bkkcanuck

anome said:

I got the impression from the first time they said "modular" that this is the kind of approach they would go for. A central processing box, with connectivity to external storage, graphics, etc. I was surprised at how many people thought "modular" meant a cheesegrater-like box. The cheesegrater isn't really modular.

I think their way to accommodate the many different "Professional" users out there is to provide for different external units that plug in over TB3. People who aren't doing video or graphics work (and even some who do) will be fine with the internal GPU, for others there are the eGPUs. Similarly if you're working with audio, plug in an external DSP or hardware encoder.

Then, when there are new processors available, you upgrade the central box, and keep all the peripherals, provided TB3 is available. Yes, that is a risk, but any future version is likely to stay backwards-compatible, and the worst outcome is you buy a (GASP!) dongle. I expect, however, the USB-C connector will stay for a while. Maybe as long as the USB-A connector has.

Simply put, the reason why people think modular means something different than the Mac Pro 2013 is because of the big deal of inviting video creation press in for a big pow wow and basically trying to freeze the people in place because they had backed themselves into a corner and they were going back to the drawing board.  People hoped, maybe delusionally so that that meant they were going back to the machine before... The fact is that the manufacturing lines etc. are all torn down, the factories moved and just going back is not an option.  I think there is room for a modular machine that is not modular in a Mac Pro 2013 way, it is not going back to the Cheesegrater and will satisfy the needs of those that need to seed their own GPU card different than what is available (upgradeable).   The compute units (GPU, CPU, TPU, etc) are the only ones that really are problematic moving across a Thunderbolt connectivity.   I don't know what Apple is doing, but if it is just a headless iMac Pro or bigger trash can - then I think Apple will have wasted all their good will for those that despised the Mac Pro 2013.  In that case, they really should not have done the press event with the 5 because it would not have been worth anyones time.  

People that believe the Mac Pro Cheesegrater (2008, 2010) were the king of modularity -- I think are also delusional.  Let us face it once you put two GPU cards in the machine all that was left was one gimped PCIe slot that could not even handle the full bandwidth for a SAS controller.  The outboard expandability was limited to USB2 (maybe 3 on 2010).  Those that want incase hard drive disk space - are also delusional.  Spinning rust is best handled in its own specialised enclosures... there is a lot of mechanical vibrations that should not be mounted inside the computer.  Thunderbolt is a great mechanism for expansion -- but for compute units that should sit close to the CPU... it is a massive massive compromise just to fit a certain form.  For everything else, Thunderbolt is a great solution.

There is room for a 3rd way - not the Mac Pro 2013 model, not the Mac Pro Cheesegrater... I will just wait to see what it is.  

macplusplus said:

One thing is clear: the GPU must be put as closer to the CPU as possible, Xeons don't have integrated GPUs. Once you get the GPU soldered on board (or socketed, preferably), it does not matter much whether the second, third, nth... GPUs are attached via TB3, or PCIe direct slot or M.2, M.n... or whatever... The Thermal Core architecture provides a unified cooling solution for both the CPU and the GPUs (even double!) and I don't expect that will change much in the new Mac Pro. If you separate the GPU from the main board just because your expensive titanic GPU card comes with its own cooling motor, then this is a big compromise.

I would agree with you. When they had the meeting with the 'pros' (gang of 5), and more or less made it be known that they have finally accepted the Mac Pro 2013 was a failure (though they would not put it in those words) and they emphasised that it would be a new modular Mac Pro... I took it to mean that it would not be modular in the same way as the Mac Pro 2013 was modular. The fact that they went back to the drawing board (long release) more or less gave me the impression that it would not be modular in the same way that the cheesgrater Mac Pro was modular (if it was they would have released something sometime in 2018). Therefore what we are getting is something new. I have reasonable confidence that they will not gimp the GPUs by running them over the current Thunderbolt standard which degrades high end graphics cards by about 30% but I don't know how they will implement it. There are high capacity - ultra low latency bus technology available -- but I don't think it is currently in the pricing range of any Mac hardware (pro or otherwise). I see no reason to have in-case spinning rust (it is always best done through separate enclosures anyways), but whether they will have additional U.2 expansion for SSD is anyones guess. We will just have to wait and pray.

tipoo said:

100 dollars for 10 gig ethernet is actually a killer deal, no? 

It was a few years ago, but a Sonnet solution over Thunderbolt 2 off a Mac Pro was like 900 dollars to get 10 gig. 

I costs $200+ for a quality PCIe NIC...  so $100 built in is quite reasonable.... 

hattig said:

Wait, is that $200 to add 128GB to the SSD? Sheesh.

It would have been nice to see an option with discrete graphics - say that small Vega 16/20 that is coming to the MacBook Pros.

But, failing that, how about an eGPU in a matching case that you can stack under the Mac Mini? A tiny thunderbolt cable between the two (shame there isn't a direct PCIe slot for this built into the base of the Mac Mini to avoid the cable and thunderbolt), and boom, nice setup with GPU.

Not the market this machine is aimed for... there is still the missing piece ... the modular mac pro... if you want discrete graphics internally... that is what that machine will be for (IMHO).  You are trying to 'adapt' the Mac Mini to what it is not meant for.  

You forgot that included in the increase in price is the SSD (not spinning rust), 8GB of RAM instead of 4GB, and the quad-core not the anaemic 2 core CPU.

entropys said:

Pro users don’t buy NUCs like this mini.

I need a new machine real soon now, but will wait to see what the iMac is like, my current iMac is dying from overuse.  
If I had to buy a machine right now, it would be the i7 mini with minimum ram and ssd. I will update the ram myself. I will wait until someone comes up with a matching external TB3 case that stacks with the mini in space grey, and add an external M.2 SSD. I currently boot my old iMac off a TB2 external SSD anyway, but I would like better than SATA.  No way am I paying Apple’s evil prices for ram and ssd. And if I wanted a dedicated GPU, I am sure there will end up a eGPU case that matches too.

Cook is making it real hard not to switch to the dark side. The prices are getting stupidly expensive.

Thanks for talking for all us 'pro' users again...  not all 'pro' users are video professional creative 'pro's.

The mac mini is most widely used by professionals for specific purposes... which is why Apple pivoted the niche that the little Mac Mini is for.  

I will be buying one of the i7/32GB RAM ones 'for professional purposes'.  I know of another company that will order a significant number more than me (by the skid).