Strange. The size is not the problem. The price is.
Price might a problem for YOU but NOT for professionals looking for that level of performance. It has been shown time and time again the Mac Pro is an excellent value at that level. What you want, of course, is some kind of cheap tower with a few slots you can play with. Those days a re long gone for Macs.
Apple engineers are currently developing a new Mac Pro that looks like the current design at about half the size. It’s unclear if that Mac will replace the current Mac Pro or if it’s an additional model. Apple’s chip designs could help the company reduce the size of its computers due to increased power efficiency, but the current Mac Pro is large, in part, to fit components like additional storage drives and graphics chips.
Why? I don’t buy this either, not at least the “replacement” part. Are they suggesting that Apple Silicon only have half of the PCIe lanes?
Half of the Mac Pro is taken up by the GPUs:
These are 7nm GPUs and the Xeon CPU is 14nm. Apple is making their own CPU/GPU. The only reason they use slots (Peripheral Component Interconnect) here is because all the parts come from a 3rd party. Apple has mentioned a few times in documentation to not assume integrated graphics means slower, it's just typically slow graphics chips that are integrated:
Most of the upgrade price in the current Mac Pro is sent to AMD and Intel. Apple can easily offer the highest-end current option at half the price and make more profit.
The current spec it has with 14nm Xeon and quad 14TFLOP 7nm AMD GPU is high enough for any workflow. Apple will use 5nm CPU and GPU (possibly 3nm depending on launch time) so they can cut the power usage in half and hit close to the same performance level. Half the power usage, half the size, same performance.
It could even fit in an iMac Pro but that's not ideal for using with an XDR display. Possibly the XDR display turns into an iMac Pro with standard iMac parts at the low-end. When Apple has the freedom to make their own parts, they can build whatever they want.
Apple engineers are currently developing a new Mac Pro that looks like the current design at about half the size. It’s unclear if that Mac will replace the current Mac Pro or if it’s an additional model. Apple’s chip designs could help the company reduce the size of its computers due to increased power efficiency, but the current Mac Pro is large, in part, to fit components like additional storage drives and graphics chips.
Why? I don’t buy this either, not at least the “replacement” part. Are they suggesting that Apple Silicon only have half of the PCIe lanes?
Half of the Mac Pro is taken up by the GPUs:
You're making the assumption that most buyers will put GPUs in that space. The only Mac Pros I've installed have been servers, they've got monitors but they'll be off most of the time. They get the base GPU config, lots of CPU, and RAID card for external storage because nobody trusts Apple's SSDs.
Every Apple device which had previously Intel inside, now with Apple Silicon inside will be re-imagined and redesign for smaller size,more features,better performance and higher efficiency. And hopefully, better price.
Apple engineers are currently developing a new Mac Pro that looks like the current design at about half the size. It’s unclear if that Mac will replace the current Mac Pro or if it’s an additional model. Apple’s chip designs could help the company reduce the size of its computers due to increased power efficiency, but the current Mac Pro is large, in part, to fit components like additional storage drives and graphics chips.
Why? I don’t buy this either, not at least the “replacement” part. Are they suggesting that Apple Silicon only have half of the PCIe lanes?
Half of the Mac Pro is taken up by the GPUs:
You're making the assumption that most buyers will put GPUs in that space. The only Mac Pros I've installed have been servers, they've got monitors but they'll be off most of the time. They get the base GPU config, lots of CPU, and RAID card for external storage because nobody trusts Apple's SSDs.
I'm curious, why don't people trust AppleSSDs? I haven't heard anything regarding that.
Perhaps this is the long fabled xMac that has been desired for so long by many prosumers in the Mac world!
Would be interesting to say the least. Even something that is about as functional as an iMac but with a certain amount of end-user accessibility, end-user upgradability, and modularity would be awesome. No, it doesn't have to be equal in performance or expandability to the Mac Pro, it just has to be less sealed-up than the Mini and the iMac.
I really like my iMacs, but every one has required servicing and every service issue requires a trip to the Apple Store, the loss of the computer for several days, and they always come back with smudges and bubbles under the bezel where the poor technicians had to pry the darn thing apart. And as others have said, it always seems like a waste to have to recycle an iMac that still has a beautiful screen on it even if its computing internals are scrambled.
It really would. I'd be happy with a couple of PCIe slots, a SATA bay or two, and a couple of NVME M.2 slots. A slotted GPU would make the most difference to me, as GPU speeds are advancing rapidly and even the top end ones quickly get surpassed. And if Apple get over their childish spat with Nvidia, I could use a much superior Nvidia GPU! Oh and Apple's GPU options are damn expensive too.
Both of mine have had the same. CPU failed on my 2019 one, and power supply issue after a couple of months on the 2012 one, the Apple tech didn't even bother opening up the 2012 one, he said and I quote "its such a massive hassle to get into them it's just not worth it, we'll just swap it". A few years after that the hinge spring broke, so it was always facing down. I would have fixed it myself if it wasn't so hard to get into, but Apple fixed it in the end. Came back with a scratch on the screen though, and the 2019 one came back with a chunk out the stand. Had a Macbook Pro screen swapped (delamination) at an Apple Store too, and the tech forgot to do up almost every screw. But I digress.
Yeah it really is, nothing much environmentally friendly about iMacs and other un-upgradable AIOs that's for sure.
Perhaps this is the long fabled xMac that has been desired for so long by many prosumers in the Mac world!
Would be interesting to say the least. Even something that is about as functional as an iMac but with a certain amount of end-user accessibility, end-user upgradability, and modularity would be awesome. No, it doesn't have to be equal in performance or expandability to the Mac Pro, it just has to be less sealed-up than the Mini and the iMac.
I really like my iMacs, but every one has required servicing and every service issue requires a trip to the Apple Store, the loss of the computer for several days, and they always come back with smudges and bubbles under the bezel where the poor technicians had to pry the darn thing apart. And as others have said, it always seems like a waste to have to recycle an iMac that still has a beautiful screen on it even if its computing internals are scrambled.
In case you didn't know, AppleCare+ includes onsite services for desktop and laptops.
I think it's worth it. My customers have Lenovo devices with onsite service, and the experience have been very positive. You just make a support call, wait for the part and the service representative. Priceless!
Strange. The size is not the problem. The price is.
Price might a problem for YOU but NOT for professionals looking for that level of performance. It has been shown time and time again the Mac Pro is an excellent value at that level. What you want, of course, is some kind of cheap tower with a few slots you can play with. Those days a re long gone for Macs.
The thing is that not all professionals need a workstation that starts a $6K without monitor, neither need a cheap tower as you said. Just look at HP and Lenovo workstations. They have workstations as small as the HP Z1 Mini / Lenovo ThinkStation Tiny starting at less than $1K, to the largest Z8, which can go to +$100K, and some midrange devices between those two. Apple is trying to cover the professional needs with two devices, the iMac Pro and the MacPro. IMO, two devices it's too limited. A midrange MacPro would be an excellent option for many professional.
if AppleSilicon is a lot more power efficient, most of the space now wasted on thermal management could be saved. that would result in significantly smaller systems without sacrificing anything at all
Perhaps this is the long fabled xMac that has been desired for so long by many prosumers in the Mac world!
Would be interesting to say the least. Even something that is about as functional as an iMac but with a certain amount of end-user accessibility, end-user upgradability, and modularity would be awesome. No, it doesn't have to be equal in performance or expandability to the Mac Pro, it just has to be less sealed-up than the Mini and the iMac.
I really like my iMacs, but every one has required servicing and every service issue requires a trip to the Apple Store, the loss of the computer for several days, and they always come back with smudges and bubbles under the bezel where the poor technicians had to pry the darn thing apart. And as others have said, it always seems like a waste to have to recycle an iMac that still has a beautiful screen on it even if its computing internals are scrambled.
In case you didn't know, AppleCare+ includes onsite services for desktop and laptops.
I think it's worth it. My customers have Lenovo devices with onsite service, and the experience have been very positive. You just make a support call, wait for the part and the service representative. Priceless!
You better read that link you posted:
Onsite repair for desktop computers: Request that a technician come to your work site3
Apple engineers are currently developing a new Mac Pro that looks like the current design at about half the size. It’s unclear if that Mac will replace the current Mac Pro or if it’s an additional model. Apple’s chip designs could help the company reduce the size of its computers due to increased power efficiency, but the current Mac Pro is large, in part, to fit components like additional storage drives and graphics chips.
Why? I don’t buy this either, not at least the “replacement” part. Are they suggesting that Apple Silicon only have half of the PCIe lanes?
Half of the Mac Pro is taken up by the GPUs:
These are 7nm GPUs and the Xeon CPU is 14nm. Apple is making their own CPU/GPU. The only reason they use slots (Peripheral Component Interconnect) here is because all the parts come from a 3rd party. Apple has mentioned a few times in documentation to not assume integrated graphics means slower, it's just typically slow graphics chips that are integrated:
Most of the upgrade price in the current Mac Pro is sent to AMD and Intel. Apple can easily offer the highest-end current option at half the price and make more profit.
The current spec it has with 14nm Xeon and quad 14TFLOP 7nm AMD GPU is high enough for any workflow. Apple will use 5nm CPU and GPU (possibly 3nm depending on launch time) so they can cut the power usage in half and hit close to the same performance level. Half the power usage, half the size, same performance.
It could even fit in an iMac Pro but that's not ideal for using with an XDR display. Possibly the XDR display turns into an iMac Pro with standard iMac parts at the low-end. When Apple has the freedom to make their own parts, they can build whatever they want.
Okay, let’s not be either super progressive or die hard conservative (i.e. people want dozen SATAs!), instead think more about the current requirements:
TBDR is good, but does that mean all machines need it? Laptops yes, perhaps more integrated. Workstation towers? The CPU is already 300 watts, not to mention the possibility to be upgraded in the next few years. Stucked at 8~12 cores in something designed for 28 or more isn’t good.
Integrated but dedicated GPUs? Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Not everyone need four GPUs or they may want them later on.
The bigger the heatsink, also means better the cooling, Mac Pro’s user aren’t that concerned about size. In fact it’s already oversized for Xeon-Ws, I can’t find any CPU cooler that can do better. If you can keep the current form factor, that will only leads to more powerful components or better temps.
so that’s that. If you think about the user base: you can’t build the xMac-like because that’ll against what Apple does for 23 years: mainstream desktops are great with AIOs, and now there’s iMac Pro for entry-level workstations.
People who need towers are relatively small and not so concerned about price.
I don’t see how necessary for a smaller tower, Mac Pro is already small by comparison.
So I don’t know what’s the need for a smaller tower or this is down right a fake rumor.
—— actually, while we’re talking about TBDR, how about RAM upgrade on the graphics card? No rules that said you have to use an integrated GPU to make TBDR work.
Strange. The size is not the problem. The price is.
Exactly. I can't think of anyone who has ever said "I don't want a Mac Pro because it's too big."
I DO know lots of people who didn't want the trash can Mac Pro because it was too small.
Things wrong with the current Mac Pro: 1. PRICE. 2. No hard drive bays. 3. No socket for a second processor.
With that many cores and their dedicated platform, DP isn’t necessary. If you’re going to say “faster is always better,” then there are QP or even clusters available.
Perhaps this is the long fabled xMac that has been desired for so long by many prosumers in the Mac world!
Would be interesting to say the least. Even something that is about as functional as an iMac but with a certain amount of end-user accessibility, end-user upgradability, and modularity would be awesome. No, it doesn't have to be equal in performance or expandability to the Mac Pro, it just has to be less sealed-up than the Mini and the iMac.
I really like my iMacs, but every one has required servicing and every service issue requires a trip to the Apple Store, the loss of the computer for several days, and they always come back with smudges and bubbles under the bezel where the poor technicians had to pry the darn thing apart. And as others have said, it always seems like a waste to have to recycle an iMac that still has a beautiful screen on it even if its computing internals are scrambled.
In case you didn't know, AppleCare+ includes onsite services for desktop and laptops.
I think it's worth it. My customers have Lenovo devices with onsite service, and the experience have been very positive. You just make a support call, wait for the part and the service representative. Priceless!
You better read that link you posted:
Onsite repair for desktop computers: Request that a technician come to your work site3
I miss that was only for desktops. Thanks for pointing that out. Too bad notebooks are excluded from onsite service. That's different from Lenovo, HP and Dell, that offer onsite service for desktop and laptops.
Comments
These are 7nm GPUs and the Xeon CPU is 14nm. Apple is making their own CPU/GPU. The only reason they use slots (Peripheral Component Interconnect) here is because all the parts come from a 3rd party. Apple has mentioned a few times in documentation to not assume integrated graphics means slower, it's just typically slow graphics chips that are integrated:
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/metal/gpu_selection_in_macos/understanding_gpu_bandwidth
Most of the upgrade price in the current Mac Pro is sent to AMD and Intel. Apple can easily offer the highest-end current option at half the price and make more profit.
The current spec it has with 14nm Xeon and quad 14TFLOP 7nm AMD GPU is high enough for any workflow. Apple will use 5nm CPU and GPU (possibly 3nm depending on launch time) so they can cut the power usage in half and hit close to the same performance level. Half the power usage, half the size, same performance.
It could even fit in an iMac Pro but that's not ideal for using with an XDR display. Possibly the XDR display turns into an iMac Pro with standard iMac parts at the low-end. When Apple has the freedom to make their own parts, they can build whatever they want.
You're making the assumption that most buyers will put GPUs in that space. The only Mac Pros I've installed have been servers, they've got monitors but they'll be off most of the time. They get the base GPU config, lots of CPU, and RAID card for external storage because nobody trusts Apple's SSDs.
Both of mine have had the same. CPU failed on my 2019 one, and power supply issue after a couple of months on the 2012 one, the Apple tech didn't even bother opening up the 2012 one, he said and I quote "its such a massive hassle to get into them it's just not worth it, we'll just swap it". A few years after that the hinge spring broke, so it was always facing down. I would have fixed it myself if it wasn't so hard to get into, but Apple fixed it in the end. Came back with a scratch on the screen though, and the 2019 one came back with a chunk out the stand. Had a Macbook Pro screen swapped (delamination) at an Apple Store too, and the tech forgot to do up almost every screw. But I digress.
Yeah it really is, nothing much environmentally friendly about iMacs and other un-upgradable AIOs that's for sure.
https://www.apple.com/support/products/mac/
I think it's worth it. My customers have Lenovo devices with onsite service, and the experience have been very positive. You just make a support call, wait for the part and the service representative. Priceless!
that would result in significantly smaller systems without sacrificing anything at all
TBDR is good, but does that mean all machines need it? Laptops yes, perhaps more integrated. Workstation towers? The CPU is already 300 watts, not to mention the possibility to be upgraded in the next few years. Stucked at 8~12 cores in something designed for 28 or more isn’t good.
Integrated but dedicated GPUs? Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Not everyone need four GPUs or they may want them later on.
The bigger the heatsink, also means better the cooling, Mac Pro’s user aren’t that concerned about size. In fact it’s already oversized for Xeon-Ws, I can’t find any CPU cooler that can do better. If you can keep the current form factor, that will only leads to more powerful components or better temps.
so that’s that. If you think about the user base:
you can’t build the xMac-like because that’ll against what Apple does for 23 years: mainstream desktops are great with AIOs, and now there’s iMac Pro for entry-level workstations.
People who need towers are relatively small and not so concerned about price.
I don’t see how necessary for a smaller tower, Mac Pro is already small by comparison.
So I don’t know what’s the need for a smaller tower or this is down right a fake rumor.
——
actually, while we’re talking about TBDR, how about RAM upgrade on the graphics card? No rules that said you have to use an integrated GPU to make TBDR work.
If you’re going to say “faster is always better,” then there are QP or even clusters available.