[...] Those who still live in the USB-A ecosystem cannot understand that.
Can you explain what it means to live in the USB-A ecosystem? How would I know if I'm afflicted? What are the symptoms? Is there anything that can be done to elevate my understanding to the higher plane you have achieved so that I, too, may understand and worship at the Pillar of Thunderbolt?
My interpretation based on what they actually said is that they mean a desktop box without an integrated screen. It's been mentioned in the context of new displays coming as well, so I always assumed the "modules" are the headless desktop and the display(s).
Bingo! Those who are expecting the power supply to be separate from the stackable MPUs (Modular Processing Unit) are gonna be really disappointed!
[...] They may not even know the answer to that yet, and given how vague this whole info dump is, I'm thinking that's even more likely the case now.
Right?!
"We're getting some really useful telemetries from our Product Direction Task Analogs, and we're efforting that into actioning all the pain points. Plus we're totally modularizing the whole thing. Even the modules are modular. So yeah, we've got great ideas. Really. We do. Why, what have you heard? We have a plan. But, say if we didn't have lots of awesome ideas of our own, what would YOU do to make a Pro Mac?"
Either that or they are working with totally new non Xeon hardware.
This seems the most plausible.
I think to make a truly modular computer, it requires an entirely new bus system - one that will play nice with everyone. This would require a new shell.
Say hello to OS XI - 2019?
You and a few others seem to give Apple's use of the term "modular" a lot of weight. Isn't it much more likely that, to Apple, the term simply means individual components (CPU, RAM, storage, GPU) can be removed without using dynamite?
My interpretation based on what they actually said is that they mean a desktop box without an integrated screen.
External displays, keyboards, mice, trackpads, printers, etc. are typically referred to as peripherals. If just talking about a PC with no display we typically use the term headless. In this case, referring to a modular Mac Pro is specifically talking about Apple allowing the RAM, CPU, and GPU to socketed, if we go by their long history.
...the newest hardware I felt compelled to part cash with was a 2011 i7 mini, user upgradable ram, dual user upgradable hard drives, discrete GPU graphics, and the only arguable omissions being USB3 (doh) & a Kensington lock slot (double doh)... RIP Steven Jobs October 5th 2011...
Every time I open my 17" MacBook Pro I feel a sense of awe in efficacy and pro screen usability... Offer 4k and wow?
And I have to ask if 5K is just a 'bag of hurt' making everything non-apple inhospitable, incompatible or unusable - even so, the only monitor I could NOT get working with a 2016 MacBook Pro was the Apple Cinema Display despite multiple assurances from Apple support and sales that the TB adapter 'should' work, according to the TB3 standards... Is that reasonable ?
I've debated buying loaded 2013 pros and reverting to Yosemite or Mavericks 'forever', as the 'always in beta' brutality of the latest OS and hardware adoption has worn me out... Why has the last out of beta MacOS (Sierra) download been eradicated from conventional access? Is there something so bad in it, or are we are being forced to beta test with any new hardware purchase in addition to proprietary 'onboard' utter inflexibility and planned obsolescence...?
I have tested but ultimately sent back all mac hardware since 2015, having been 'onboard' since System 7, and yes every OS has had some issues, and it is increasingly complex stuff, sigh...
I've also divested all my APPL stock, despite Warren Buffet's recent enthusiasm...
The Apple 'pro' monitors I'd like to see: 27" 1440p usb3 (education - for the rest of us) 27" 2160p (4k) usb3 'retina' (consumer - for the rest of us) 40" 2160p (4k) usb3 110 dpi aka: http://us.aoc.com/product_feature.php?id=84 (prosumer - for the rest of us) 40" 8k 'retina' version of same (go nutz
Either that or they are working with totally new non Xeon hardware.
This seems the most plausible.
I think to make a truly modular computer, it requires an entirely new bus system - one that will play nice with everyone. This would require a new shell.
Say hello to OS XI - 2019?
You and a few others seem to give Apple's use of the term "modular" a lot of weight. Isn't it much more likely that, to Apple, the term simply means individual components (CPU, RAM, storage, GPU) can be removed without using dynamite?
My interpretation based on what they actually said is that they mean a desktop box without an integrated screen.
External displays, keyboards, mice, trackpads, printers, etc. are typically referred to as peripherals. If just talking about a PC with no display we typically use the term headless. In this case, referring to a modular Mac Pro is specifically talking about Apple allowing the RAM, CPU, and GPU to socketed, if we go by their long history.
Then technically the current Mac Pro is "modular" if you want to stick to that specific definition. They just never sold any replacement GPU "modules" for it. That's why I'm not sure that's what they mean.
Either that or they are working with totally new non Xeon hardware.
This seems the most plausible.
I think to make a truly modular computer, it requires an entirely new bus system - one that will play nice with everyone. This would require a new shell.
Say hello to OS XI - 2019?
You and a few others seem to give Apple's use of the term "modular" a lot of weight. Isn't it much more likely that, to Apple, the term simply means individual components (CPU, RAM, storage, GPU) can be removed without using dynamite?
My interpretation based on what they actually said is that they mean a desktop box without an integrated screen.
External displays, keyboards, mice, trackpads, printers, etc. are typically referred to as peripherals. If just talking about a PC with no display we typically use the term headless. In this case, referring to a modular Mac Pro is specifically talking about Apple allowing the RAM, CPU, and GPU to socketed, if we go by their long history.
Then technically the current Mac Pro is "modular" if you want to stick to that specific definition. They just never sold any replacement GPU "modules" for it. That's why I'm not sure that's what they mean.
Is that their fault, outside from backing the wrong horse for their 3rd-party, socketed GPUs?
Will it take them to 2019 to give the mini a decent bump too? I have 4 x 2011 i7 server models waiting for an upgrade. It gets a little bit tiresome to scour e-bay for used 2011/2012 server configs.
I would not hold my breath waiting for a Mini. They have never committed to making a new model. At least last year they gathered in several journalists/bloggers to say that they had missed the direction of the market for the MacPro. They said that the Mac Pro would not come before 2017. Now they say 2019. It will probably get here by Q1 2020. Both the mini and the Pro's sell in lower volume compared to laptops and the iMac, but apple probably makes much less profit on the mini just because thats the difference between a $500 machine and a $5,000 machine. The Mini may not get any attention due to the need to dedicate those people to other projects. Its gone the way of the iPadMini. I tend to think both products would get more sales if they were updated.
I don't contest that there are Eizo and NEC displays, but that's a red herring.
I don't feel it is a distraction (i.e., the definition of "red herring"), for I myself own an EIZO FlexScan EV2750 1440p 27" display and use it with my 2015 15" MBP (top end model with dGPU), and I do NOT use it for professional work. Some of us Mac users who aren't even "pros" simply want a really good external display. And it would be nice if there was an affordably priced Mac Pro that I could purchase someday to go along with the EIZO. But in light of the iMac Pro pricing, who could ever hope for an "affordable" successor to the Mac Pro? Surely not me.
Q1 2020. They wouldn't be saying this now if it was only a year away. This is their way of saying buy the iMacPro and use a GPU enclosure if you need more any time soon.
When Jobs came back to Apple they were a much smaller company and it was smart to pare down to just the four models. I think that Apple could easily support two Pro machines. Hopefully they start at 128 GB for $10,000 with additional options 256 GB, 384GB, 512 GB RAM. It should offer more power than the iMacPro. I think Apple has a responsibility to offer an insanely powerful machine, but it doesn't have to be cheap. (don't expect a converted Dell at Apple)
God, I hope Jony doesn't have any input into the design of this machine. Otherwise we'll be seeing something that looks pretty and is totally unfit for pro use.
You mean like the old Mac Pro tower that was also designed by Jony Ive's team? I'm sure you're the expert on what a Pro needs anyways.
That was when Jobs was still around to give insight to what Pros people wanted.
Either that or they are working with totally new non Xeon hardware.
This seems the most plausible.
I think to make a truly modular computer, it requires an entirely new bus system - one that will play nice with everyone. This would require a new shell.
Say hello to OS XI - 2019?
You and a few others seem to give Apple's use of the term "modular" a lot of weight. Isn't it much more likely that, to Apple, the term simply means individual components (CPU, RAM, storage, GPU) can be removed without using dynamite?
My interpretation based on what they actually said is that they mean a desktop box without an integrated screen.
External displays, keyboards, mice, trackpads, printers, etc. are typically referred to as peripherals. If just talking about a PC with no display we typically use the term headless. In this case, referring to a modular Mac Pro is specifically talking about Apple allowing the RAM, CPU, and GPU to socketed, if we go by their long history.
Then technically the current Mac Pro is "modular" if you want to stick to that specific definition. They just never sold any replacement GPU "modules" for it. That's why I'm not sure that's what they mean.
Is that their fault, outside from backing the wrong horse for their 3rd-party, socketed GPUs?
I really don't know. I'm just predicting that people imagining these lego-like systems are jumping the gun as far as what Apple will *actually* do. I'm not sure they even know yet. But they may end up disappointed to find out what "modular" meant to Phil at the time.
Either that or they are working with totally new non Xeon hardware.
This seems the most plausible.
I think to make a truly modular computer, it requires an entirely new bus system - one that will play nice with everyone. This would require a new shell.
Say hello to OS XI - 2019?
You and a few others seem to give Apple's use of the term "modular" a lot of weight. Isn't it much more likely that, to Apple, the term simply means individual components (CPU, RAM, storage, GPU) can be removed without using dynamite?
My interpretation based on what they actually said is that they mean a desktop box without an integrated screen.
External displays, keyboards, mice, trackpads, printers, etc. are typically referred to as peripherals. If just talking about a PC with no display we typically use the term headless. In this case, referring to a modular Mac Pro is specifically talking about Apple allowing the RAM, CPU, and GPU to socketed, if we go by their long history.
Then technically the current Mac Pro is "modular" if you want to stick to that specific definition. They just never sold any replacement GPU "modules" for it. That's why I'm not sure that's what they mean.
Is that their fault, outside from backing the wrong horse for their 3rd-party, socketed GPUs?
I really don't know. I'm just predicting that people imagining these lego-like systems are jumping the gun as far as what Apple will *actually* do. I'm not sure they even know yet. But they may end up disappointed to find out what "modular" meant to Phil at the time.
I had read that AMD hadn't release GPUs that made upgrading either feasible or possible, but I honestly can't recall where I heard it and I have source at this time, so take it with a grain of salt.
As to the article itself... this is good news. It's a shame this wasn't last year's news, though. Sigh. So much time lost to bad decisions at Apple.
Didn't they already have a professional products team?? Did it get shuttered? Wouldn't surprise me, since Apple's famed GUI team was ignored when Ive wanted to make way for iOS 7's horrible redesign by using the print marketing group...
So yet another full year to wait at least... Good thing I bought a used Mac to move off of my tiny MacBook Pro. I'm not sure if it will last another year, since it was a bad refurb of an already tightly-thermal-constrained design... but I'm hoping it does.
Of course, by 2019/20, Apple will be forcefully pressuring me to buy a new phone and iPad to replace my iPhone 6s and iPad Pro (1st gen)...
I really like the iPod app in iOS10 for some reason the redesigned it in iOS 11 and it seems less intuitive/harder to use. They seem to do stupid changes just for the sake of Changing it.
Either that or they are working with totally new non Xeon hardware.
This seems the most plausible.
I think to make a truly modular computer, it requires an entirely new bus system - one that will play nice with everyone. This would require a new shell.
Say hello to OS XI - 2019?
You and a few others seem to give Apple's use of the term "modular" a lot of weight. Isn't it much more likely that, to Apple, the term simply means individual components (CPU, RAM, storage, GPU) can be removed without using dynamite?
I think that's if what Apple meant, they'd have said that specifically. Apple has never said PCI-E, or socketed processors. They say "modular."
I guess we'll all see together what it means.
I wonder what SIRI runs on now and what they think they will need to run the new Siri on when Gianandrea gets a new system working. You could make the case that Apple will need both Aseries based macOS servers for cheaper cloud computer at lower energy costs and more powerful INTEL servers for SIRI and other AI projects (until they totally switch to Aseries 10 years from now).
Putting an iMac Pro on the floor and hooking it up to a 3rd party 4K display is close to what it would be. The only difference being able to switch components out, which people wouldn't do for another 3 or 4 years and wasn't possible with the 2013 model either.
Not the only difference. I have a 2008 Mac Pro (currently sitting idle - due to recent flakiness - maybe due to the local environment in the tropics) and I am maybe one of the few that had upgraded -- it even from day one. I upgraded the memory, and the hard drives in the first month (I don't expect hard drives to be in the case of the new Mac Pro, but maybe U.2 SSD drives). The memory I bought from Crucial, and hard drives I bought locally. I updated the video cards (2 of them) maybe 4 years into the machine. The major difference is that I was running 4 monitors, and having one built in and 3 outbound just seems hackish anyways -- I would prefer the computer and my monitors separate (more than prefer - it is almost mandatory for me). During that 10 year period using the Mac Pro 2008, I went through maybe 5 monitor replacements, 15 hard drive failures [though not sure the split from in the case and in the additional hard drive enclosure], the memory upgrades, and the video card upgrades. I have no doubt that an iMac Pro would NEVER last 10 years under the same load. I have had my Mac Pro under full load for a maximum of 6 months straight 7/24 hours. If I did that on an iMac Pro the temperatures would peak and stay there at 94C for 6 months. Basically, unless I was extremely lucky an iMac Pro equivalent would never have lasted that long.
It's good to have the option of a modular tower system. It will likely allow up to double the performance of the iMac Pro but at price points around $8k-14k, it's not going to be the equivalent of the old towers that started around $1900. It's going to be an aspirational product that almost nobody will own. Most professionals will still be using iMacs and MBPs as their everyday workhorses. It's always nice to see new hardware designs though. I reckon they'll want to show it off at WWDC 2019 so over 12 months away. That puts it in a timeframe to get PCIe 5, maybe TB4:
I would bet they would aim for March, a full event Macs (with the Mac Pro being the focus). And while I expect the iMac Pro to top out at well over $20K at the high end, a modular Mac Pro could easily be brought in for $3,500 at the low end. The options for the dual Xeon CPUs are still there at the low end for around the same tray price as the old cMP CPUs. It all depends on the configuration options. You can easily go modular from the low-end dual Xeon's up from $300 - $500 / CPU to $3000+ / CPU; 1 lower end video card or multiple high-end video cards; 4 x 8GB DDR4 modules or 256GB+ of memory; and of course the primary SSD. HP has equivalent Xeon workstation class and it can be configured from the same low-end I have indicated - up much higher than what Apple is likely to offer. The Mac Pro is supposed to be the catch-all product. For which cannot fit the existing product ranges are not suited -- so it should be configurable to suit. It all depends on what you term "most professionals" (how you classify them). If that were the case -- Apple would not have changed direction to build the Mac Pro. The exodus was beginning to take hold, and Apple knew it. They pre-announced it that far in advance to try and freeze the exodus. I even know of installations that prefers to put the computers in a secure computer room and run fibre to the desk for the monitors.
danvm said: I suppose you have no idea the engineering and design involve in HP workstations. I suggest you check the HP Z8, which is miles ahead off what Apple offers today. This model is capable of 3TB of RAM (yes, Terabytes), two CPU's with a max of 56 cores, a three NVidia Quadro P6000. Do you really think that a device like this is a "bunch of parts slapped together"?
I was facilities manager at a post house several years ago. We had Mac Pros everywhere running Avid, FCP, After Effects, Photoshop etc. We also had a Discreet Logic (Now Autodesk) Smoke/Flame and later a Lustre color grading system. These systems ran on HP Z hardware and they were well built, rock solid and very powerful. I agree, there was nothing "slapped together" about these big iron units. I loved my big aluminum Mac Pros, Xserves and Xserve RAIDs, but the HP kit was really good too. We also had a Boxx system for animation that was pretty sweet.
I didn’t like that narrative... “Not this year”, “understanding from soup to nuts” [still?], “internal workflows with real content” sound like bla bla bla to my ears.
Those quotes from Apple sound horrible. They should have just said the Mac Pro will be available in 2019, and left out these weird statements or rationale, which sound devoid of sense to me. Designing for workflows? That’s what drove them down the 2013 Mac Pro route.
So it wasn't just me then. Was that rambling nonsense an example of what happens when a marketing drone has nothing to spin?
Still. I'm very, very, happy to see Apple opening up a little on the communication side, allowing corporate and institutional customers some fodder for planning.
It’s not nonsense per se, it’s the implications of what the comments mean if they are being sincere. They said they hired “professional users” to essentially help design this new Mac Pro and have now formed a pro workflow team or group to that effect.
That implies:
1. Apple gave the 2013 Mac Pro a try. It was something different, targeted. They didn’t see much success with it, and instead of doing the work to keep it updated or make it more attractive to buyers, they let it die and had no interest in replacing it. Also means whatever decisions and research they did to design the 2013 Mac Pro was wrong. Every organization has a brain fart, that’s the way it breaks sometimes, but they didn’t even do the work to update it. You would have to conclude they were planning on abandoning the market.
That implies nothing more than a loose-leaf narrative, obviously a communication/PR mistake.
To understand why Apple couldn’t update the Mac Pro one must dig through ark.intel.com to get an idea about the evolution of Xeons. If Apple achieved some progress with the current generation within the footprint of an iMac then this is welcome. On the other hand Apple is one of the creators / investors of Thunderbolt and there is nothing wrong in making Thunderbolt one of the pillars of their whole conceptual world. Those who still live in the USB-A ecosystem cannot understand that.
Here, I went through the exercise of choosing Xeon and FirePros.
The 2013 Mac Pro shipped with Ivy Bridge Xeon E5 v2 CPUs and Pitcairn, Tahiti GPUs: E5-1620 v2 4C 3.7/3.9 GHz, 10 MB L3 E5-1650 v2 6C 3.5/3.9 GHz, 15 MB L3 E5-1680 v2 8C 3.3/3.9 GHz, 20 MB L3 E5-2697 v2 12C 2.7/3.5 GHz, 30 MB L3
By I think by late 2014 or 2015, it became obvious that the dual GPUs were the wrong bet. They could have redesigned the unified thermal core to be 1 140W Xeon and 1 250W GPU to at least take advantage of high Watt GPUs, but nope. Who knows. The future book on this Mac Pro misstep is going to be really interesting.
Could we please, please have an updated cylinder Mac Pro, or an upgraded 'cheese grater' Mac Pro in the mean time? Or, at least a Mac Mini with the new quad-core i5 (or maybe a 6-core i9) and TB3 ports? Please?
macxpress said: So a whole 100 people can buy it? You do realized Apple dropped this model because it wasn't selling right? Just because there's a very small group of people whining really loudly about the lack of a 17" MBP doesn't mean its what the general market wants. Apple knows more than you or I what it needs to build here. So to answer your question, hell will freeze over before Apple releases a new 17" MacBook Pro. You folks need to give it up already!
It depends. If those 100 people include the most prominent content creators, scientists, industry leaders, etc., it very well might. This is the whole 'pie-chart' problem I keep harping about. Pie-slice size might be an indicator or product popularity and revenues in the short term, but say little on the impact on Apple as a brand in the long-term.
Comments
Bingo! Those who are expecting the power supply to be separate from the stackable MPUs (Modular Processing Unit) are gonna be really disappointed!
Right?!
"We're getting some really useful telemetries from our Product Direction Task Analogs, and we're efforting that into actioning all the pain points. Plus we're totally modularizing the whole thing. Even the modules are modular. So yeah, we've got great ideas. Really. We do. Why, what have you heard? We have a plan. But, say if we didn't have lots of awesome ideas of our own, what would YOU do to make a Pro Mac?"
Every time I open my 17" MacBook Pro I feel a sense of awe in efficacy and pro screen usability... Offer 4k and wow?
And I have to ask if 5K is just a 'bag of hurt' making everything non-apple inhospitable, incompatible or unusable - even so, the only monitor I could NOT get working with a 2016 MacBook Pro was the Apple Cinema Display despite multiple assurances from Apple support and sales that the TB adapter 'should' work, according to the TB3 standards... Is that reasonable ?
I've debated buying loaded 2013 pros and reverting to Yosemite or Mavericks 'forever', as the 'always in beta' brutality of the latest OS and hardware adoption has worn me out... Why has the last out of beta MacOS (Sierra) download been eradicated from conventional access? Is there something so bad in it, or are we are being forced to beta test with any new hardware purchase in addition to proprietary 'onboard' utter inflexibility and planned obsolescence...?
I have tested but ultimately sent back all mac hardware since 2015, having been 'onboard' since System 7, and yes every OS has had some issues, and it is increasingly complex stuff, sigh...
I've also divested all my APPL stock, despite Warren Buffet's recent enthusiasm...
The Apple 'pro' monitors I'd like to see:
27" 1440p usb3 (education - for the rest of us)
27" 2160p (4k) usb3 'retina' (consumer - for the rest of us)
40" 2160p (4k) usb3 110 dpi aka: http://us.aoc.com/product_feature.php?id=84 (prosumer - for the rest of us)
40" 8k 'retina' version of same (go nutz
When Jobs came back to Apple they were a much smaller company and it was smart to pare down to just the four models. I think that Apple could easily support two Pro machines. Hopefully they start at 128 GB for $10,000 with additional options 256 GB, 384GB, 512 GB RAM. It should offer more power than the iMacPro. I think Apple has a responsibility to offer an insanely powerful machine, but it doesn't have to be cheap. (don't expect a converted Dell at Apple)
Not the only difference. I have a 2008 Mac Pro (currently sitting idle - due to recent flakiness - maybe due to the local environment in the tropics) and I am maybe one of the few that had upgraded -- it even from day one. I upgraded the memory, and the hard drives in the first month (I don't expect hard drives to be in the case of the new Mac Pro, but maybe U.2 SSD drives). The memory I bought from Crucial, and hard drives I bought locally. I updated the video cards (2 of them) maybe 4 years into the machine. The major difference is that I was running 4 monitors, and having one built in and 3 outbound just seems hackish anyways -- I would prefer the computer and my monitors separate (more than prefer - it is almost mandatory for me). During that 10 year period using the Mac Pro 2008, I went through maybe 5 monitor replacements, 15 hard drive failures [though not sure the split from in the case and in the additional hard drive enclosure], the memory upgrades, and the video card upgrades. I have no doubt that an iMac Pro would NEVER last 10 years under the same load. I have had my Mac Pro under full load for a maximum of 6 months straight 7/24 hours. If I did that on an iMac Pro the temperatures would peak and stay there at 94C for 6 months. Basically, unless I was extremely lucky an iMac Pro equivalent would never have lasted that long. I would bet they would aim for March, a full event Macs (with the Mac Pro being the focus). And while I expect the iMac Pro to top out at well over $20K at the high end, a modular Mac Pro could easily be brought in for $3,500 at the low end. The options for the dual Xeon CPUs are still there at the low end for around the same tray price as the old cMP CPUs. It all depends on the configuration options. You can easily go modular from the low-end dual Xeon's up from $300 - $500 / CPU to $3000+ / CPU; 1 lower end video card or multiple high-end video cards; 4 x 8GB DDR4 modules or 256GB+ of memory; and of course the primary SSD. HP has equivalent Xeon workstation class and it can be configured from the same low-end I have indicated - up much higher than what Apple is likely to offer. The Mac Pro is supposed to be the catch-all product. For which cannot fit the existing product ranges are not suited -- so it should be configurable to suit. It all depends on what you term "most professionals" (how you classify them). If that were the case -- Apple would not have changed direction to build the Mac Pro. The exodus was beginning to take hold, and Apple knew it. They pre-announced it that far in advance to try and freeze the exodus. I even know of installations that prefers to put the computers in a secure computer room and run fibre to the desk for the monitors.
The 2013 Mac Pro shipped with Ivy Bridge Xeon E5 v2 CPUs and Pitcairn, Tahiti GPUs:
E5-1620 v2 4C 3.7/3.9 GHz, 10 MB L3
E5-1650 v2 6C 3.5/3.9 GHz, 15 MB L3
E5-1680 v2 8C 3.3/3.9 GHz, 20 MB L3
E5-2697 v2 12C 2.7/3.5 GHz, 30 MB L3
FirePro D300 2 GB 0.14/2.2 TFLOPS
FirePro D500 3 GB 0.56/2.2 TFLOPS
FirePro D700 6 GB 0.87/3.5 TFLOPS
Late 2014, Haswell Xeon E5 v3 CPUs and Tonga GPUs:
E5-1650 v3 6C 3.5/3.8 GHz, 15 MB L3
E5-1680 v3 8C 3.2/3.8 GHz, 20 MB L3
E5-2697 v3 14C 2.6/3.6 GHz, 35 MB L3
FirePro D500, 3 GB, 0.56/2.2 TFOP#
FirePro D700, 4 GB, 0.87/3.5 TFLOP#
FirePro W8100, 8 GB, 1.2/3.5 TFLOPS
In 2016, a move to Broadwell Xeon E5 v4 Xeon CPUs and Polaris GPUs:
E5-1650 v4, 6C, 3.6/4.0 GHz, 15 MB L3
E5-2667 v4, 8C, 3.2/3.6 GHz, 25 MB cache
E5-2697 v4, 18C, 2.3/3.6 GHz, 45 MB L3
FirePro D700, 4 GB, 0.87/3.5 TFLOPS
FirePro W8100, 5 GB, 1.2/3.5 TFLOPS
FirePro Wx7100, 8 GB, x.x/4.5 TFLOPS
By I think by late 2014 or 2015, it became obvious that the dual GPUs were the wrong bet. They could have redesigned the unified thermal core to be 1 140W Xeon and 1 250W GPU to at least take advantage of high Watt GPUs, but nope. Who knows. The future book on this Mac Pro misstep is going to be really interesting.
Or, at least a Mac Mini with the new quad-core i5 (or maybe a 6-core i9) and TB3 ports? Please?
It depends. If those 100 people include the most prominent content creators, scientists, industry leaders, etc., it very well might.
This is the whole 'pie-chart' problem I keep harping about. Pie-slice size might be an indicator or product popularity and revenues in the short term, but say little on the impact on Apple as a brand in the long-term.