Would be nice if it had: wireless charging at the base for the phones, trudepth camera for login, and preferably some kind of wired audio out port. (The mac pro's port is too far away.)
Since Thunderbolt 3 comes from the motherboard, is it such a good idea to use as your main display connection instead of DP or HDMI which can come directly from the GPU?
A new upgradable Mac Pro is too late. Many professionals have given up on Apple's pro line, as the company focused more and more on consumers and prosumers.
Death of Pro products - xserve (killing this, harmed the 1U render farm) . I used to run a render farm using these 1Us . Also another VFX company with 500 artists used 1U supermicros with PCoIP cards to display their linux/Windows workstations to Vancouver. Not having a 1U also hampered the ability for PCoIP options for VFX houses. - xsan - xraid - MacPro , upgradable graphics card silver chassis with 4 bays - MacOSX server - Aperture (killing this was fine and ceding this market to Adobe) - The debacle from FCP 3 to FCPX (they didn't listen to their pro customers when removing features in the first iterations). Many move to Avid or Adobe because of this. - Apple Cinema Display. Not replacing it with a Pro display that can use a Thunderbolt3 bus, have 10/1 gigabit ethernet (pseudo-docking station) Not having a matte display option for professionals. Lack of fine control (RGB sliders) on the hardware monitor to color calibrate, not just in software.
Speaking from experience from an all Apple VFX shop in 2010-2012. After that it was hard to convince ANY VFX shop to be all Apple. It was nearly impossible.
It was happening long before that time period. Mostly because really powerful PCs were available with lots of slots and fast CPU/GPUs - much faster than any available Mac. 3d and VFX workers are all about speed, RAM and GPU power. I had a director working for us who also did effects. We put together a really fast Boxx system so he could use Nuke and a 3D app. There was no Mac that could match the power of that thing. I'm sure it's even worse now. Apple is so far behind in this area that it would be pointless for them to even try to catch up.
Mark my words, New Mac Pro will be AMD based + Intel TB3 standalone expansion card. Intel has no CPU to add value to current iMac Pro 18C, and also no solution will be upgrade(future Intel's CPU's will require new socket). I think it will be semi-custom models for APPLE needs (Something Between EPYC ROME ~ThreadRipper3) with 8ch memory support. Also with blazing fast NVMe storage thanks to high count AMD's Gen4 PCI-E lanes. and it's gonna be sold at nice premium price. Also Vega VII 16GB and 32GB models. P.S - as Welshdog said:
Mostly because really powerful PCs were available with lots of slots and fast CPU/GPUs - much faster than any available Mac.
New ThreadRipper with 48C~64C is coming this year(+ Gen4 PCIE), and no one will spend High premium $$$ for slower Intel based Mac Pro this year.
Would be nice if it had: wireless charging at the base for the phones, trudepth camera for login, and preferably some kind of wired audio out port. (The mac pro's port is too far away.)
I would really like to have a wireless charging mat integrated nicely in the display stand...Apple wouldn’t build this in as it would add cost that not all would want or benefit from - but if would be great if they would incorporate an edge connector on the stand’s base (ala the edge connector on iPad Pros for keyboards,etc.). Then Apple or 3rd party manufactures could make a charging mat or some accessory dock, etc. to integrate nicely on top of the displays base. Might be considered too complicated to manufacture since all the bases I’ve ever seen are metal/plastic clip ones. But if anyone is up to the task, it would be Apple. Would be a nice way to eliminate the need for one more power cable allowing one’s workspace to be a bit more tidy.
You can enable 4K on a 15” by simply using “more space” option.
Yes I know. Unfortunately that is not at (a legible for me) 110 dpi, nor does that scale equitably across cinema or thunderbolt displays in a multi-monitor setup...
Since Thunderbolt 3 comes from the motherboard, is it such a good idea to use as your main display connection instead of DP or HDMI which can come directly from the GPU?
Thunderbolt 3 video can come from a GPU or eGPU as well. Video to an external display is accelerated presently through the GPU on the iMac 5K, MacBook Pro, and using the Thunderbolt 3 Titan Ridge chipset, like the BlackMagic eGPU.
Can I hope for a laptop with a greater travel keyboard?
Seriously? I remember back in the day when yahoos on MacRumors would parachute into and hijack every single thread with the comment, "What about the Mac Pro?" It was extremely annoying and very off topic, but that didn't bother all those trolls then.
I recently looked into monitors for a little audio post suite. I discovered a couple things I didn't expect.
One is that 32" monitors present a serious size challenge in a multi-monitor setup. They're big, so they take up a lot of space. One of my clients has a nice suite with one 27" monitor and one 32". Even with a spacious desk and one smaller monitor, it's still too crowded. I have to push the big monitor out of view to have clear listening paths to all three front speakers.
Given space constraints, I narrowed my search to 27" displays. That led to the second surprise. With a 27" at roughly arm's length distance, the difference between WQHD (2560 X 1440) and 4K is not that great, at least to my eyes.
That means 6K is definitely overkill for my needs, especially if it drives the price as far up as I think it will. The 32" size might also present placement challenges for those using more than one monitor. I'm glad Apple is making a really serious monitor and don't begrudge anyone wanting what Kuo's predicting, I just kinda hope maybe they'll offer a more modest alternative as well.
Since Thunderbolt 3 comes from the motherboard, is it such a good idea to use as your main display connection instead of DP or HDMI which can come directly from the GPU?
Thunderbolt 3 video can come from a GPU or eGPU as well. Video to an external display is accelerated presently through the GPU on the iMac 5K, MacBook Pro, and using the Thunderbolt 3 Titan Ridge chipset, like the BlackMagic eGPU.
I find this a bit confusing. You can only have Thunderbolt with an Intel-based motherboard, right? That seems to be a reason given for why Apple doesn't use AMD CPUs, or have Thunderbolt on iOS. But you're saying you can (and Apple does) have Thunderbolt coming off the GPU? Do any standalone GPUs on the market offer Thunderbolt as an output? And if so, do those ports function as regular Thunderbolt ports, or display only? Is the BlackMagic eGPU Thunderbolt port fully featured or display only? How does Apple have full Thunderbolt functionality happening off a GPU port without that potentially saturating the GPU interface to the motherboard since it is potentially passing both full display and a full Thunderbolt data signal? Could you have an AMD-based motherboard and a GPU with a Thunderbolt connection?
Or are you saying that the GPU is used, but is passing the display signal back to the motherboard for sending out via Thunderbolt? In which case, that's what I'd assumed, and my original question stands, wouldn't it be more efficient to use a direct display connection coming off the GPU. Otherwise you're in a situation not a million miles off an eGPU powering a laptop display, where the video data is being bounced around, and comes with an overhead (though it might be small).
Since Thunderbolt 3 comes from the motherboard, is it such a good idea to use as your main display connection instead of DP or HDMI which can come directly from the GPU?
Thunderbolt 3 video can come from a GPU or eGPU as well. Video to an external display is accelerated presently through the GPU on the iMac 5K, MacBook Pro, and using the Thunderbolt 3 Titan Ridge chipset, like the BlackMagic eGPU.
I find this a bit confusing. You can only have Thunderbolt with an Intel-based motherboard, right? That seems to be a reason given for why Apple doesn't use AMD CPUs, or have Thunderbolt on iOS. But you're saying you can (and Apple does) have Thunderbolt coming off the GPU? Do any standalone GPUs on the market offer Thunderbolt as an output? And if so, do those ports function as regular Thunderbolt ports, or display only? Is the BlackMagic eGPU Thunderbolt port fully featured or display only? How does Apple have full Thunderbolt functionality happening off a GPU port without that potentially saturating the GPU interface to the motherboard since it is potentially passing both full display and a full Thunderbolt data signal? Could you have an AMD-based motherboard and a GPU with a Thunderbolt connection?
Or are you saying that the GPU is used, but is passing the display signal back to the motherboard for sending out via Thunderbolt? In which case, that's what I'd assumed, and my original question stands, wouldn't it be more efficient to use a direct display connection coming off the GPU. Otherwise you're in a situation not a million miles off an eGPU powering a laptop display, where the video data is being bounced around, and comes with an overhead (though it might be small).
Okay, I'm going to break this up into a few answers.
1) The Thunderbolt 3 situation with non-Intel is complicated. Short answer: at present, Intel is the best option
2) There's no compelling reason for TB3 on iOS at the moment, but there's also nothing technically preventing it. If Apple wanted to do it, it could. 3) Standalone PCI-E GPU cards for Thunderbolt 3 specifically, no, but USB-C ones are starting to ship.
4) USB-C ports on an GPU card are for alt-modes like HDMI and DisplayPort only, and not USB 3.1 connectivity. 5) I don't think I'm parsing "fully featured" right, but yes, the Blackmagic eGPU Thunderbolt port is a regular Thunderbolt port. Titan Ridge allows for the GPU on the BlackMagic eGPU unit to accelerate video on the Thunderbolt 3 port. 5) "How does Apple have full Thunderbolt functionality happening off a GPU port without that potentially saturating the GPU interface to the motherboard since it is potentially passing both full display and a full Thunderbolt data signal? " - I'm not sure what you're asking. 6) It is possible to have an AMD board, sure. It's not likely at present, but it's possible.
7) Sending info to an eGPU and then back to an internal display can be bandwidth-constrained, yes. This is why you get best performance with an external display like I said in the response because it doesn't have to get sent back across Thunderbolt. The overhead depends a lot on what's being done, or what calculations are being performed.
Mac Pro with a base price of $1499; fully loaded $9,999
21" 4K display, $999 (preferably $799)
27" 5K display, $1499 (preferably $999)
32" 6K display, $1999 (preferably $1499)
Exactly: we need more than one just size fits all. I personally prefer to use 2 x 21 inch displays --- I don't want a 31 inch display. Others will be different. Behold the ecosystem revive again.
Would be nice if it had: wireless charging at the base for the phones, trudepth camera for login, and preferably some kind of wired audio out port. (The mac pro's port is too far away.)
I would really like to have a wireless charging mat integrated nicely in the display stand...
Oh good lord - please no wireless crap radiating my head in a monitor. I've already ripped the wi-fi crap out of the Mac Pro, and have my desk and home free of any wi-fi emitting radiation. Bliss.
5) "How does Apple have full Thunderbolt functionality happening off a GPU port without that potentially saturating the GPU interface to the motherboard since it is potentially passing both full display and a full Thunderbolt data signal? " - I'm not sure what you're asking.
This is probably getting a little niche, and therefore not necessarily a concern, but as I understand it, if you use an eGPU (like the BlackMagic) and you don't have a display connec ted to the eGPU, then then the eGPU will work, but will have to pass the processed video back to the Mac so that it can power the integrated display, or a display connected to another port (not sure why you'd do the latter, but including for completeness). And if the BlackMagic Thunderbolt port is a full spec port then instead of a display you could have anything attached, possibly something that uses a lot of the available bandwidth. I was just wondering if there is a bottleneck there, as the BlackMagic (or any similar eGPU) would be sending data back to the Mac that includes the display output and a data signal. I wonder which would be throttled, whether you'd see display issues, or your data coming through at a lower speed.
Probably academic, sorry, I got a bit carried away with the wondering
7) Sending info to an eGPU and then back to an internal display can be bandwidth-constrained, yes. This is why you get best performance with an external display like I said in the response because it doesn't have to get sent back across Thunderbolt. The overhead depends a lot on what's being done, or what calculations are being performed.
This is why I'm a bit confused. If the Thunderbolt ports on a Mac (maybe specific to Macs with a discrete GPU?) are off the motherboard, then any display attached via Thunderbolt/USB-C is presumably going to have a similar effect, even if the GPU is internal, so the display signal goes: CPU -> GPU -> CPU -> Display rather than (e.g. if you used a HDMI port that comes directly off the GPU) CPU -> GPU -> Display Isn't that going to introduce an overhead?
DisplayPort 1.4 has a max resolution of 7680x4320 at 60Hz.
So with that resolution DisplayPort 1.4 could potentially go up to 8K. Too bad we are going up to 6K next. Would any existing eGPUs support a 6K monitor? How about the "BlackMagic eGPU Pro"? Since Apple helped make that eGPU, and Apple knew 6K was coming, perhaps it's capable of 6K?
A lot of them will support that. It just depends of how. These GPUs support two to three 4K displays now. With DisplayPort 1.4, it shouldn’t be a problem to support one 6k and one 4K display together.
Mac Pro with a base price of $1499; fully loaded $9,999
21" 4K display, $999 (preferably $799)
27" 5K display, $1499 (preferably $999)
32" 6K display, $1999 (preferably $1499)
Add $1,000 to those prices, and you’ll be a lot closer. Except for the small display, which they won’t produce.
Yeah they're living in a complete fantasy land if they think Apple will price its displays at that. I doubt these displays will be marketed toward consumers. These sound like very high-end displays.
Comments
navi is mid range, ie iMac territory.
Intel has no CPU to add value to current iMac Pro 18C, and also no solution will be upgrade(future Intel's CPU's will require new socket).
I think it will be semi-custom models for APPLE needs (Something Between EPYC ROME ~ThreadRipper3) with 8ch memory support.
Also with blazing fast NVMe storage thanks to high count AMD's Gen4 PCI-E lanes. and it's gonna be sold at nice premium price.
Also Vega VII 16GB and 32GB models.
P.S - as Welshdog said:
New ThreadRipper with 48C~64C is coming this year(+ Gen4 PCIE), and no one will spend High premium $$$ for slower Intel based Mac Pro this year.
P.S:
TB on ThreadRipper platform:
"Here we show off the Gigabyte Designare X399 w/the Gigabyte Alpine Ridge TB controller. "
https://level1techs.com/video/where-thunderbolt-threadripper-here-it
One is that 32" monitors present a serious size challenge in a multi-monitor setup. They're big, so they take up a lot of space. One of my clients has a nice suite with one 27" monitor and one 32". Even with a spacious desk and one smaller monitor, it's still too crowded. I have to push the big monitor out of view to have clear listening paths to all three front speakers.
Given space constraints, I narrowed my search to 27" displays. That led to the second surprise. With a 27" at roughly arm's length distance, the difference between WQHD (2560 X 1440) and 4K is not that great, at least to my eyes.
That means 6K is definitely overkill for my needs, especially if it drives the price as far up as I think it will. The 32" size might also present placement challenges for those using more than one monitor. I'm glad Apple is making a really serious monitor and don't begrudge anyone wanting what Kuo's predicting, I just kinda hope maybe they'll offer a more modest alternative as well.
Or are you saying that the GPU is used, but is passing the display signal back to the motherboard for sending out via Thunderbolt? In which case, that's what I'd assumed, and my original question stands, wouldn't it be more efficient to use a direct display connection coming off the GPU. Otherwise you're in a situation not a million miles off an eGPU powering a laptop display, where the video data is being bounced around, and comes with an overhead (though it might be small).
3) Standalone PCI-E GPU cards for Thunderbolt 3 specifically, no, but USB-C ones are starting to ship.
5) I don't think I'm parsing "fully featured" right, but yes, the Blackmagic eGPU Thunderbolt port is a regular Thunderbolt port. Titan Ridge allows for the GPU on the BlackMagic eGPU unit to accelerate video on the Thunderbolt 3 port.
5) "How does Apple have full Thunderbolt functionality happening off a GPU port without that potentially saturating the GPU interface to the motherboard since it is potentially passing both full display and a full Thunderbolt data signal? " - I'm not sure what you're asking.
6) It is possible to have an AMD board, sure. It's not likely at present, but it's possible.
7) Sending info to an eGPU and then back to an internal display can be bandwidth-constrained, yes. This is why you get best performance with an external display like I said in the response because it doesn't have to get sent back across Thunderbolt. The overhead depends a lot on what's being done, or what calculations are being performed.
Exactly: we need more than one just size fits all. I personally prefer to use 2 x 21 inch displays --- I don't want a 31 inch display. Others will be different. Behold the ecosystem revive again.
I've already ripped the wi-fi crap out of the Mac Pro, and have my desk and home free of any wi-fi emitting radiation. Bliss.
Probably academic, sorry, I got a bit carried away with the wondering
This is why I'm a bit confused. If the Thunderbolt ports on a Mac (maybe specific to Macs with a discrete GPU?) are off the motherboard, then any display attached via Thunderbolt/USB-C is presumably going to have a similar effect, even if the GPU is internal, so the display signal goes:
CPU -> GPU -> CPU -> Display
rather than (e.g. if you used a HDMI port that comes directly off the GPU)
CPU -> GPU -> Display
Isn't that going to introduce an overhead?
A lot of them will support that. It just depends of how. These GPUs support two to three 4K displays now. With DisplayPort 1.4, it shouldn’t be a problem to support one 6k and one 4K display together.