2015 nMP (7,1) Proposed Feature Wish List

haravikk · Jan 14, 2014

Gav Mack said:
ARM simply doesn't have the horsepower to compete with an Intel mobile or desktop CPU. Great for low power devices but not in the same ballpark I'm afraid.

One them doesn't, but if you cover a board in them
Well, still not ideal for professional apps, better for web-servers and other high-volume but relatively low demand (individually) processes.

But that said, if Apple's vision of performance processing on GPUs pans out, then ARMs may actually be just fine as CPUs; I don't really see it happening personally, but if you were building a high-end GPU computer cluster then ARMs aren't a bad choice if all they need to do is hand out work for the GPUs to do and move the results somewhere.

Gav Mack · Jan 14, 2014

haravikk said:
One them doesn't, but if you cover a board in them
Well, still not ideal for professional apps, better for web-servers and other high-volume but relatively low demand (individually) processes.

But that said, if Apple's vision of performance processing on GPUs pans out, then ARMs may actually be just fine as CPUs; I don't really see it happening personally, but if you were building a high-end GPU computer cluster then ARMs aren't a bad choice if all they need to do is hand out work for the GPUs to do and move the results somewhere.

For parallel tasks maybe loads of them. It's single process that counts a lot on computers though, turbo boost etc and I think ARM are far further away from that to realise replacing intel. If that day comes there is already an ARM fork of OSX called iOS

deconstruct60 · Jan 14, 2014

haravikk said:
.... but if you were building a high-end GPU computer cluster then ARMs aren't a bad choice if all they need to do is hand out work for the GPUs to do and move the results somewhere.

Not. GPUs scarfice clock for parallel throughput. A HPC cluster actually is in higher need of a high scalar throughput CPU if going to toss the bulk workload onto GPUs. High scalar clocks is NOT what ARM is good at. Even the 64 bit versions with some relatively rudimentary superscalar ability.

Couple that to the limited I/O. No ARM set up has anything like 40 PCIe v3 lanes worth of throughput and the cluster interconnect is kneecapped.
[ AMD is plunging in HPC in part because they have been slackers on getting over to PCIe v3 which is basically required for next-gen interconnections. ]

In terms of FLOPs/W GPUs kick ARMs butt. In terms of scalar throughput and I/O again ARM isn't on top.

ARM is in server space more so for capacity load balancing. Workload comes and goes and when it goes want to drop down to minimal consumption. That isn't the HPC pattern. HPC pattern is load up the machine with batch so can pay off the expensive hardware with paying workload. On the other end of the spectrum of collecting $5-20/mo sporadic web site load workloads.

There are large clusters doing both but they don't use the same building blocks.

geta · Jan 15, 2014

deconstruct60 said:
If primarily concerned about single thread preformance should be requesting that entry level stay at 4 cores. More than 4 cores means a slower base clock than a 4 core would be.

If concerned about mulitple thread performance the new Mac Pros are as faster on those as they are slower on the single threaded tasks. A bit but not huge.

The question is where they are going to get bandwidth to support that.

Like the support for > 4 cores there is chicken-and-the-egg issue if there isn't a significantly large deployed base of 2 GPU boxes then software won't be written for it. Like Thunderbolt Apple is a bit in the prime-the-pump mode.

What might get more traction and marginally lower GPU prices is a BTO (or entry only) config option that dropped FirePro and just had basic mid-level graphics.

If Intel stays on track DDR3 is dead ending on this E5 v2. E5 v3 will be DDR4. May run into same "hit sub $3000" price point issue and dump a DIMM to limbo just under again.

Probably not going to happen. About as many folks saying they don't want one (already have them) as do.

Increase base config core count, increase base config RAM size , and decrease price ? Not going to happen. One of those two directions perhaps but not both directions at the same time.

you missed the point of my post, what i wrote is what i would like to see as a base model - a MacPro version that i would like to have...

For my personal use, single thread performance not really important (im a Logic user) so the base model needs to be 6 core.

Two internal PCIe SSDs ways more important for my use then 2 GPU. Look how many year past since multi thread introduce and still not all the programs know how to use it... so till the time will come and all the programs will use the second GPU, let the user the option to chose based of his needs. Im with you about the basic mid-level graphics, not everyone that need the row power of nMP need high end GPU (and it will cut the costs).

I dont really care with DDR it will use (3,4 or whatever will come next), but 16GB should be the minimum.

90% plus of ppl i know complaining about cutting the keyboard\mouse from a package that cost 3000-10000, i can see way its not part of the MacMini (to keep it as cheap as possible) but not in this case.

About the price, it would be nice if they will shave the price in 500, or make it equal to the US prices - base model in US cost $2999 and in Europe 2999 thats $4080, thats more then the 6core version in the US...

Nugget · Jan 15, 2014

geta said:
For my personal use, single thread performance not really important (im a Logic user) so the base model needs to be 6 core.

Isn't this just a convoluted way of saying "the Mac Pro is too expensive for me?" I mean, who cares what the base model comes with? Six cores -- or even eight or twelve -- are available right now. If you need six cores you buy six cores and whether or not the base model is a single core or four cores is hardly relevant. Now, of course it's fair to say "the cost to upgrade to six cores is too high for me" and that's a valid criticism, but the way you're looking at it seems really bizarre to me.

I dont really care with DDR it will use (3,4 or whatever will come next), but 16GB should be the minimum.

Again, who cares what the minimum is? You spec the machine the way you need it. Again, this just sounds like a weird way to complain about the price.

90% plus of ppl i know complaining about cutting the keyboard\mouse from a package that cost 3000-10000, i can see way its not part of the MacMini (to keep it as cheap as possible) but not in this case.

And again, all you have to do is click twice when you place the order and the machine will arrive with a keyboard and a mouse if you need them.

About the price, it would be nice if they will shave the price in 500, or make it equal to the US prices - base model in US cost $2999 and in Europe 2999 thats $4080, thats more then the 6core version in the US...

Your entire post was about the price (except the twin SSD complaint), just oddly phrased.

Ezlivin · Jan 15, 2014

Cubemmal said:
Well it should be considering how much we're paying for these little Hibachi's

So you got one?

geta · Jan 15, 2014

Nugget said:
Isn't this just a convoluted way of saying "the Mac Pro is too expensive for me?" I mean, who cares what the base model comes with? Six cores -- or even eight or twelve -- are available right now. If you need six cores you buy six cores and whether or not the base model is a single core or four cores is hardly relevant. Now, of course it's fair to say "the cost to upgrade to six cores is too high for me" and that's a valid criticism, but the way you're looking at it seems really bizarre to me.

Again, who cares what the minimum is? You spec the machine the way you need it. Again, this just sounds like a weird way to complain about the price.

And again, all you have to do is click twice when you place the order and the machine will arrive with a keyboard and a mouse if you need them.

Your entire post was about the price (except the twin SSD complaint), just oddly phrased.

Some ppl care on what they spending their money. I dont know based on what you came to the conclusion that "the Mac Pro is too expensive for me" ??
That was my opinion on how I wish to see the base model. Just coz i don't think i should pay extra for parts i don't need or for things that should be part of the package, it doesn't means i can't afford one. Looks like some ppl (like you) don't care to throw on parts they dont need.

To be clear, i ordered couple days ago the nMP and after all the upgrades it cost around 4500, it's a lot, but in couple of months i will cover the costs through my work.

Its seems to me that you taking this kind of posts way to seriously, we just having fun

handsome pete · Jan 15, 2014

geta said:
Some ppl care on what they spending their money. I dont know based on what you came to the conclusion that "the Mac Pro is too expensive for me" ??
That was my opinion on how I wish to see the base model. Just coz i don't think i should pay extra for parts i don't need or for things that should be part of the package, it doesn't means i can't afford one. Looks like some ppl (like you) don't care to throw on parts they dont need.

To be clear, i ordered couple days ago the nMP and after all the upgrades it cost around 4500, it's a lot, but in couple of months i will cover the costs through my work.

Its seems to me that you taking this kind of posts way to seriously, we just having fun

He's just asking, "what's the difference if the entry level starts with a quad core or hex core? Or 12gb RAM vs. 16gb?" Those are all options. The only thing we can deduce from your statement is that you feel it's overpriced.

Nugget · Jan 15, 2014

geta said:
Some ppl care on what they spending their money. I dont know based on what you came to the conclusion that "the Mac Pro is too expensive for me" ??
That was my opinion on how I wish to see the base model. Just coz i don't think i should pay extra for parts i don't need or for things that should be part of the package, it doesn't means i can't afford one. Looks like some ppl (like you) don't care to throw €€€ on parts they dont need.

If the goal is for people to not have to spend money on parts they don't need, then the base model should be as low-specced as possible. As few cores as possible, as little ram as possible, and the lowest GPU possible. That way people will only spend money upgrading the parts they care for.

You're arguing for the opposite -- that the base configuration should be upgraded to precisely the level of parts that you, personally, want to buy. What does it matter to you if you're buying a CTO upgraded to your desired spec or if you're buying a base model that is configured the way you'd have chosen? In either case you're buying the parts you need.

You want 16GB of RAM, that's great. If the base had 16GB of RAM wouldn't that be harming buyers who don't need that much RAM? The way it is now, you can buy however much RAM you need and there's no evidence that 16GB of RAM would cost less just by virtue of being "the base" config.

You want the base model to start at 6 cores. Where would that leave the people who only need 4 cores? You want those people to have to throw money on parts they don't need? Don't you care about them?

Its seems to me that you taking this kind of posts way to seriously, we just having fun

Your logic is bad whether or not you're finding this a fun conversation. I'm just having fun pointing out your flawed thinking.

deconstruct60 · Jan 15, 2014

geta said:
you missed the point of my post, what i wrote is what i would like to see as a base model - a MacPro version that i would like to have...

For my personal use, single thread performance not really important (im a Logic user) so the base model needs to be 6 core.

Your claim that the 4 core iMacs are faster than the 4 core Mac Pro makes zero sense if not talking about single threaded apps. In that context they are not faster (as of Xeon E5 1600 transition). If single thread performance is not important why do you mention it? [ The was an abnormality with the Xeon 3500 because for whatever reason Intel snored doing 3600 series updates and floating highly aging solutions at the entry level.]

Two internal PCIe SSDs ways more important for my use then 2 GPU

two SSDs standard isn't going to fit most folks base configuration needs.

Look how many year past since multi thread introduce and still not all the programs know how to use it... so till the time will come and all the programs will use the second GPU, let the user the option to chose based of his needs.

Start activity monitor and go find the number of apps you interact with that have just one thread. Unless using some serious ancient software the count is likely zero. There are some lower level kernel worker processes that are limited to one thread. However, the normal for apps using standard OS X frameworks they are multiple threads. The notion that normal Macs aren't running more than a handful of threads under normal workloads is pretty detached from reality. It is. May not load down all cores at 100% but it isn't zero either.

Using the standard frameworks greatly propagated the use of multiple threads in apps. Same thing is going to happen for leveraging second GPU. It isn't going to take years for upgraded apps to leverage these. The only thing that may take years is folks actually upgrading.

Are the mutliple threads and GPUs going to run 100% of the time? No. Are they not going to be used at all. Again no. So since most folks are using them they will get utilization.

I dont really care with DDR it will use (3,4 or whatever will come next), but 16GB should be the minimum.

If doesn't matter, then it isn't worth specifying. Matching DIMMs per memory controller is what Apple has normally done in the past. The 3 x 4 DIMM config is likely solely to limbo under the $3,999 price point as 4 would have put them just over.

90% plus of ppl i know complaining about cutting the keyboard\mouse from a package that cost €3000-€10000,

Just counting the people complaining doesn't particularly form a whole picture of what the majority of folks need or want.

About the price, it would be nice if they will shave the price in €500, or make it equal to the US prices -

There is zero rational reason to make it equal to US prices. USA doesn't have national VAT taxes. The USA doesn't have a exchange rate with the US dollar. Both of those are going to add up to differences in pricing at these price levels.

Given a large chunk of Mac systems are sold in the USA ( there is higher market penetration here than elsewhere ) the pricing is going to be first done in US dollars and then Apple is going to adjust for other locations.

Cubemmal · Jan 15, 2014

Ezlivin said:
So you got one?

"Shipping January"

wesk702 · Jan 15, 2014

flat five said:
why add ball bearings to a design which doesn't have ball bearings in an effort to make it quieter? I don't get it

Needs moar ball bearings!

geta · Jan 16, 2014

Nugget said:
You're arguing for the opposite -- that the base configuration should be upgraded to precisely the level of parts that you, personally, want to buy. What does it matter to you if you're buying a CTO upgraded to your desired spec or if you're buying a base model that is configured the way you'd have chosen? In either case you're buying the parts you need.

You want 16GB of RAM, that's great. If the base had 16GB of RAM wouldn't that be harming buyers who don't need that much RAM? The way it is now, you can buy however much RAM you need and there's no evidence that 16GB of RAM would cost less just by virtue of being "the base" config.

You want the base model to start at 6 cores. Where would that leave the people who only need 4 cores? You want those people to have to throw money on parts they don't need? Don't you care about them?

All i wrote in my original post (#117) is what i would like to see as a base model. I wish i could upgrade as i desire, but thats not the case, coz the parts i would like to see as an option not exists (dual SSDs and single GPU), the rest i can get as BTO (more cores and memory) as we know, although it would be nice if they will come as standard.

About the memory, you're absolutely right, since we can buy as much memory as we need, Apple could keep the 3\6GB as it used to be in the past with MP...

deconstruct60 said:
Your claim that the 4 core iMacs are faster than the 4 core Mac Pro makes zero sense if not talking about single threaded apps. In that context they are not faster (as of Xeon E5 1600 transition). If single thread performance is not important why do you mention it? [ The was an abnormality with the Xeon 3500 because for whatever reason Intel snored doing 3600 series updates and floating highly aging solutions at the entry level.]

two SSDs standard isn't going to fit most folks base configuration needs.

Using the standard frameworks greatly propagated the use of multiple threads in apps. Same thing is going to happen for leveraging second GPU. It isn't going to take years for upgraded apps to leverage these. The only thing that may take years is folks actually upgrading.

I never claim 4core iMac is faster, it was you and others (and ppl that working with Photoshop\LightRoom for what i remember) that claim its faster in a single thread performance... the programs im using can handle multi cores. For that reason i don't see the point of having 4core as a base model, unless as you say, the new E5 version is really stronger\faster from the 4core iMac.

It would be nice to see 2 SSD's as standard, but i would be more then happy to pay extra as BTO option. Same goes with dual GPU, it should be BTO option (for musicians second GPU give nothing).

PS - I wondering what you guys doing with your nMP (and the configuration), if you got one...?

PS 2 - Don't know about you guys, but i will always wish to see higher base model with lower price tag

Nugget · Jan 16, 2014

geta said:
All i wrote in my original post (#117) is what i would like to see as a base model.

But why do you wish that the base model was six cores. Are you saying that you believe the six core model should cost what the four core model costs? Or is it that you do not believe that people should be able to buy a four core nMP at all even if that's what they want?

Why do you wish that the base model has 16GB of RAM? Are you saying that you believe that 16GB of RAM should cost what 12GB costs? Or is it that you do not believe that people should be able to buy only 12GB of RAM even if that is what they want?

Why does it matter to you at all what the specs of the base model are? If you want a six core, 16GB machine you can buy one. If the base specs were higher the price would be as well. Surely you understand this.

PS 2 - Don't know about you guys, but i will always wish to see higher base model with lower price tag

This is why people (accurately) point out that your complaints are simply about price. They really have nothing to do with RAM size, core counts, or actual specs. You just think the nMP is too expensive.

geta · Jan 16, 2014

Nugget said:
But why do you wish that the base model was six cores. Are you saying that you believe the six core model should cost what the four core model costs? Or is it that you do not believe that people should be able to buy a four core nMP at all even if that's what they want?

Why do you wish that the base model has 16GB of RAM? Are you saying that you believe that 16GB of RAM should cost what 12GB costs? Or is it that you do not believe that people should be able to buy only 12GB of RAM even if that is what they want?

Why does it matter to you at all what the specs of the base model are? If you want a six core, 16GB machine you can buy one. If the base specs were higher the price would be as well. Surely you understand this.

This is why people (accurately) point out that your complaints are simply about price. They really have nothing to do with RAM size, core counts, or actual specs. You just think the nMP is too expensive.

I don't believe on many things, and in my opinion 4core nMP should be out if, and this is based on what OTHERS says, that the 4core iMac is stronger.

And what about the ppl that want to have only 8GB memory ? they got ****'d up and need to pay extra for 12GB... or these ppl shouldn't buy nMP in the first place ? Same goes with the dual GPU, way forcing ppl to pay extra for something they dont need ??

Again, just coz i would like to see stronger base model (that cost less), it doesn't means it will happen, for that reason i got myself a BTO nMP almost as i would like it to be, it could be perfect machine if i had the option to chose 2 SSDs and single GPU.

jouster · Jan 18, 2014

cinealta said:
How many years more before we may see a potential Mac Pro transition to Apple's ARM-based A-series SOC? I remember in the early 2000s Apple got tired of Motorola's PowerPC roadmap and secretly co-developed OSX to run on Intel. Could OSX be ported to A-series SOC after Haswell or Broadwell? That may be getting down to 14nm process or so.

Many.

wesk702 · Jan 18, 2014

Miltz said:
How about a $1,999 entry level price tag?

That's for the nMP C. Last years MP in colorful new plastic.

Search

Search

2015 nMP (7,1) Proposed Feature Wish List

haravikk

macrumors 65816

Gav Mack

macrumors 68020

deconstruct60

macrumors G5

geta

macrumors 65816

Nugget

Contributor

Ezlivin

macrumors member

geta

macrumors 65816

handsome pete

macrumors 68000

Nugget

Contributor

deconstruct60

macrumors G5

Cubemmal

macrumors 6502a

wesk702

macrumors 68000

geta

macrumors 65816

Nugget

Contributor

geta

macrumors 65816

jouster

macrumors 65816

wesk702

macrumors 68000

Our Staff