The Mac Pro's big problem is that Intel is getting big $$ for the Xeons used in that machine. A machine using desktop variants would sell at a dramatically lower price. I don't see the price of the Mac Pro as it is today coming down if anything it will go up as Intel tries to grab more cash from the Xeon market. The fact of the mater is that Apple doesn't have a midrange monitor free Mac and realistically they need one. Either that or they get serious with respect to the Mini.
The days of the Blue and White G3 started at £1100 or a G5 Tower at £999 or the G4 Range at £1500 seem a distant memory now.
The current iMac is far more powerful than those machines were. Time makes things powerful. Even the iPad is looming to eclipse entry level Intel cpus now.
Lose the Xeon creamium, lose the 2nd GPU and you could easy have a Pro machine for £1500. But it's not likely to happen. Me? If I was Apple, I'd make the 'Cylinder' Mac the standard Mac. With the internals of a Mini, to iMac to 'Pro' spec to budge. In Silver, Space Grey and Gold. You just pick the monitor you want with it. 4k or 5K. Done. You'd just have one case. Choice of either monitor. Spec the internals you want.
Surely the ultimate in 'streamlining' the desktop line up?
But the fact is that the iMac is now all the 'Pro' machine many could wish for. Great 4 core performance. Decent GPU. Though there aren't many that can 'throw' a 5k display around. iMac, PC desktop tower or otherwise.
Though, next year, GPUs are set for an order of 'magnitude' increase of power that should benefit all computers...especially the 5k iMac. HBM2 with vast amounts more Vram? Process shrink with better designs and massive more bandwidth? Should romp that retina 5k display. I'd like 'that' machine.
Intel cpus have plateaued performance wise. AMD just haven't been able to compete and 'push' them. Maybe with Apple co-developing a cpu for the Mac range...things would change. But at least Apple are handing Intel and others their a** in mobility. And with A10 and A11 chips looming...
The machine I'm impressed with currently is the iPad Pro. It points to an intriguing future where Apple is in the driving seat for CPU and GPU (with Imagination's help...) performance gains that are quite breath taking. I'm curious to see how an A10 squares up to whatever Intel has next year as well as AMD's Fusion.
But I've felt that for a long time. Especially on desktop. But it's hard to argue with the laptops. SSD as standard(!) HELLO iMac! Great Macbook, Air and Pro designs. Decent prices. Very aggressive, even. Which makes the Desktop line seem overpriced and under delivered. It's an odd contrast.
The 5400rpm HD in the 4k iMac? Really Apple?
But sales of almost 6 million Macs? Unprecedented.
That this question didn't get an answer from anyone is not encouraging.
I was going to answer it, but then I remembered I have no idea what chips they have in them right now, nor what Intel has coming down the pipe. I lost track as I lost interest as I lost memory.
Speaking of which, the next ones will start the DDR4 trend, right?
'Some time' in 2016? For the Mac Pro. With a price shave might be nice. And include a keyboard and mouse for Gawd's sake.
...and as for skimping, inexplicably, on SSD parts in the 'pricey' desktop models... SSDs prices are falling like a stone. You can get a 2TB SSD for what Apple charges for a 1TB SSD. 256 gig SSDs are really cheap now. 500 gig SSDs are really cheap too.
That is the like the same argument with Mac Observer's editorial on Mac Pro not good enough ( Or they were referring to fast enough )
Apple, will know all the technologies that are in the work and will be coming out in 2 years time, and has a good view of how things would go in 5 years time.
2016, Mac Pro will get double the SSD Speed, 14nm Xeon ( 50% increase in Core Count ), 50% increase in GPU performance, Thunderbolt 3, 10Gbps LAN, DDR4 Memory ( Max 128GB Ram ).
With Stacked memory, 10nm CPU, 14nm GPU, 2018 You could get 24 Core CPU, double GFX performance and 256 / 512 GB RAM.
This is a lot of computing power, for those who need upgrade. The same for iMac.
That is the like the same argument with Mac Observer's editorial on Mac Pro not good enough ( Or they were referring to fast enough )
Apple, will know all the technologies that are in the work and will be coming out in 2 years time, and has a good view of how things would go in 5 years time.
2016, Mac Pro will get double the SSD Speed, 14nm Xeon ( 50% increase in Core Count ), 50% increase in GPU performance, Thunderbolt 3, 10Gbps LAN, DDR4 Memory ( Max 128GB Ram ).
With Stacked memory, 10nm CPU, 14nm GPU, 2018 You could get 24 Core CPU, double GFX performance and 256 / 512 GB RAM.
This is a lot of computing power, for those who need upgrade. The same for iMac.
The Mac Pro's power is fine, and the new version will have the expected upgrades.
Where Mac Observer has a point is the inelegant form factor. I'm sure Ive likes the wow factor of the glossy trash can sparkling on his desk, but anyone who has to use 6 or 7 of the ports will tell you that the whole thing looks like a rat's nest of cables and bland boxes cluttering a workspace. The Old Mac Pro was big and noisy, but it did keep a whole bunch of stuff hidden away really good.
The Mac Pro's power is fine, and the new version will have the expected upgrades.
Where Mac Observer has a point is the inelegant form factor. I'm sure Ive likes the wow factor of the glossy trash can sparkling on his desk, but anyone who has to use 6 or 7 of the ports will tell you that the whole thing looks like a rat's nest of cables and bland boxes cluttering a workspace. The Old Mac Pro was big and noisy, but it did keep a whole bunch of stuff hidden away really good.
So what are the ports used for apart from storage? It was referring to lack of high speed port so you can't use external video card.
The Mac Pro's big problem is that Intel is getting big $$ for the Xeons used in that machine. A machine using desktop variants would sell at a dramatically lower price. I don't see the price of the Mac Pro as it is today coming down if anything it will go up as Intel tries to grab more cash from the Xeon market. The fact of the mater is that Apple doesn't have a midrange monitor free Mac and realistically they need one. Either that or they get serious with respect to the Mini.
There may be some volume discounts that influence some of Apple's choices in low end models, but the Xeon used in the base mac pro has the same list price as the top imac cpus. Its list is also significantly lower than many that show up in the macbook pro. I've linked the same things before, and it never adds up. It's mostly the 8 core and above that are extremely expensive. Their base quad lists for $300. The upward shifts in pricing also tend to occur on the higher end chips. Apple uses some of the really expensive chips to put more cores in a machine with one socket, although I think they intend for the gpus to be a secondary source of computational power.
Apple's focus is now firmly on their mobile devices. There are profits to be made in desktop computing, but in all honesty, conventional desktop computing whether portable or fixed workstations are being displaced by mobile devices.
Once Apple transitions OS X to their ARM designs, far more innovation will be seen. Intel's CPUs offer poor integrated graphics performance and do not allow Apple to incorporate unique functionality. And it's really only a matter of time before the A series catches Intel's high end CPUs and I expect even thr S series to catch Intel's low end offerings. I actually expect the S series to catch Qualcomm's high end ARM offerings.
Can't say that Intel will bring much in the way of improvements either. AMD is no longer competitive and Intel is now focused on mobile. TSMC and Samsung will get to 10 nm before Intel will and with the imminent release of the S2 along with the upcoming A10 and A10X, Intel will have its hands full. Skylake offers little in the way of substantial advantages over broadwell whereas the A9x was a very substantial advancement over the A8X and incorporated both the tick and tock advancements simultaneously along with serious advancements in the GPU. It remains to be seen what Intel's plans are for 10 nm. But with Apple's very aggressive plans for their mobile products and Intel desperately trying to close the gap, desktop computing is taking a back seat at both companies. Intel will only offer incremental upgrades to their desktop CPUs and Apple will be slow to incorporate them.
Apple did try with the Core M CPU in the entry level MacBook, but it's going to be mercilessly outsold by the iPad Pro. And for that matter, the GPU in the Pro iPad outperforms the integrated Intel GPU in the Core i7.
The trends are now definitive. Apple will catch Intel's desktop CPUs in performance before Intel is able to catch Apple in power consumption parameters.
I really don't see much going on with respect to OS X on Intel as a result. On Windows, it's a different matter as every little bit of differentiation is seen as a life and death matter. For Apple, OSX is not life and death. It is now a sidelight for what is truly coming. The ascedency of iOS as the dominant computing paradigm.
It isn't there yet, but it is very definitely coming.
The next Intel NUC is rumored to have Iris Pro 580. The next Mac mini should do the same but knowing Apple they'll probably put in a Core M, make it fanless, and turn it into a POS.
The next Intel NUC is rumored to have Iris Pro 580. The next Mac mini should do the same but knowing Apple they'll probably put in a Core M, make it fanless, and turn it into a POS.
That is a real possibility.
What I wish Apple would do though is release a Mac-Keyboard computer. This would be a fabless machine with an even lower entry price point. They could then focus on performance in the Mini.
Here's the problem I have... Apple is going to make the mini an utter piece of garbage imho next time around if they even update it. The base mini will probably have a Core M processor in it. Are you kidding me? The minimum should be an Iris 540 and then perhaps an Iris Pro 580 as the top option. Also I don't want to have to wait until March for a MacBook Air update and June for a MacBook Pro update as is apparently rumored.
Here's the problem I have... Apple is going to make the mini an utter piece of garbage imho next time around if they even update it. The base mini will probably have a Core M processor in it. Are you kidding me? The minimum should be an Iris 540 and then perhaps an Iris Pro 580 as the top option. Also I don't want to have to wait until March for a MacBook Air update and June for a MacBook Pro update as is apparently rumored.
I don't expect top end GPUs in the Mini. Here is the problem though Apple focused on GPU performance with the last release of the Mini and everyone complained, so how does Apple win here? The problem is the customer base is all over the place with the Mini and many professional users benefit from four cores, just as many though would be better off with more advanced GPUs.
As as for the Mac Books Apple can only ship when all of the parts are in place. I believe they are rightfully pissed off with Intel whom it appears have lost their mojo. All of this really makes me wonder if the rumors about Apple and AMD working together on a custom SOC are true. Before Apple can update they need a decent offering component wise. Components by the way that can ship in volume.
I'm debating whether I want to stay with Apple or go back to Windows with an Intel NUC (the only PC I have interest in), although I am leaning towards just getting another Mac mini. A 2014 Mac mini with 16 GB of RAM and a 256 GB PCIe SSD would be good enough for me but it's not what I want. I'd like even faster graphics and the thought of Iris Pro 580 in a future NUC is awesome. Some have said I should have a quad-core CPU for future proofing. All that being said, I am still rocking a 2011 Mac mini with 8 GB of RAM, a Samsung 470 I put in myself, and Intel HD 3000 graphics.
I'm debating whether I want to stay with Apple or go back to Windows with an Intel NUC (the only PC I have interest in), although I am leaning towards just getting another Mac mini. A 2014 Mac mini with 16 GB of RAM and a 256 GB PCIe SSD would be good enough for me but it's not what I want. I'd like even faster graphics and the thought of Iris Pro 580 in a future NUC is awesome. Some have said I should have a quad-core CPU for future proofing. All that being said, I am still rocking a 2011 Mac mini with 8 GB of RAM, a Samsung 470 I put in myself, and Intel HD 3000 graphics.
Personally I wouldn't go to a Nuc unless I wanted to set up a Linuc box. Even then I'd probably go AMD. By virtue of its size Nuc can never be powerful boxes (same for the Mini) relative to what you can get with full blown desktops. So if graphics but r gaming is important to you I'm not sure why you would bother with the little boxes.
As as for quad cores they are important right now for certain groups of users. If quads aren't important to you now they likely won't be in the near future.
Honestly if your 2011 is still good enough I'd wait until the new generations of hardware shake out. That means SkyLake and beyond DDR 4 RAM and the other goodies about to hit. This is what will keep the machine viable for more than a year or two.
Comments
The Mac Pro's big problem is that Intel is getting big $$ for the Xeons used in that machine. A machine using desktop variants would sell at a dramatically lower price. I don't see the price of the Mac Pro as it is today coming down if anything it will go up as Intel tries to grab more cash from the Xeon market. The fact of the mater is that Apple doesn't have a midrange monitor free Mac and realistically they need one. Either that or they get serious with respect to the Mini.
The days of the Blue and White G3 started at £1100 or a G5 Tower at £999 or the G4 Range at £1500 seem a distant memory now.
The current iMac is far more powerful than those machines were. Time makes things powerful. Even the iPad is looming to eclipse entry level Intel cpus now.
Lose the Xeon creamium, lose the 2nd GPU and you could easy have a Pro machine for £1500. But it's not likely to happen. Me? If I was Apple, I'd make the 'Cylinder' Mac the standard Mac. With the internals of a Mini, to iMac to 'Pro' spec to budge. In Silver, Space Grey and Gold. You just pick the monitor you want with it. 4k or 5K. Done. You'd just have one case. Choice of either monitor. Spec the internals you want.
Surely the ultimate in 'streamlining' the desktop line up?
But the fact is that the iMac is now all the 'Pro' machine many could wish for. Great 4 core performance. Decent GPU. Though there aren't many that can 'throw' a 5k display around. iMac, PC desktop tower or otherwise.
Though, next year, GPUs are set for an order of 'magnitude' increase of power that should benefit all computers...especially the 5k iMac. HBM2 with vast amounts more Vram? Process shrink with better designs and massive more bandwidth? Should romp that retina 5k display. I'd like 'that' machine.
Intel cpus have plateaued performance wise. AMD just haven't been able to compete and 'push' them. Maybe with Apple co-developing a cpu for the Mac range...things would change. But at least Apple are handing Intel and others their a** in mobility. And with A10 and A11 chips looming...
The machine I'm impressed with currently is the iPad Pro. It points to an intriguing future where Apple is in the driving seat for CPU and GPU (with Imagination's help...) performance gains that are quite breath taking. I'm curious to see how an A10 squares up to whatever Intel has next year as well as AMD's Fusion.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Is Apple trying hard enough with the Mac?
No.
But I've felt that for a long time. Especially on desktop. But it's hard to argue with the laptops. SSD as standard(!) HELLO iMac! Great Macbook, Air and Pro designs. Decent prices. Very aggressive, even. Which makes the Desktop line seem overpriced and under delivered. It's an odd contrast.
The 5400rpm HD in the 4k iMac? Really Apple?
But sales of almost 6 million Macs? Unprecedented.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Design has been superb. Free OS is nice and all.
But I've questioned the specs and the pricing tier and 'upwell' which along with SSD and Memory rip off pricing has been flagrant.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Any idea when they're expected to ship?
That this question didn't get an answer from anyone is not encouraging.
I was going to answer it, but then I remembered I have no idea what chips they have in them right now, nor what Intel has coming down the pipe. I lost track as I lost interest as I lost memory.
Speaking of which, the next ones will start the DDR4 trend, right?
'Some time' in 2016? For the Mac Pro. With a price shave might be nice. And include a keyboard and mouse for Gawd's sake.
...and as for skimping, inexplicably, on SSD parts in the 'pricey' desktop models... SSDs prices are falling like a stone. You can get a 2TB SSD for what Apple charges for a 1TB SSD. 256 gig SSDs are really cheap now. 500 gig SSDs are really cheap too.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-BX100-Internal-Solid-State/dp/B00RQA6LIM/ref=pd_sim_147_4?ie=UTF8&dpID=514a5y9sNoL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR160,160_&refRID=12RN2Y9RNAM0MJQXR90Y
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-2-5-Inch-Solid-State-Drive/dp/B00P73B1E4/ref=pd_rhf_cr_s_cp_4?ie=UTF8&dpID=419p+D3kufL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_SL500_SR135,135_&refRID=07HZYCWWMH799EDR05KG
Are Apple trying hard enough with the desktop Mac? No.
With the laptop Mac? Yes.
Lemon Bon Bon.
That is the like the same argument with Mac Observer's editorial on Mac Pro not good enough ( Or they were referring to fast enough )
Apple, will know all the technologies that are in the work and will be coming out in 2 years time, and has a good view of how things would go in 5 years time.
2016, Mac Pro will get double the SSD Speed, 14nm Xeon ( 50% increase in Core Count ), 50% increase in GPU performance, Thunderbolt 3, 10Gbps LAN, DDR4 Memory ( Max 128GB Ram ).
With Stacked memory, 10nm CPU, 14nm GPU, 2018 You could get 24 Core CPU, double GFX performance and 256 / 512 GB RAM.
This is a lot of computing power, for those who need upgrade. The same for iMac.
That is the like the same argument with Mac Observer's editorial on Mac Pro not good enough ( Or they were referring to fast enough )
Apple, will know all the technologies that are in the work and will be coming out in 2 years time, and has a good view of how things would go in 5 years time.
2016, Mac Pro will get double the SSD Speed, 14nm Xeon ( 50% increase in Core Count ), 50% increase in GPU performance, Thunderbolt 3, 10Gbps LAN, DDR4 Memory ( Max 128GB Ram ).
With Stacked memory, 10nm CPU, 14nm GPU, 2018 You could get 24 Core CPU, double GFX performance and 256 / 512 GB RAM.
This is a lot of computing power, for those who need upgrade. The same for iMac.
The Mac Pro's power is fine, and the new version will have the expected upgrades.
Where Mac Observer has a point is the inelegant form factor. I'm sure Ive likes the wow factor of the glossy trash can sparkling on his desk, but anyone who has to use 6 or 7 of the ports will tell you that the whole thing looks like a rat's nest of cables and bland boxes cluttering a workspace. The Old Mac Pro was big and noisy, but it did keep a whole bunch of stuff hidden away really good.
The Mac Pro's power is fine, and the new version will have the expected upgrades.
Where Mac Observer has a point is the inelegant form factor. I'm sure Ive likes the wow factor of the glossy trash can sparkling on his desk, but anyone who has to use 6 or 7 of the ports will tell you that the whole thing looks like a rat's nest of cables and bland boxes cluttering a workspace. The Old Mac Pro was big and noisy, but it did keep a whole bunch of stuff hidden away really good.
So what are the ports used for apart from storage? It was referring to lack of high speed port so you can't use external video card.
The Mac Pro's big problem is that Intel is getting big $$ for the Xeons used in that machine. A machine using desktop variants would sell at a dramatically lower price. I don't see the price of the Mac Pro as it is today coming down if anything it will go up as Intel tries to grab more cash from the Xeon market. The fact of the mater is that Apple doesn't have a midrange monitor free Mac and realistically they need one. Either that or they get serious with respect to the Mini.
There may be some volume discounts that influence some of Apple's choices in low end models, but the Xeon used in the base mac pro has the same list price as the top imac cpus. Its list is also significantly lower than many that show up in the macbook pro. I've linked the same things before, and it never adds up. It's mostly the 8 core and above that are extremely expensive. Their base quad lists for $300. The upward shifts in pricing also tend to occur on the higher end chips. Apple uses some of the really expensive chips to put more cores in a machine with one socket, although I think they intend for the gpus to be a secondary source of computational power.
For reference
mac pro quad 2013 specs
E5-1620v2
Once Apple transitions OS X to their ARM designs, far more innovation will be seen. Intel's CPUs offer poor integrated graphics performance and do not allow Apple to incorporate unique functionality. And it's really only a matter of time before the A series catches Intel's high end CPUs and I expect even thr S series to catch Intel's low end offerings. I actually expect the S series to catch Qualcomm's high end ARM offerings.
Can't say that Intel will bring much in the way of improvements either. AMD is no longer competitive and Intel is now focused on mobile. TSMC and Samsung will get to 10 nm before Intel will and with the imminent release of the S2 along with the upcoming A10 and A10X, Intel will have its hands full. Skylake offers little in the way of substantial advantages over broadwell whereas the A9x was a very substantial advancement over the A8X and incorporated both the tick and tock advancements simultaneously along with serious advancements in the GPU. It remains to be seen what Intel's plans are for 10 nm. But with Apple's very aggressive plans for their mobile products and Intel desperately trying to close the gap, desktop computing is taking a back seat at both companies. Intel will only offer incremental upgrades to their desktop CPUs and Apple will be slow to incorporate them.
Apple did try with the Core M CPU in the entry level MacBook, but it's going to be mercilessly outsold by the iPad Pro. And for that matter, the GPU in the Pro iPad outperforms the integrated Intel GPU in the Core i7.
The trends are now definitive. Apple will catch Intel's desktop CPUs in performance before Intel is able to catch Apple in power consumption parameters.
I really don't see much going on with respect to OS X on Intel as a result. On Windows, it's a different matter as every little bit of differentiation is seen as a life and death matter. For Apple, OSX is not life and death. It is now a sidelight for what is truly coming. The ascedency of iOS as the dominant computing paradigm.
It isn't there yet, but it is very definitely coming.
I'm thinking early next year.
That is a real possibility. What I wish Apple would do though is release a Mac-Keyboard computer. This would be a fabless machine with an even lower entry price point. They could then focus on performance in the Mini.
I don't expect top end GPUs in the Mini. Here is the problem though Apple focused on GPU performance with the last release of the Mini and everyone complained, so how does Apple win here? The problem is the customer base is all over the place with the Mini and many professional users benefit from four cores, just as many though would be better off with more advanced GPUs.
As as for the Mac Books Apple can only ship when all of the parts are in place. I believe they are rightfully pissed off with Intel whom it appears have lost their mojo. All of this really makes me wonder if the rumors about Apple and AMD working together on a custom SOC are true. Before Apple can update they need a decent offering component wise. Components by the way that can ship in volume.
Personally I wouldn't go to a Nuc unless I wanted to set up a Linuc box. Even then I'd probably go AMD. By virtue of its size Nuc can never be powerful boxes (same for the Mini) relative to what you can get with full blown desktops. So if graphics but r gaming is important to you I'm not sure why you would bother with the little boxes.
As as for quad cores they are important right now for certain groups of users. If quads aren't important to you now they likely won't be in the near future.
Honestly if your 2011 is still good enough I'd wait until the new generations of hardware shake out. That means SkyLake and beyond DDR 4 RAM and the other goodies about to hit. This is what will keep the machine viable for more than a year or two.