New Mac Pro release date, rumours and leaked images

[Michaelgtrusa]

This sounds good. http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/?newsid=3418637

[Jake0604]

Pictures are totally legit

[Peace]

Deceptive article.
It says "leaked images" when in fact they are simply concepts from someone.

[jessica.]

These look like concept drawings but I question a snap together module workstation. Either way, there need to be more MP rumors for sure! PS change your thread title to at least lead with "rumor" or something less matter-of-fact.

[JesterJJZ]

Nothing new here at all...move along...

[wonderspark]

Haaaaa, you got me. I clicked your link thinking it was new info. Nicely done.

[ActionableMango]

Mostly crap, but it was worth a look just to see the Lego Mac Pro!

[calaverasgrande]

the snap together modular idea is cute. But in practice it will introduce many more points of failure. Connections that can be filled with dust, coffee, peanut butter and so on.
It doesn't confer any real benefits unless there is an ability to stack multiple CPU units and/or multiple PCIe card units. To accomplish this would require something about 10 times more bandwidth than TB.

The best we can hope for is a continued existence of the Mac Pro with a more recent vintage CPU.

I would love to see a smaller form factor with some of the fat trimmed, as well as inclusion of TB and USB3.0.

[deconstruct60]

Originally Posted by Michaelgtrusa

This sounds good. http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/?newsid=3418637

Sounds like clueless nonsense. Not only is this not new info, it is wrong on numerous fronts.

The -E -EP and -EX lines are three different line-ups. Only the -E and -EP have archtiectural similarities. Apple is in no way shape or form waiting on anything -EX. Nothing. -EX is not even material to the topic AT ALL.

Similarly. Ivy Bridge processors don't support USB; let alone USB 3.0. The IOHUB chipsets support USB ( and version 3.0). The C600 chipset that Xeon E5 use for Sandy Bridge will likely also be used for Ivy Bridge ( v2). If Intel follows normal practice there is only one server chipset for the whole tick/tock cycle. There is likely no new IOHUB chipset coming until Haswell (2014 earliest ).

Apple doesn't need it integrated in the chipset. All of the other Xeon E5 workstations vendors (Dell, HP, etc. ) have managed to deploy 2012 workstations with discrete USB 3.0 controllers. Apple doesn't really have an excuse here other than laziness. It isn't like the Mac Pro motherboard is extremely pressed for space.


The modular stuff is just goofiness. It makes for nice page view (and hence ad view) trolling though. Besides not aligned with Apple seamless case design objectives it would largely just drive up costs. The last thing the Mac Pro needs is gratuitous cost increases.

It would be far more simpler and straightforward to make make 2-3 different cases. In so far that the Mac Pro volumes had trouble justifying one case design .... going to 3 is dubiously market motivated.


".... One thing about the Mac Pro update in June really didn't make sense. It didn't include a Thunderbolt port. ... "

An exceeding dubious statement since Thunderbolt solves no problem that the Mac Pro has. The Mac Pro has PCI-e sockets. The Mac Pro has multiple video outputs. To a large extent it is gratuitous uniformity that pounds the table for Thunderbolt for the Mac Pro. Let alone the fact that the June update was just a speed bump. Why would it have any other port not previously present.

If want to point to something that could have been updated if had planned ahead was the video card trapped in time. Not the lack of Thunderbolt.

" ... However, Apple may update to the PCIE3 standard, which will offer 40 lanes per socket, rather than the usual 36, we wrote in June 2012. ... "

Bubbling babbling BS. If update to the Xeon E5 processors then automatically get PCIe-v3. The PCI-e v3 standard says diddly squat about 40 lanes. Again it is a property of Intel's implementation of the Xeon E5.
The lanes-per-socket attribute is new. Back when Xeon 3600-5600 class ( and previous ) the "usual 36" were provided by a northbridge IO cihp.

" ... but we aren't completely convinced that Apple will remove the optical drive from the Mac Pro. ... "

The current Mac Pro has two ODD bays. It isn't "the" optical drive. Apple could remove one drive bay and still have one left. Apple could easily drop the bay being configured at being parts of the default configurations and still hit folks up for BTO ODD configs with $79.00 Superdrives. ( There are other workstation vendors that leave ODDs off the basic configs. )

An ODD for software install is dubious. If have another Mac that one will also benefit from an external ODD. By once and use on multiple Macs is actually more cost effective than buying it multiple times to do installs.

Mac Pro users being more likely in the class to have to burn ODDs for clients would actually be a creditable argument.

[SDAVE]

These kinds of "concepts" have been on the web since the early 2000's.

[PowerPCMacMan]

Do we move along and ignore these assumptions of the 2013 Mac Pro, or do we keep an open mind as to what the final product will look like? Its obvious that there might be a redesign of the case with fewer expansion capabilities making the new Mac Pro just as proprietary and non-upgradable as the iMac or Mac Mini.

I am not buying the credible evidence of the article showing all this babbling BS. We simply don't know what the Mac Pro will look like or even resemble. Frankly, since I use my 2010 6-core for mostly file and print server support to my PowerPC Macs I use, I probably won't jump on the 2013 Mac Pro if one does indeed come out.

I also don't do as much video rendering and encoding as I used to, so I even wasted money on the 6-core w3680 chip.

As far as Haswell, I think its safe to assume the direction Apple is heading to.. and its not with the Mac platform, rather its integrating IOS and the i-toys with the Mac OS and making more "toy-like" than professional.

I have said it once and will say it again.. Snow Leopard and Leopard are the last true versions of Mac OS X before the IOS stuff.. Who knows what the Mac Pro for 2013 will resemble or even look like?

----------

I agree.. nothing indeed... lets all just move along... We simply don't know what the 2013 Mac Pro will resemble or look like, for all we know it will be a rack mount server machine and it won't be pretty..

God help Apple if they end upgrading as an option with this new Mac Pro.. changing the processor for a faster one, adding optical drives, or taking away the ability to use PCIe video cards...

Welcome to the new iMac Pro in that case.

Originally Posted by JesterJJZ

Nothing new here at all...move along...

[BJNY]

I would love rackmountable enclosure, and Thunderbolt + USB 3.0

[d-m-a-x]

I saw this photo on Mac Rumors about three months ago. From what i remember it was a users concept. Looks like it came around full circle.

I'm starting to think the plane has already crashed into the side of the mountain. Most people in the photo industry think than apple does not even make towers anymore

[PowerPCMacMan]

We just have to wait and see! I am in absolutely no rush to get the 2013 Mac Pro since I hardly make use of my 6-core Mac Pro.. I only got the 6-core w3680 to prolong my Mac Pro.. While I do use it for encoding and video rendering, I have lost some interest in it and now my Mac Pro is relegated to file server and print server to my PowerPC Macs I currently use.

On occasion, I will boot into bootcamp and play some windows games, but thats about it for right now.

[calaverasgrande]

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

".... One thing about the Mac Pro update in June really didn't make sense. It didn't include a Thunderbolt port. ... "

An exceeding dubious statement since Thunderbolt solves no problem that the Mac Pro has. The Mac Pro has PCI-e sockets. The Mac Pro has multiple video outputs. To a large extent it is gratuitous uniformity that pounds the table for Thunderbolt for the Mac Pro. Let alone the fact that the June update was just a speed bump. Why would it have any other port not previously present.

If want to point to something that could have been updated if had planned ahead was the video card trapped in time. Not the lack of Thunderbolt.

I agree with most of what you wrote here, except this.
How can Apple continue to justify that the flagship Computing device it sells does not feature it's highest speed data interconnect?
Apple is killing off firewire. The 3rd party companies that make the external devices for content creation pros are all shifting to Thunderbolt.
Sure you can buy audio or video boxes that use firewire, and will work just dandy with a current Mac Pro, but why would you buy something that is already obsolete?

Instead of asking what problems does TB solve, ask how likely it is that Apple will continue to put firewire on anything?

You also have to consider that folks are already using TB drives in the field, then using them as a project delivery medium to folks that sit in offices with Mac Pros. When it happens to us at my job we have to pull one of our loaner MBPs and use it to mount the drive to the network. Then pull the stuff over to our Macintoshes shared volume
The Mac Pros are helpless!

[scottrichardson]

Here it is folks - the 2013 Mac Pro Lineup.



I included the left most one as a way to continue support for optical drives and users who require them, however the 'new' designs are the two on the right.

The taller unit is the same height as the old mac pro, only the handles are lower profile. With the removal of optical drives, it enabled the chassis to be limited mostly by the PCIe slot width. It has 4 PCIe 3.0 slots and 5 drive bays.

The shorter unit has only 2 PCIe 3.0 slots and 3 drive bays.

My concept for the internals would be a 'modular' 3-module system with layers, vertically adjacent to each other. You pull off the side and then can access each of the following modules:

- CPU / RAM
- Hard Drive Bays
- PCI Expansion

Each one slides out to allow you each upgrade/repairs. Then slides back in and connects to a back-plane.

Hope you like it.

Scott

[simsaladimbamba]

That MacWorld article is a derivative of this blog post from last October, which also has been discussed here.

[ChristianJapan]

Originally Posted by scottrichardson

Here it is folks - the 2013 Mac Pro Lineup.

...
Hope you like it.

Oh yes, that would be amazing. But Apple would really surprise us all with such a setup. Nice concept though.
And please add: rack mounting kit available

[Umbongo]

Originally Posted by calaverasgrande

How can Apple continue to justify that the flagship Computing device it sells does not feature it's highest speed data interconnect?

The Mac Pro is not Apple's flagship product. The Macintosh was many years ago, but the Mac Pro never has been. It is just something they make to support the needs of a niche part of their customer base.

[Wardenski]

I can't see the next Mac Pro being much different to the current one.

I would like the Mac Pro to be more square with space being utilised in every location minus the four corners for the handles. If you filled in the space between the two top and bottom handles I reckon you could fit an extra 12 HDs in there.

Introducing differently sized enclosures is silly for the Mac Pro line up. It would be like introducing differently sized Mac Minis: Mac Nano, Mac Micro and Mac Milli.

[deconstruct60]

Originally Posted by Wardenski

I would like the Mac Pro to be more square with space being utilised in every location minus the four corners for the handles.

Doesn't make sense when many of the major components by volume are not square. PCI-e cards, storage ( HDDs/SDDs), power supply(s), PCI-e slot layout , RAM+CPU layout are not square, etc. . To inject "squareness" to contain non square items is a dubious design choice.

Additionally, another primary design constrait is that the box stand upright. Squareness limits the height or explodes the width and depth (if allow height to grow). It introduces coupling where it is not required.

The NeXT cube and the Mac cube were both bad ideas for computer form factors.

If you filled in the space between the two top and bottom handles I reckon you could fit an extra 12 HDs in there.

Is it suppose to be a workstation or a NAS/SAN box? 12 storage devices is a change in mission.

Introducing differently sized enclosures is silly for the Mac Pro line up. It would be like introducing differently sized Mac Minis: Mac Nano, Mac Micro and Mac Milli.

If the market were large enough and the fratricide/cannibalization with other Mac products low enough then it would make just as much sense as:

iPod shuffle , nano , Touch
MBP 13" , 15" ( , formerly 17" )
iMac 21" , 27" ( , formerly 17" )

Like the Mini though the total number sold is relatively small (relative to laptops and iMac ) and subsegmenting is likely not very expansive. Not expansive for a couple of reasons. First, dealing with market pricing boundaries (on low end for Mini and high end for Mac Pro). Second, desktop growth is slowing. Subsetting a market transitioning to being flat, or worse shrinking, is a bad idea.

It does make sense to have more overlapping models in the laptop segment because that segment is growing at a much higher rate. However, even in laptops Apple has started the culling processing with the removal of the MBP 17". The overlap in the 13" and 15" space will be resolved in the next couple of years also as laptops start to plateau.


Parts wise there is a natural way to split the Mac Pro. E5 2600 (in pairs) , E5 1600 , and E3 1200 would present three distinct offerings in performance and I/O bandwidth (on I/O 80 , 40 , 20 PCi-e lanes respectively). That would align naturally with Papa bear , Momma bear , Baby bear line up of associated cases. The core issue though is whether enough folks would show up and buy them in significant numbers to offset the allocation of the additional scarce resources available. ( the money isn't a material as the folks Apple has available to assign. They run a lean company. )

[deconstruct60]

Originally Posted by calaverasgrande

I agree with most of what you wrote here, except this.
How can Apple continue to justify that the flagship Computing device it sells does not feature it's highest speed data interconnect?

As pointed out it isn't a flagship product. Biggest and heaviest isn't even flagship in naval terms.

Apple is killing off firewire.

No, the marketplace is killing off Firewire. Apple is largely just reflecting what most folks are buying and system vendors are deploying.

The 3rd party companies that make the external devices for content creation pros are all shifting to Thunderbolt.

The vast majority of these vendors all sold PCI-e cards. The thunderbolt devices are pragmatically these same PCI-e cards wrapped in an external container. If you need the functionality it is availble in two forms. The Mac Pro already takes the PCI-e card form factor of their solutions. Most shops oriented around the Mac Pro already have them. That makes those Thunderbolt form factor devices redundant and better matched to the Macs without PCI-e slots.

For example, Blackmagic Intensity.

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/intensity/

the Intensity Pro (PCI-e card ) and Intensity Extreme (Thunderbolt ) take the same breakout cable. There is no in bandwidth. This pattern repeats itself for the large majority of offerings in the A/V capture space.

The huge problem is the many folks fixate on storage which is slightly different due to the connector being nominally hidden from view. The TB storage solutions are PCI-e eSATA/RAID card solutions repackaged. The external eSATA/SAS connector disappears inside the box. However, the SATA/SAS connect is still present on the drives.

So for example the BlackMagic Cinema camera ( http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/prod...acamera/design) takes an internal SSD drive for storage. That drive moved to a SATA enclosed connected to a Mac Pro is perfectly viable "sneaker net" solution to the transport of that data.

Similarly a Seagate GoFlex with a Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 connector could be used in a "sneakernet" set up for the core SATA USM modules being moved around.

Similarly a

Sure you can buy audio or video boxes that use firewire, and will work just dandy with a current Mac Pro, but why would you buy something that is already obsolete?

It is far more likely with higher end A/V capture cards that it is proprietary, non standard, connectors that you are buying. This issue that primarily matters is having that particular vendor's connector. I think you are looking at the wrong end of the box.

Instead of asking what problems does TB solve, ask how likely it is that Apple will continue to put firewire on anything?

This is just misdirection. First, these are all tools. Matching the right tools to the right job is the primary task to be undertakend. Second, there is a better than 50/50 chance that the Mac Pro will have Firewire. The Mac Mini has it and has plenty of room on the Mac Pro edges for at least 2 Firewire (there are 4 ports now. Dropping down to 2 would actually be simpler and more cost effective to do than doing the current 4. ). Third if there was some huge driving market demand for combo USB 3.0 + Firewire card they would pop up for a PCI-e slot enabled Mac Pro.

You also have to consider that folks are already using TB drives in the field,

Two factors. First, in the context of current Mac Pro ( and competitive workstations ) user base which is the larger group.

Group A : have PCI-e cards that connect to SATA standard drives
Group B : have drives where the only way to extract data is solely from a TB connection.

The answer should be relatively obvious. Retreating into the very small corner case where the importance of Thunderbolt is overinflated doesn't justify Thunderbolt in the overall market.


Second, there are no pure TB drives. There are SATA drives inside of TB enclosures but there are not TB drives. So you do run into an issue if the embedded SATA/RAID controller writes the data onto the standards based SATA drives that you cannot read the data on the drives if those drives are moved to another enclosure/adapter. However, if the data is written in a standard readable format the drives themselves can be read by a Mac Pro with a suitable adapter and/or drive sled. So the root cause issue on something like a Promise TB enclosure data being encoded in that controllers RAID layout format is the root cause issue. Not the lack of Thunderbolt.

Anyone who captures data into a proprietary format suffers the lock-in of that format. But that is a choice. There is little to no requirement that lock-in formats be used in disk file layout.

The Mac Pros are helpless!

It isn't the Mac Pro's that are primarily constrained. If problem solving is reduced to matching the logos on the connectors on the cables to the one's on the sockets on the box then yeah there are limitations.

[brentsg]

Wow, I was on the fence.. But if it's made of Legos I'm definitely in.

[dpny]

Originally Posted by Umbongo

The Mac Pro is not Apple's flagship product. The Macintosh was many years ago, but the Mac Pro never has been. It is just something they make to support the needs of a niche part of their customer base.

Well said: I've tried to explain this to people in various ways with varying degrees of success. I think there's a hangover from people old enough to remember the days when Power Macs of various forms were Apple's flagship product. Seems these people have trouble imaging a world in which a big desktop box is not only not the flagship, but is by far the lowest selling hardware Apple sells.

I did some back of the envelope calculations a while ago and got Mac Pro sales at about 5% of Apple's revenue. Given that number it becomes reasonable to ask whether or not it makes financial sense for Apple to keep developing them.

[scottrichardson]

Single & Dual Processor Configurations...