From Facebook's "We Want a New Mac Pro"

-hh · Jun 6, 2013

(on my growth in storage capacity of my old G5)

deconstruct60 said:
It couldn't possibly be actually expanding the number of drives over that lifecycle. That significant amount of that is technically not expansion but upgrades of the same fixed number of drives. Those are two different things.

Actually, it was both. The default configuration was a single HDD with a second available bay...and IIRC, it originally shipped with a 160GB, which over time did get bumped to a 250, then 500, then 750 then 1TB.

However, the number of internal bays on a G5 can be increased from 2 to 5 with a Sonnet G5 Jive (and a PCI card). I ran with 5 for awhile, but found that it had thermal problems, so I backed down to 4, and shifted it into a Firewire external. Counting the other FW externals, I had at least six more bays that way.

-hh

.:Aleph:. · Jun 6, 2013

KaraH said:
I would be surprised if it was not the same price points or at least not much of a variance. While the MP market is less price-sensitive than the iMac market things like new computers need to be budgeted for in advance.

yoak said:
Who cares?

And what display will you be using with it?

ibgb · Jun 6, 2013

arogge said:
A lack of internal expansion room is a non-starter. How would you run an external storage array that requires an adapter card? How would you install SAS disks? Graphics cards? Audio/Video capture cards? Not everything can be done with a one-button approach to market compatibility. The only way that would work is if Apple intends to deliver some sort of server platform to compliment a desktop system.

HP microserver (gen 7 ~$270, gen 8 out this month ~$440) + Freenas.

Gen 8 has dual ethernet, ecc ram, pcie expandability. Now if they had one with Thunderbolt for io + ethernet....

KaraH · Jun 6, 2013

.:Aleph:. said:
And what display will you be using with it?

A monitor? What do you use, telekinesis?

.:Aleph:. · Jun 6, 2013

KaraH said:
A monitor? What do you use, telekinesis?

Goodness. Display here is the synonym of monitor model. If you prefer it that way.

KaraH · Jun 6, 2013

sjinsjca said:
Big honking processor, lots of RAM (probably soldered for reliability), fast SSD, great GPU. And Thunderbolt for everything else including a PCIe crate and/or drive bays.

There are many good things about this. Thunderbolt is basically PCIe-on-a-wire (or fiber). So this approach lets the costs of expandability be borne by those who want it at the time they need it while allowing essentially unlimited expandability.

In one fell swoop Apple will have replaced both the pro and the XServe with something far superior to both.

There will be a lot of whining (it's starting already) but it will be awesome.

*glug* *glug* *glug*

I fail to see how soldered on memory (so you can not buy more or get it cheaper) is any better than using a socket. I have yet to have a memory chip fall out of any of my machines. The same with using thunderbolt for practically everything.

So count me in the whiners if you must. I would rather have the current pro with modern specs and I do not even need it for my income.

.:Aleph:. said:
Goodness. Display here is the synonym of monitor model. If you prefer it that way.

I do not plan to buy the monitor until nearer to when I buy the MP anyway (or at least see the specs) so fail to see how it makes a difference. Why have a monitor on my desk hooked up to nothing when I do not even know what connector the tower will have?

GermanyChris · Jun 6, 2013

.:Aleph:. said:
And what display will you be using with it?

Does it matter which display/display's?

Were you going to make a pricing argument or a display quality argument? If so make it...

thekev · Jun 6, 2013

KaraH said:
*glug* *glug* *glug*

I fail to see how soldered on memory (so you can not buy more or get it cheaper) is any better than using a socket. I have yet to have a memory chip fall out of any of my machines. The same with using thunderbolt for practically everything.

So count me in the whiners if you must. I would rather have the current pro with modern specs and I do not even need it for my income.

I've seen bad ram before. Much of the time it's bad on arrival rather than ram that fails later. You also see a lot of people complain about kernel panics on here when they upgrade ram without testing first. As for soldered, many people have made claims of higher performance or reliability. On performance, none of the benchmarks back it up. It's always possible future specs will use soldered memory, but they only soldered it on current machines to shave 1mm of machine density.

As for soldering specifically on a workstation, it's the dumbest comment of the day due to the sheer range of users. Notebooks can't go higher than 16GB. They can technically go 32, but no mac notebooks accept 4 sodimms, so they'll never go past 16 in the current generation. Mac Pros are highly scalable in that regard, and many use cases do use a huge amount of memory.

deconstruct60 · Jun 6, 2013

arogge said:
A lack of internal expansion room is a non-starter. How would you run an external storage array that requires an adapter card?

Actually, Thunderbolt is a better solution for finicky proprietary adapter cards. External Thunderbolt devices that are primarly just external PCI-e switches design is basically driven by:

step 0: taking an exisiting PCI-e card and external connectors/mechanism/etc.

step 1: refactoring the card to place it inside the internal box (i.e., in essence move the card out of the Mac pro and put it inside the other box).
Remove the PCI-e card edge. Attached the SATA/disk/etc controller to the TB controller. Add necessary TB infrastructure for routing DispalyPort / Power , etc.

step 2: tweak power supply in internal box for new components and tweak PCI-e drivers so that can deal with hot-plug events (i.e., pay attention to rest of PCI-e standards that ignored as not being relevant because hard plugged. )

Ta-da done.

For example Intensity Pro and Intensity Extreme.

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

Look at the edges. The Thunderbolt model has a TB connector but otherwise exactly the same. Specs? Same. Adapter cable buy to connect to sources? Same.

So when have card that only works with the specific set of boxes, how much more simpler could it be if bundle proprietary card inside of proprietary box and leave just an quasi standard interface on the outside? If they can only be bought as a pair how do they get separated?

How would you install SAS disks? Graphics cards?

This is actually a substantively different path. SAS interfaces are standard. However, there is nothing stopping a SAS controller card from being placed in an external box along with the drive sleds. How many SAS cards work with any SAS external enclosure? The ones that have limitations go right case above. The ones that work with anything.... yes that is a difference.

Bigger difference with SAS is that likely to run into more x8 PCI-e interface card and may be outstripping bandwidth; not really can it be installed.

Graphics cards again x16 PCI-e is an industry standard. The specific x with y box isn't really an issue as much as boot enivronments and basic OS drivers. The drivers need to be hot-plug capable for external PCI-e device but it isn't really necessary to move those.

Audio/Video capture cards?

Already has been done. By all vendors? No. Possible with larger market demands? Yes.

deconstruct60 · Jun 6, 2013

sjinsjca said:
Big honking processor, lots of RAM (probably soldered for reliability),

Apple hasn't soldered RAM for reliability. They have soldered RAM to save height. There is about zero motivation even in a 1/4 sized Mac Pro to save that small a delta on height given what is currently left over. If the Mac Mini and iMac don't require it, it is almost unimaginable what rational height/width saving explanation that Apple could even plausibly come up with.

The other primary problem is that soldering is actually grossly wasteful in horizontal ( or vertical if logic board oriented that way) space. Trying to solder more than 16GB of memory would soak up gobs of space. That is actually the opposite of what want to do if trying to decrease height (board in vertical orientation ) or width ( horizontal daughtercard).

It somewhat works for the laptops because there is basic minimal horizontal space requirement being driven by the keyboard and the display (which must fold down over the keyboard). It is a limitation though. That is way the rMBP 13" maxes out at 8GB. The smaller screen kills off horizontal space and can not scale as large as the 15" model.

It is an extremely dubious design criteria to place on a desktop model; especially the largest one.

There is some minor upsides in service support in not having to deal with users who have rattled around with DIMM replacement and/or DIMMs shaking loose due to rough shipping or shotty assembly and testing.

There are many good things about this. Thunderbolt is basically PCIe-on-a-wire (or fiber).

Actually not. Thunderbolt is Display Port and PCI-e. The combo brings design issues that have to be wrestled with. There is more baggage that comes along than this. TB is useful but it doesn't come without trade-offs.

In one fell swoop Apple will have replaced both the pro and the XServe with something far superior to both.

This has nothing to do with XServe. Apple just needs a non rack hostile workstation. They don't need an extremely friendly or optimized rack solution; just one not gratuitously hostile. ( it is primarily just the handles that are the problem. Flip depth for height and it would fit with zero change in internal volume now. )

Joe The Dragon · Jun 6, 2013

MatthewAMEL said:
There is nothing in the Thunderbolt spec that precludes multiple controllers on a MB.

My understanding is the L4510 has a 4/2 config. 4 channels/2 ports. Doesn't that mean each channel is a 'full speed' lane?

Right or not, it sounds like Apple decided external user-configurable space is better than fixed internal user space.

Using 6+ TB ports to add external expansion and replace a slew of older, legacy ports (ethernet, FW, USB, display) is exactly what I would expect from Apple.

You would endorse a design that maintained 6 port types on the chassis?
Ok. Here. Your Mac is ready.
http://www.apple.com/mac-mini/specs.html

Why would I want valuable real estate (and more importantly bandwidth) allocated to a port I would never use?

There will be no IGP on the Mac Pro.

usb use is why to big for it to go away any time soon and there are no TB flash disks or keyboards / mouses.

goMac · Jun 6, 2013

Joe The Dragon said:
usb use is why to big for it to go away any time soon and there are no TB flash disks or keyboards / mouses.

USB isn't going to go away. At the very least, Thunderbolt doesn't have a spec for input devices like mice and keyboards.

Anyone suggesting Apple is going to cut USB is being over zealous.

sjinsjca · Jun 6, 2013

brainburst said:
THUNDERBOLT SUCKS!!!! it's only the equivalent of a SINGLE pcie x 4 slot!!
It can handle one or two peripherals at a time well that's it!!!
Thunderbolt 2 isn't much better.

Now why don't we wait and see what's announced and what its capabilities are, hm?

T'bolt is in its early days.

----------

KaraH said:

*glug* *glug* *glug*

I fail to see how soldered on memory (so you can not buy more or get it cheaper) is any better than using a socket. I have yet to have a memory chip fall out of any of my machines. The same with using thunderbolt for practically everything..

Click to expand...

Connectors become a liability as speeds increase. Simple physics. Socketed CPUs are going away for the same reason.

echoout · Jun 7, 2013

This might be as stupid and farfetched as anything but I just had a thought while I was reviewing my quotes from HP, Promax and Boxx. Hadn't exactly seen this directly mentioned, outside of a mention of a box controlled by another computer, so I thought I would throw it out there.

With the description given by the OP, could Apple be making its version of the Boxx RenderPro to act as a companion to a MBP, Mini or iMac? That would account for the lack of internal expansion but the raw horsepower needed for rendering and computation. Maybe Thunderbolt is the common connection between these that doesn't rely on ethernet, which is missing from the Retina?

I actually have a quote out on the decked out i7 Boxx with a decked out RenderPro so I can't say it's a terrible idea.

Anyway...that's my call.

goMac · Jun 7, 2013

echoout said:
With the description given by the OP, could Apple be making its version of the Boxx RenderPro to act as a companion to a MBP, Mini or iMac? That would account for the lack of internal expansion but the raw horsepower needed for rendering and computation. Maybe Thunderbolt is the common connection between these that doesn't rely on ethernet, which is missing from the Retina?

Couldn't you just use a Boxx RenderPro with whatever Apple announces? No need for Apple to re-invent the wheel.

echoout · Jun 7, 2013

Ask Apple, not me!

wallysb01 · Jun 7, 2013

goMac said:
Couldn't you just use a Boxx RenderPro with whatever Apple announces? No need for Apple to re-invent the wheel.

What if you need OSX on it though? I guess you could hack it, but some what to keep it legitimate.

deconstruct60 · Jun 7, 2013

echoout said:
With the description given by the OP, could Apple be making its version of the Boxx RenderPro to act as a companion to a MBP, Mini or iMac?

The presumption there was that vast majority of Mac Pro boxes had high rendering workloads.

The RenderPro has a couple of other disconnects also.

1. I doubt it is in the Mac Pro's low sound decibel range.

2. It predates GPGPU focused rendering that is substantially on the uptick right now.

3. I don't think Apple is going to do any more Macs where the primary configuration is where there is not a user sitting in front of it as part of some interactive process.

Some folks may choose to not use a Mac mini or Mac Pro with a screen attached but that isn't the canonical configuration.

Maybe Thunderbolt is the common connection between these

There is no indication that Thunderbolt works were there are two hosts. PCI-e pragmatically is defacto a hierarchical network. Can position that it is "peer to peer" but the boot/intialization process not so much. Likewise, Thunderbolt is flexible but want it presents back the host system is hierarchical network of PCI-e switches.

Sure someone would layer an virtual ethernet over PCI-e on top. ( Intel does this with their Xeon Phi card so that host-to-host connections run on what looks like to most software as normal ethernet connection sockets. )
But that really isn't "system interconnect".

echoout · Jun 7, 2013

deconstruct60 said:
The presumption there was that vast majority of Mac Pro boxes had high rendering workloads.

The RenderPro has a couple of other disconnects also.

1. I doubt it is in the Mac Pro's low sound decibel range.

2. It predates GPGPU focused rendering that is substantially on the uptick right now.

3. I don't think Apple is going to do any more Macs where the primary configuration is where there is not a user sitting in front of it as part of some interactive process.

Some folks may choose to not use a Mac mini or Mac Pro with a screen attached but that isn't the canonical configuration.

There is no indication that Thunderbolt works were there are two hosts. PCI-e pragmatically is defacto a hierarchical network. Can position that it is "peer to peer" but the boot/intialization process not so much. Likewise, Thunderbolt is flexible but want it presents back the host system is hierarchical network of PCI-e switches.

Sure someone would layer an virtual ethernet over PCI-e on top. ( Intel does this with their Xeon Phi card so that host-to-host connections run on what looks like to most software as normal ethernet connection sockets. )
But that really isn't "system interconnect".

Not sure about anything you just said, I was just pondering the idea that the MacPro might become a powerful/connected brain to their other lines, rather than a standalone computer as we know it. With so little new info from the OP I was lobbing out a general idea, not claiming I knew the specifics of any details. Not really anything to argue about with so few details.

goMac · Jun 7, 2013

wallysb01 said:
What if you need OSX on it though? I guess you could hack it, but some what to keep it legitimate.

Why would you need OS X on it? It's just a render farm box. You'd send tasks to it like you would any other render farm.

You don't actually need to run OS X on it to use it with OS X. It's just a network server for render tasks.

A Boxx RenderPro is just a tiny server with a network jack. Nothing more.

deconstruct60 · Jun 7, 2013

echoout said:
Not sure about anything you just said, I was just pondering the idea that the MacPro might become a powerful/connected brain to their other lines,

To back out of the specifics it is much more likely that it would be about twice as big as a render pro box and work independently of any other Mac Mini or iMac the user might own. Similar to how currently someone could have 2-3 Mac mini's on their desk and maybe merge them for a "mini cluster". The specs match up with that kind of box while keeping with Apple design criteria (low noise , etc.) had on the Mac Pro.

The size increase both to larger fans (lower noise) and larger TDP envelope for 1-2 GPU cards. (render pro is limited to 1 relative low TDP card. )

Even more big picture.... x86 focused rendering is likely going to substantially decline over next 5 years. At least on Xeon type hardware.

wallysb01 · Jun 7, 2013

goMac said:
Why would you need OS X on it? It's just a render farm box. You'd send tasks to it like you would any other render farm.

You don't actually need to run OS X on it to use it with OS X. It's just a network server for render tasks.

A Boxx RenderPro is just a tiny server with a network jack. Nothing more.

If all you cared about rendering using something that can run on a Linux distro, ok. But if Apple was to sell something like the RenderPro, I have feeling the idea would be it could do more than the "big, dumb linux box" software-wise.

goMac · Jun 7, 2013

wallysb01 said:
If all you cared about rendering using something that can run on a Linux distro, ok. But if Apple was to sell something like the RenderPro, I have feeling the idea would be it could do more than the "big, dumb linux box" software-wise.

It seems to be able to run as a CS Suite render node. If I'm not mistaken, Adobe ships a Mac version of CS Suite that should be able to send render jobs to this box perfectly.

If you want to use Apple apps, buy a pile of Minis and install QMaster.

jmcube · Jun 7, 2013

What is the chances they change to AMD Piledriver?

Jon

GermanyChris · Jun 8, 2013

jmcube said:
What is the chances they change to AMD Piledriver?

Jon

none Piledriver is single socket desktop and Opteron's while most having lors of core are really geared toward servers. The also need to compile an AMD OSX which means two versions of OSX. It'd be a bad call unless the whole line changes to AMD

From Facebook's "We Want a New Mac Pro"

macrumors 68030

macrumors member

macrumors member

macrumors 6502

macrumors member

macrumors 6502

macrumors 601

macrumors 604

macrumors G5

macrumors G5

macrumors 65816

Contributor

macrumors 68020

macrumors 6502a

Contributor

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68000

macrumors G5

macrumors 6502a

Contributor

macrumors G5

macrumors 68000

Contributor

macrumors member

macrumors 601

Our Staff