Mac Pro scare... +$200 on Apple Store

prices look normal to me.

I wouldn't consider the Mac Pro in any way at this point.

true, I'm personally sitting on my money until we see some more info on the next Mac Pro.
Though I suppose some folks are looking at a Mac Pro purely for tax reasons.

Been sitting on my money since 2008. Nothing blowing my mind enough to buy since 2008. The 2008 is running strong and no HUGE jumps in speed enough to part with 5K. Normally I would have bought two Desktops since 2008. Thank you Apple for saving me 10K

kendall69 said:

Been sitting on my money since 2008. Nothing blowing my mind enough to buy since 2008. The 2008 is running strong and no HUGE jumps in speed enough to part with 5K. Normally I would have bought two Desktops since 2008. Thank you Apple for saving me 10K

Click to expand...

Not Apple's fault if Intels offerings hasn't blown you away.

Although my single thread performance smashes yours out of the water!!

pyzon said:

just this last 2 mins Apple store had the base quad Mac Pro for 2699 an upping of $200..I wondered if it was part of their One Day event to make savings bigger but after checking on another computer it was back two 2499..I've checked the others (window still open on other computer) and all 3 had gone up $200 ..... !!

Maybe an increase is on the cards after the sale...who knows!

or .... well here's a thing, maybe they were meant to subtract 200 and instead added 200$ ... !! time will tell..you heard it hear first, MAC PRO will be sold at current price - $200

----------

interestingly also the upgrades in the build your own section went up too, (not all) cinema display went up $17, magic mouse +$1, 5870 upgrade went up 6.36...very odd but i guess to be expected with a page refresh for Friday.

Click to expand...

This is a "scare" to you? Hmmm well, I wouldn't buy the MacPro today at it's current pricing.

I bought the 3.33GHz 6-core Xeon 'Mid 2012' MacPro5,1 with the Radeon HD 5870 1GB and I'm very pleased with it. I suppose thats mostly because I persuaded my boss that I needed the APPLE SSD SM512E as primary drive and he signed. With 12GB of Apple Ram (3 x 4GB) I think I actually got one of the highest single CPU scores (around 14k) on Geekbench when I tried the 32 bit test, it looks like it'd be slightly faster with a downgrade to 10.6.8, as this is basically a W3680 Mac Pro (Mid 2010) - that might be possible?


We have no budget in 2013 so I was forced to buy an MP now, the big SSD makes it great!

pyzon said:

Well I would and am this week.

My MBP 2008 is dying, this is the perfect upgrade, i'm not risking waiting until the end of next year to see if what they will release will suit..come next year if I need to I'll sell up and buy new, Mac Pro's are like Nikon cameras - they hold their value well. any changes in prices upwards is not pleasant. The reason it was a scare is because if apple up their prices then others will jump on the bandwagon and I already have my eye on one, which is reasonably cheap with hopefully another couple hundred of the new system on Friday.

Again I would buy now, I may get hit by a bus tomorrow...

Click to expand...

the problem with that scenario is that pretty much all indicators point to a major refresh of the mac pro next year. Meaning a redesign of the 10 year old mac pro case to something more fitting of the flagship computer. If this is the uh, case, trying to sell a last gen mac pro will be like trying to unload a quicksilver G4 after the G5 Mac Pro Tower came out. Possible, but at quite a loss.

Either way, I wouldnt even bother with a single proc system. The new iMacs, and the 15" MBP are all as fast or faster than that.
The Mac Pro only makes sense in the 8 core or 12 core versions.

Doesn't the conventional wisdom say to avoid first-generation Apple devices, including the first generation after a major redesign? Who's to say that the 2013 Mac Pro won't be a lemon?

calaverasgrande said:

The Mac Pro only makes sense in the 8 core or 12 core versions.

Click to expand...

It makes sense to use a case that can take a range of cpu choices. Also the 8 core is gone. The only dual package models are 12 core options. Regardless of core count, it makes sense to examine how the machine would be used going forward. Options for 2.5" drives could be a good thing. Other brands are commonly set up for 3.5" or a larger number of 2.5" drives. They need to consider the increasing performance of the gpu in computation. They also have to determine what markets they can leverage going forward. Some of the prior concepts for a redesigned mac pro ignored a lot of this. If they skimp on graphics and storage in favor of a small case, I would take it as a bad sign. I've seen some interesting concepts in ultra compact towers in the past. The one there relies on minimal storage and lack of a gpu. It's more of a mini-server. If you're still stuck with 200W gpus, it will need some space. It just doesn't have to be the current design. I don't see them migrating to embedded gpus like the one in the upcoming imac. The costs are too high for the obtainable performance, and M type gpus tend to be limited on memory.

thekev said:

It makes sense to use a case that can take a range of cpu choices. Also the 8 core is gone. The only dual package models are 12 core options. Regardless of core count, it makes sense to examine how the machine would be used going forward. Options for 2.5" drives could be a good thing. Other brands are commonly set up for 3.5" or a larger number of 2.5" drives. They need to consider the increasing performance of the gpu in computation. They also have to determine what markets they can leverage going forward. Some of the prior concepts for a redesigned mac pro ignored a lot of this. If they skimp on graphics and storage in favor of a small case, I would take it as a bad sign. I've seen some interesting concepts in ultra compact towers in the past. The one there relies on minimal storage and lack of a gpu. It's more of a mini-server. If you're still stuck with 200W gpus, it will need some space. It just doesn't have to be the current design. I don't see them migrating to embedded gpus like the one in the upcoming imac. The costs are too high for the obtainable performance, and M type gpus tend to be limited on memory.

Click to expand...

There isnt any reason that they have to use a mobile GPU. They can use full size GPU if they have decent enough cooling on both sides of the motherboard.
If they are seriously expecting Mac Pro users to wait until 3rd quarter of 2013 for the next model, quite a few will flee to iMacs and rMBPs.
I hate to say it, but if they ever came out with a nice shiny Braun inspired docking station I think half of Mac Pro users would go for those instead.

thekev said:

It makes sense to use a case that can take a range of cpu choices. Also the 8 core is gone. The only dual package models are 12 core options.

Click to expand...

The range of prices for a dual package system is going to be more expensive than a single package. Buying two generally costs more than buying just one even if everything else was equal.

Selling "empty socket" system is likely something that Apple isn't going to do. It doesn't really make alot of sense anyway since Intel charges a price premium for the dual capable packages. To buy in a single is to purchase the functionality and then get zero utility out of it. That's just not something that is present is most Apple designs.

I don't see them migrating to embedded gpus like the one in the upcoming imac. The costs are too high for the obtainable performance, and M type gpus tend to be limited on memory.

Click to expand...

The cost for using the same GPU as the iMac would be lower since Apple would be buying components in a larger bulk. This is same reason the wifi/bluetooth board tends to be the same across several Mac products. The RAM similar, the HDDs similar , etc.

The limited thinking here is that the Mac Pro would be limited to just one GPU. Going forward the default minimum number could be two. One embedded and one PCI-e v3.0 card. If Apple is going to mandate Thunderbolt for all Mac products an embedded GPU is the most cost effective way to go. [ Server configs could dump the PCI-e card which is typically gross overkill for those kinds of contexts. ]

Without Thunderbolt and only one GPU by default, yes it does not make as much sense.

Systems such as those Boxx Renderpro (and Renderbox ) will fall off as rendering software becomes more GPGPU oriented. Those boxes only have minimalistic embedded Matrox graphics for servers. Even Matrox isn't really pushing that forward. The future embedded path has GPU-in-the-package written all over it. The Xeon E3 already have it. The Xeon E5 1600 will probably pick it up after Haswell (or Broadwell at the latest).

AVX and SSE4 are ok but if just want to tackle embarrasingly parallel rendering problems a GPGPU set up is a better way to allocate the transistors. 4-8 x86 cores is 'enough' and a sizable budget can be allocated to a GPU (and GPGPU capability).

calaverasgrande said:

There isnt any reason that they have to use a mobile GPU. They can use full size GPU if they have decent enough cooling on both sides of the motherboard.

Click to expand...

Not a good idea. One reason the mobile GPUs tend to be limited on memory is because horizontally mounting large amounts of memory soaks up alot of space. Sure the Mac Pro is a large case but almost gratitously throwing away vertical ( with board mounted vertically) space when there is relatively humongous horizontal space ( perpendicular to the motherboard ) is grossly wasteful.

If going to mount the video card horizontally (in Mac Pro) might as well just use one of the industry reference designs for PCI-e cards. Hence, a desktop design.

If they are seriously expecting Mac Pro users to wait until 3rd quarter of 2013 for the next model,

Click to expand...

Apple never said folks had to wait till the Q3 2013. That's more so a target date non Apple folks have become fixated on.

deconstruct60 said:

Not a good idea. One reason the mobile GPUs tend to be limited on memory is because horizontally mounting large amounts of memory soaks up alot of space. Sure the Mac Pro is a large case but almost gratitously throwing away vertical ( with board mounted vertically) space when there is relatively humongous horizontal space ( perpendicular to the motherboard ) is grossly wasteful.

If going to mount the video card horizontally (in Mac Pro) might as well just use one of the industry reference designs for PCI-e cards. Hence, a desktop design.

Click to expand...

One thing the Mac Pros dont have a big shortage on is mother board space. There is a lot of blank space actually. They could easily afford to integrate a GPU to the motherboard if they wanted.
What really just matters what John Ive and crew prioritize.
Space, expandability, size, thermals?
I think for the sake of homogeneous display driver support I could see why they might use a mobile GPU. That is what the rest of their products utilize. Heck most of their products rely on chipset video with GPU being the exception.
GPU processing is still a niche application, not nearly enough to sway the form over function ethos of current apple designs. I kind of think we will be lucky if there are two or more PCIe slots in the next Mac Pro.
But as others pointed out (and I wish I had thought of), implementing Thunderbolt pretty much requires that they use an integrated GPU or chipset video. If I am paying for a Mac Pro I want better than chipset video.
I would prefer if it ran big high performance video cards, I wish they would take any contemporary PC video card honestly!
I just don't see Apple going that way.

calaverasgrande said:

One thing the Mac Pros dont have a big shortage on is mother board space. There is a lot of blank space actually.

Click to expand...

Not that much. For 2 (or more) GB of RAM that is huge space waster.
It really doesn't make alot sense to mess around with entry level "desktop" GPU with VRAM constraints that are the same as the upper end "mobile" GPUs. If they use the mobile one they get reuse. If they use mid-range (or more) GPUs in the desktop sequences then > 1GB makes much more sense.

The iMac goes 2GB in the most extreme optional config but the space behind a 27" monitor is actually bigger than what the Mac Pro's motherboard had to fit in.

They could easily afford to integrate a GPU to the motherboard if they wanted.

Click to expand...

Yeah, with a mobile GPU module that they use from the iMac.

I think for the sake of homogeneous display driver support I could see why they might use a mobile GPU. That is what the rest of their products utilize. Heck most of their products rely on chipset video with GPU being the exception.

Click to expand...

Not. Frankly there are Intel HD4000 and Nvidia/AMD dual drivers needed for the MBPs. Single driver software isn't the point. Again this is myopic that the Mac Pro would stick with a single GPU. The 15" MBPs have two. Why couldn't a Mac Pro.

GPU processing is still a niche application, not nearly enough to sway the form over function ethos of current apple designs.

Click to expand...

This is not "form over function" at all. Even the MBP 15 Retina has two GPUs. There are 'thinness' issues Apple has, but even the new iMac bludges once get away from the edges. The Mac Pro has no laminated LCD panel to artificially skew the thinness issues there.


Apple definitely chips away at what is "necessary" to include inside or on the edges of the box. In workstation class of machines PCI-e cards haven't gone away. Thunderbolt isn't a replacement for 2-3 x16 PCI-e sockets. It doesn't even try to be.

In the single package Mac Pro, you might loose a x16 PCI-e socket's bandwidth (or have it cut in half), but dual package E5's have gobs of PCI-e lanes to support the 'classic' 4 slots of a Mac Pro and an embedded GPU with no socket bandwidth sharing at all.

I kind of think we will be lucky if there are two or more PCIe slots in the next Mac Pro.

Click to expand...

Two x16 socket set-ups are not unusual if there is a very fast LAN (10GbE ) or DAS ( 2-4 SAS external connector RAID card ). They'd need at least one x4 slot for misc stuff. It is unlikely they'd drop down to >= 2 if using a E5 package. If there was a smaller box with an E3 perhaps, but I don't put a higher probability on a two box Mac Pro line. ( it solves some problems, but creates more if volume doesn't dramatically rise to support the effort. )

If I am paying for a Mac Pro I want better than chipset video.
I would prefer if it ran big high performance video cards,

Click to expand...

If there are x16 PCI-e slots and an ample power connectors it could. The "high performance" video would just come out of DVI/DisplayPort ports on the PCI-e card and not Thunderbolt. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Many apps just need high performance computations done, but the "video" GUI isn't all that complex. The GUI elements of FCPX, Logic, and large number of "pro" apps don't really tax even an Intel HD4000 all that much. The HD4000 can push rendered 4K video around. There are some PCI-e v3.0 transfer time issues in the more extreme cases but the notion that it all has to be packed on to one card isn't really true. Even on the high end: e.g., Maximus ( http://www.nvidia.com/object/maximus.html ).

A GTX 675MX ( from iMac or GT 650 from iMac & MBP 15 ) and a Nvidia GTX 670 (or AMD 7970 or AMD 7850 ) would be a Maximus set up but it would provide more than decent performance for wide spectrum of folks.

In all reality, what options do Apple have with regards getting Thunderbolt on a XEON workstation?

Isn't Intel integrating TB into their XEON boards next year with Ivy Bridge XEONs?

Surely the simple solution is to have TB ports located with all the other ports on the back of the machine off the logic board and use them only for data/peripherals rather than video - and continue to connect our displays to the dedicated ports on the graphics cards in the PCI slots? All this rules out is daisy chaining displays, and using Apple's TB Display.

Or, couldn't they re-route the video back from the graphics card through the logic board and out the TB ports? Or does this create bottlenecks/issues?