIe card, the main board. And it's not part of the Thunderbolt spec if it doesn't do the same thing that every other Thunderbolt port does. So you can't just have a PCIe card that gives you Thunderbolt ports for data transmission; the ports have to push graphics, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes, prototype. A prototype that was based on USB, no less. I got the impression a long time ago that Thunderbolt MUST be on the main board. Not a daughterboard, not a PCIe card, the main board. And it's not part of the Thunderbolt spec if it doesn't do the same thing that every other Thunderbolt port does. So you can't just have a PCIe card that gives you Thunderbolt ports for data transmission; the ports have to push graphics, too.
So why would a graphics card with an internal Display Port output connection to a Display Port input connection on the motherboard not work?
So why would a Thunderbolt PCIe card sitting in a slot with a 4x lane connection to the PCH and a cable to the GPU not work?
So why would a graphics card with the Thunderbolt chip connected to the PCH via a 4x lane not work?
All of these are electrically similar/identical to what's happening on the motherboard with a discrete GPU built onto it.
Answer: You don't know beyond some vague impression from a long time ago.
The primary sticking point is providing the DisplayPort output from the graphics card to something internal that isn't a mess. The mac pro is not exactly overflowing with GPU options today so special mac only cards that are physically different from their PC versions is probably not in the cards.
Finally, as near as I can tell, display is not a required element of LightPeak/Thunderbolt but rather than confusing everyone with data only Thunderbolt ports they've wisely punted that for the future.
I think the two easiest options are to either not support TB on the next Mac Pro or include a dedicated GPU on board the motherboard and the stock MP wont need any card anymore.
Of course you lose lanes this way so maybe just not supporting TB on the MP is the way to go or offering a data only Thunderbolt card to access TB peripherals.
Intel's spec dictates that in order for you to use the Thunderbolt brand, your implementation has to comply with all peripheral hardware bearing the same brand. If someone tried to implement data-only Thunderbolt, it wouldn't work with the Cinema displays or in fact any daisy-chainable device that expects to be able to be able to pass on display signals and Intel wouldn't allow it. That's why Sony's implementation isn't called Thunderbolt.
Given that Thunderbolt indisputably requires PCI and displayport to pass through it, that means there is no choice but to send the output of a dedicated GPU through the Thunderbolt controller on the motherboard. They might be able to do this with a modified driver that makes the GPU pass the display output back through the PCI slot. Question is, would they still allow standard GPU outputs as well as channeling displayport through the controller? I doubt it.
Also consider that there are 40 PCI lanes. If they use 16 for the GPU slot and have a minimum of two Thunderbolt ports, that leaves 16 lanes. So they can only put one extra x16 slot in. But, they only supply 300W just now so why bother? It's not as if you can fit two high-end GPUs in there anyway. There's also the possibility that you can fit a 3rd party GPU where the drivers don't support passing display signals out the Thunderbolt controller, leaving your machine in a state that is incompatible with the Thunderbolt brand.
I accept the point about the custom GPU not being a good idea but it wouldn't have to be an entirely custom GPU. It would basically be your standard desktop GPU with the ports sawn off.
I think the way they will go is 1 internal x16 slot with a GPU in it with no direct display outputs and 6x Thunderbolt ports driven by that one GPU.
What would be nice is if they got an exclusive on Knights Corner:
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4230708/Exclusive-Video--Intel-s-Knight-s-Corner
1TFLOP double precision with standard x86 code would make up for Sandy Bridge Xeons. So much in fact that they could drop to single processor models. They could also build an 8" cube that way. While it may not be ideal for gaming, it should be able to holds its own beside the highest-end NVidia and AMD cards as its compute performance is over 50% higher than what they offer and you can't run standard code. Of course if GPU performance is lacking:
http://semiaccurate.com/2011/11/17/intel’s-22nm-knights-corner/
why not use all three? A 6-core Xeon + Knights Corner + single high-end GPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Also consider that there are 40 PCI lanes. If they use 16 for the GPU slot and have a minimum of two Thunderbolt ports, that leaves 16 lanes. So they can only put one extra x16 slot in. But, they only supply 300W just now so why bother? It's not as if you can fit two high-end GPUs in there anyway. There's also the possibility that you can fit a 3rd party GPU where the drivers don't support passing display signals out the Thunderbolt controller, leaving your machine in a state that is incompatible with the Thunderbolt brand.
You seem to be slipping into "Marvin math" again >=). Okay thunderbolt controller bandwidth isn't scheduled for any kind of change. Sandy Bridge E is using PCI 3.0, so your lane allocation shouldn't be so much of a problem. Beyond that we've seen many people install more than just a graphics card on there. With heavy cards, they have used separate power connections rather than running off the PCI bus. If it's that big of a headache to implement, I don't see it as a guarantee. Also you should hope that adoption goes well on the PC end. It would help bring more peripherals to the thunderbolt connection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Intel's spec dictates that in order for you to use the Thunderbolt brand, your implementation has to comply with all peripheral hardware bearing the same brand. If someone tried to implement data-only Thunderbolt, it wouldn't work with the Cinema displays or in fact any daisy-chainable device that expects to be able to be able to pass on display signals and Intel wouldn't allow it. That's why Sony's implementation isn't called Thunderbolt.
Specs can be updated and I would think that Apple has sufficient leeway if they wanted to do this but I don't believe they do.
Quote:
Given that Thunderbolt indisputably requires PCI and displayport to pass through it, that means there is no choice but to send the output of a dedicated GPU through the Thunderbolt controller on the motherboard. They might be able to do this with a modified driver that makes the GPU pass the display output back through the PCI slot. Question is, would they still allow standard GPU outputs as well as channeling displayport through the controller? I doubt it.
Why not? There's not a shred of logic that would demand this. It would be like asserting that because Thunderbolt is on the Mini they would never ever allow HDMI output from the GPU as well. Oh...wait...
Quote:
Also consider that there are 40 PCI lanes. If they use 16 for the GPU slot and have a minimum of two Thunderbolt ports, that leaves 16 lanes. So they can only put one extra x16 slot in. But, they only supply 300W just now so why bother? It's not as if you can fit two high-end GPUs in there anyway. There's also the possibility that you can fit a 3rd party GPU where the drivers don't support passing display signals out the Thunderbolt controller, leaving your machine in a state that is incompatible with the Thunderbolt brand.
Dual socket Mac pros will have 80 PCIe 3.0 lanes.
"The Intel® Xeon® processor E5-2600 product family is the first to have the I/O subsystem integrated on the processor die, reducing latency by up to 30 percent2, with up to 80 PCIe lanes per two-socket server, plus support for PCIe 3.0, improving bandwidth by as much as 2x."
http://xeonracing.intel.com/drivers-manual/
And you can put more than just power hungry GPUs in there. There are other things that desire high bandwidth.
Quote:
I accept the point about the custom GPU not being a good idea but it wouldn't have to be an entirely custom GPU. It would basically be your standard desktop GPU with the ports sawn off.
Eliminating any hope of supporting DP 1.2, costs more to do and is, again, require custom graphics card for the Mac Pro which virtually no one will build. For what gain? So Pro users never get expanded color space?
And how are they going to support Pro users that need 3+ 30" ACDs by only allowing one GPU?
They'll sell far fewer Mac Pros if they do this.
Quote:
I think the way they will go is 1 internal x16 slot with a GPU in it with no direct display outputs and 6x Thunderbolt ports driven by that one GPU.
What is the point of 6 x thunderbolt ports other than to burn PCIe lanes for no good reason? They need two. Maybe 4 if they want to stick some in the front. Everything else can be either daisy chained or far more effectively supported through a PCIe card (read as faster).
They will not likely drop back from the current capability of four PCIe x16 slots, two GPUs, six displays. Drop to 1 internal x16 slot and they might as well just kill the Mac Pro.
I can see having a dedicated GPU on the motherboard and running the two Thunderbolt ports that way. While that burns around 12 lanes it leaves all the slots empty for whatever the user needs if they don't have very graphics intensive needs.
Quote:
What would be nice is if they got an exclusive on Knights Corner:
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4230708/Exclusive-Video--Intel-s-Knight-s-Corner
1TFLOP double precision with standard x86 code would make up for Sandy Bridge Xeons. So much in fact that they could drop to single processor models. They could also build an 8" cube that way. While it may not be ideal for gaming, it should be able to holds its own beside the highest-end NVidia and AMD cards as its compute performance is over 50% higher than what they offer and you can't run standard code. Of course if GPU performance is lacking:
http://semiaccurate.com/2011/11/17/intel’s-22nm-knights-corner/
why not use all three? A 6-core Xeon + Knights Corner + single high-end GPU.
The number of Knights Corners in Nov 2011 was measured in the "tens". No way they are appearing in the next Mac Pro. And if you drop to single processor models you lose 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes. And I can safely assert that dual 8-core Xeon + 2xKnights Corner + 2xGPUs will be much faster.
/shrug
I'm all for arguing that the iMac will meet the needs of the Pros apple cares about and kill the Mac Pro line. I think it's unlikely that they will do so but the argument makes some sense.
I think it's nuts to believe that Apple will carry a neutered Mac Pro with one slot. It wont be a pro machine and for everyone else the iMac is suitable.
Intel has no reason to update the specs to break compatibility. That's a sure way to kill a standard. They obviously decided to merge the two for good reason.
Fair point, if that's the way it's connected up. Still, there's no way of breaking the Thunderbolt spec by using a non-standard GPU.
Such as...
10-bit GPU output only works in Windows but there are Thunderbolt peripherals for 10-bit (don't need DP 1.2):
http://www.amazon.com/Blackmagic-Design-Intensity-Extreme-Solution/dp/B007CYJ4WM
A single card can power that many (up to 6 should be possible), here's an example:
The 5870 can do 1 billion pixels per second. 2560 x 1600 x 6 x 30fps = 0.7 billion.
We're getting into these theoretical high-end usage cases again though that generally just don't happen. Who are these 'pro' users that have requirements for 6 x 30" 10-bit display outputs?
It's just arbitrary requirements to eliminate certain hardware designs people don't like without reason. Yes 80 PCI lanes is higher than 40, yes 256GB RAM is higher than 128GB, yes 4x GTX 580s are faster than 1 but why should the Mac Pro continue to be an overpriced behemoth of a machine to satisfy theoretical use cases that are rarely, if ever, realised? The Mac Pro in its current form has limitations and that includes a single high power GPU. People ('pros' if you will) have worked to those limitations just fine. I think it's better to design the machine around those limitations and offer better value for money.
They are display outputs too but it offers the equivalent of 6 x4 slots instead of 3.
The current Mac Pro only has 2 x16 and 2 x4 but the next one would support 4 x16 plus 4x Thunderbolt. You could put in multiple GPUs but as I say, a single GPU will run 6x displays just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Such as...
RAM drives, mid range GPUs, Fiber channel cards, Red Rocket, etc. 4 slots is very useful. Especially considering many high end gear exist only in card form and often used on both Windows and OSX.
Few will move to thunderbolt.
Quote:
We're getting into these theoretical high-end usage cases again though that generally just don't happen. Who are these 'pro' users that have requirements for 6 x 30" 10-bit display outputs?
It's just arbitrary requirements to eliminate certain hardware designs people don't like without reason. Yes 80 PCI lanes is higher than 40, yes 256GB RAM is higher than 128GB, yes 4x GTX 580s are faster than 1 but why should the Mac Pro continue to be an overpriced behemoth of a machine to satisfy theoretical use cases that are rarely, if ever, realised? The Mac Pro in its current form has limitations and that includes a single high power GPU. People ('pros' if you will) have worked to those limitations just fine. I think it's better to design the machine around those limitations and offer better value for money.
They are display outputs too but it offers the equivalent of 6 x4 slots instead of 3.
The current Mac Pro only has 2 x16 and 2 x4 but the next one would support 4 x16 plus 4x Thunderbolt. You could put in multiple GPUs but as I say, a single GPU will run 6x displays just fine.
If Apple only makes one tower it best be one that can kick ass and take names. And that means being able to handle these high end use cases because everything that a 1 slot single CPU Mac Pro can handle can be done with a top end iMac. Just because you don't need/want 4 PCIe cards doesn't mean that folks don't need them or that they are "theoretical". I've seen a few high end rigs.
Forcing these users to attach a slower TB PCIe expansion chassis so they can have PCIe slots would be insane. In order to see "six x4 slots" they'd have to run SIX thunderbolt cables to the chassis. If that would even work right.
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/decklinkhdextreme/
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/decklink4k/
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/decklinkquad/
All of these take 4 lanes. Low end Pro/Prosumer gear like what you posted does HD. Pro gear does 2K and 4K.
There is a thunderbolt version of the 3D extreme but it terminates the TB chain:
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/ultrastudio3d/
You CAN do 4K editing, even on a MBA via a Red Rocket. But again, most of these expansion chassis ends the TB chain. Instead of a machine with the cards you need inside of it you have a rats nest of TB cables and little boxes attached to yet another mass of video cabling and fiber. WHEN it even works.
Here's a very simple use case you can't handle in your design and fairly common for high end 4K workflows:
Current Mac Pro:
Slot 1 16x GPU (runs as 8 lane in the current Mac Pro)
Slot 2 8x 4 channel 4 Gbps Fiber Channel HBA
Slot 3 1x card or empty
Slot 4 8x AJA video capture card (the new Riker 5K, the current 4K card, etc)
What they'd WANT to run in a future Mac Pro is this:
Slot 1 16x GPU full speed
Slot 2 8x Fiber channel HBA
Slot 3 8x Red Rocket
Slot 4 8x AJA Riker
You can run the Red Rocket x4 mode but obviously it's slower. Some pros do that now.
Pros will be throwing rocks at the glass Apple stores and with good cause.
What can't you do with the top end iMac that you can do with your Mac Pro design with one CPU and 1 x16 slot? I really can't think of anything beyond "I wish I could more easily replace my internal boot drive and GPU". Not any actual jobs. Not even true high end gaming without dual GPUs. Any improvement is very incremental at the cost of completely hosing pros that need the slots of the current Mac Pro.
And the Mac Pro can still meet your needs. It just costs more. But even then $2500 isn't all that much.
And size is meaningless for most pros. Being able to rack mount the Mac Pro more easily is far more valuable than your mini-tower design. Anyone that needs a smaller desktop footprint is already sporting an iMac.
SSD is better than a PCI RAM drive, mutiple mid-range GPUs are not really better than a single high-end GPU and probably draw more power at idle. Fiber channel is slower than Thunderbolt and there's an adapter if needs be:
http://www.promise.com/storage/raid_series.aspx?region=en-global&m=192&rsn1=40&rsn3=49
Red Rocket can be hooked up as you said via an expansion port:
Yeah, it is a bit counter-intuitive to remove the slots and then stick one on the outside but ideally you shouldn't need a special card for 4K. You might not if Apple gets native RED editing in FCPX and it saves you a few thousand dollars.
I don't think an iMac could quite do the same as it doesn't have enough PCI lanes but it's not far off. I don't see that as a bad thing. Apple should be driving more users to iMacs by allowing high-end jobs to be done on them. Right now, the high-end workflows are dictating the form factors and prices of the machines and that doesn't really have to be the case.
To match the capability of the Pro, you'd have 3 boxes at most = 6 cables. An adaptor doesn't need much power so it's just the box itself. The Red Rocket would need two cables and the AJA Riker would have one cable, same as with the PCI version. You're really only talking about PCI cards that have no special hardware. Overall, 2 additional cables and two additional boxes.
For high-end users that need no peripherals, they get smaller enclosures and cheaper prices.
They'd have the GPU in an x16 slot, the fiber channel connection can be done with an adapter (but optical Thunderbolt is better), the red rocket would be in an enclosure and the AJA Riker is a standalone box anyway with both Thunderbolt and PCI connections. The Riker box would be better with Thunderbolt as you don't have to install a PCI card.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
SSD is better than a PCI RAM drive, mutiple mid-range GPUs are not really better than a single high-end GPU and probably draw more power at idle. Fiber channel is slower than Thunderbolt and there's an adapter if needs be:
http://www.promise.com/storage/raid_series.aspx?region=en-global&m=192&rsn1=40&rsn3=49
Red Rocket can be hooked up as you said via an expansion port:
Yeah, it is a bit counter-intuitive to remove the slots and then stick one on the outside but ideally you shouldn't need a special card for 4K. You might not if Apple gets native RED editing in FCPX and it saves you a few thousand dollars.
RED has come out with some of the cheapest solutions for things on the market. They bring a lot of cool stuff to sort of the mainstream. Anyway... I am angered you did not respond to my "Marvin math" note there. I still wonder when we'll see machine updates. I'm kind of expecting them to be around Mountain Lion since they've dragged on this far. It makes sense from a support standpoint.