Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

TMay

macrumors 68000
Dec 24, 2001
1,520
1
Carson City, NV
No, your math is wrong. You forgot to add the pair of FirePro W9000 GPUs with 6GB each GDDR5 memory. I got the superdrive price from the option of a second superdrive from the Apple store.

I'm calling it Mac Tube Pro to easily distinguish it from a Mac Pro.

Probably an underclocked W9000 equivalent GPGPU, so don't expect Apple to be paying anywhere near the same price as the very much overpriced W9000 card. Apple probably negotiated some price well under a thousand each for the processor, in volume. The "Best" Mac Pro is going be just under $6K I suspect, which is about where the current dual processor model sits.

I suspect that we will see an underclocked W8000 GPGPU on a single CPU card for the iMac, again to get the volume higher and discounts from AMD.
 

appleman53210

macrumors newbie
Apr 24, 2011
5
0
So basically they are saying the software is running faster?

Really, who would have thought it. A brand new computer running faster than an old one.

The thing that you missed is that the software was only running on Windows previously. If you read the article on Apple Insider, you'll find out that The Foundry came to Apple saying they wanted to make a version of MARI for the mac. Phil Schiller heard the proposal and wanted to try the new software on the Mac Pro they've been working on. So when they said that this was the fastest they've ever seen the software run, they meant that coming from the computers they were testing the software on previously. And coming from a visual effects software company that probably tests their software on top of the line computer components at the current time, that's sounds pretty big to me.
 

ScholarsInk

macrumors 6502
Apr 3, 2010
365
424
^This. PowerMac's were great systems at a reasonable price (~$1499-$1999), were sold alongside iMac's and didn't cannibalize other desktop sales.

To be fair, the 'reasonable price' argument doesn't really work because with inflation that's now nearer $2500.
 

jdiamond

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2008
699
535
This completely missed the mark, this is VERY significant for Apple...

This is a great design, which will be accompanied with a great price tag.

But the average consumer does not need Xeon's and dual workstation class GPU's. Way too many "developers" are going to buy this but people making iOS apps do not need a 12 core Xeon CPU to do the trick.

I am tired of Apple missing a market segment to build a "high-performing" consumer level desktop WITHOUT an integrated display. A lot of people think they are "pro" but they are deluded by Apple's marketing and the lack of a upper-middle tier desktop option. Apple just wants to funnel developers into an expensive desktop product.

Apple needs to come out with the "Mac", period. Not iMac, not Mac Mini, not Mac Pro, but a consumer level "high-end" desktop. And I don't want a laptop with "near" desktop performance.

Make a grey version of this using desktop Haswell CPU's, and the option to have one or two GPU's.

Fine, it will steal market away from the "pro" consumers, but it will INCREASE market presence overall. Now that services like Steam are no longer bound to PC gaming Apple is just ignoring the importance of not offering a desktop in this class without the Mini or "i" monikers.

Why not? It just makes sense. Do it now!

It is true that very few people will buy and use the Mac Pro, but the "Halo" effect it has is immense. It's similar to the way many car companies build sports cars even though they don't make a huge profit on them. And most of all, it allows customers to move up the power chain without forcing them to leave Apple completely. Here's an example - I love using Macs. I also need to do serious simulation research. I would *love* to have a Mac Pro so I can use it for my work and not have to completely leave OS-X.

This is not to say that Apple shouldn't be making all their products "as near top of the line as possible" so that Apple users don't feel like they pay a bundle, yet are actually losing out. But the attitude of "only support the large market" is as damaging as you can get. That's exactly why Microsoft always went after the "80% solutions", i.e., put out the minimum you can that will satisfy 80% of customers.

When Apple didn't update the Mac Pro and cut the 17" Macbook Pro, I nearly gave up hope. I started having to face a bleak future where I *had* to come up with alternatives. Now, I already feel a lot better. Even if I don't end up buying a Mac Pro, at least I have the OPTION now... And a lot of my friends who weren't considering a Mac in the past are now seriously looking into again, just because of this announcement.
 

MagnusVonMagnum

macrumors 603
Jun 18, 2007
5,193
1,442
One wonders why Apple doesn't make a consumer version that WOULD be good for gaming and other tasks (i.e. Mac Mini on steroids. Put regular CPUs and gaming friendly GPUs + this tower = SWEET) whereas the lack of PCIx16 type expansion makes me question how much at least SOME of the "Pros" are going to like the design regardless. I guess it's because Apple still believes that no one games on a Mac...despite having a game section on the App store. I guess it's just for WoW and Angry Birds....
 

mess3mess

macrumors newbie
Jun 7, 2013
20
0
What I Want to Know IS…

It is true that very few people will buy and use the Mac Pro, but the "Halo" effect it has is immense. It's similar to the way many car companies build sports cars even though they don't make a huge profit on them. And most of all, it allows customers to move up the power chain without forcing them to leave Apple completely. Here's an example - I love using Macs. I also need to do serious simulation research. I would *love* to have a Mac Pro so I can use it for my work and not have to completely leave OS-X.

This is not to say that Apple shouldn't be making all their products "as near top of the line as possible" so that Apple users don't feel like they pay a bundle, yet are actually losing out. But the attitude of "only support the large market" is as damaging as you can get. That's exactly why Microsoft always went after the "80% solutions", i.e., put out the minimum you can that will satisfy 80% of customers.

When Apple didn't update the Mac Pro and cut the 17" Macbook Pro, I nearly gave up hope. I started having to face a bleak future where I *had* to come up with alternatives. Now, I already feel a lot better. Even if I don't end up buying a Mac Pro, at least I have the OPTION now... And a lot of my friends who weren't considering a Mac in the past are now seriously looking into again, just because of this announcement.

I want MORE options! There's a lot of speculation here but how much substance…. Sure it looks like a great machine, and Apple has once again raised the design bar -- but how much is going to cost( better not cost too much in it's base config if I have to pay for thunderbolt expansion), what are the various "configurations" of the beast going have that is different from each other (i.e. what if I don't need the power of 2 "workstation" GPUs but I do need 12 xeon cores)…

I can't wait to see what Apple actually releases!
 

sseaton1971

macrumors 6502
Feb 9, 2012
431
11
But it does look more like a trash can than a computer.

What does a computer look like? A rectangular box? I have seen trash cans that look like that!

It appears that Apple has created a brilliant design that is also getting a lot of buzz. I don't hear a lot of buzz about any other workstation on the market.

----------

Anyone want to bet some enterprising person already has some stickers in the works?

"This is my computer, NOT a trash can!"

Funny! But the Mac Pro would make for a very small trash can! ;)

----------

I want MORE options! There's a lot of speculation here but how much substance…. Sure it looks like a great machine, and Apple has once again raised the design bar -- but how much is going to cost( better not cost too much in it's base config if I have to pay for thunderbolt expansion), what are the various "configurations" of the beast going have that is different from each other (i.e. what if I don't need the power of 2 "workstation" GPUs but I do need 12 xeon cores)…

I can't wait to see what Apple actually releases!

I really hope there are some other configurations as well. I would like to purchase a few of the new Mac Pros for servers and do not need powerful graphics.

I am also hoping someone like Sonnet comes up with a creative way to rack the new Mac Pro. I read somewhere on one of the forums that a "wine rack" style enclosure might work. That could be pretty interesting, but I wonder if the new Mac Pro can run properly on its side. I am thinking the only real problems could be the fan and also how the heat is exhausted from the enclosure.
 

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,667
4,676
The Peninsula
What does a computer look like? A rectangular box? I have seen trash cans that look like that!

Someone needs to Photoshop this pic and replace the XPS with the Mac Tube Pro.

Since that's what Apple is creating.
 

Attachments

  • mac_vs_windows_cord_clutter.jpg
    mac_vs_windows_cord_clutter.jpg
    62.9 KB · Views: 133

fermat-au

macrumors 6502
Dec 7, 2009
464
521
Australia
Question re: SANs

I know that many video editors who work in large organisations edit from a SAN that is connected via fibre. I have heard one reason these editor use a Mac Pro over an iMac is that the current Mac Pro can connect to the SAN via a PCI card. How will this work was the new Mac Pro? Will people connect to the SAN via Thunderbolt?
 

Michael Scrip

macrumors 604
Mar 4, 2011
7,929
12,480
NC
Someone needs to Photoshop this pic and replace the XPS with the Mac Tube Pro.

Since that's what Apple is creating.

attachment.php

No need to Photoshop a pic.

Just find any working studio or production shop.

They look like that... and no one complains.

SANs, servers, RAID arrays... printers, scanners, mixers, capture hardware...

Wires everywhere.
 

24fps

macrumors newbie
Apr 23, 2009
3
0
The Foundry Advertising themselves as a rendering company?!

AppleInsider spoke with employees of The Foundry, a firm that develops high end rendering software used on Hollywood productions.


Seriously?! How many companies use MARI vs Nuke? It's so weird that the Foundry are trying to punt themselves off as a rendering company, when probably 99% of what they do is make compositing software. And, for that matter, how many VFX companies are even using OSX? I get that they're trying to market themselves on OSX, but using Pixar as a case study? They do basically everything on Linux there.
 

PeterQVenkman

macrumors 68020
Mar 4, 2005
2,023
0
On stage, they gave examples where instead of waiting 12 hours for some rendering to apply changes, they could make changes in real time.)

I'm sure Apple magically made the massive leap from 12 hours of rendering to real time... right. As if the next gen 12-core xeons are just that much faster than the previous 4, 8, or 16 core xeons setups. Nothing intel has released in the past has ever made a leap like that. Xeons within the same generation don't even scale linearly going from 4 to 8 cores.

12 hours to real time? Complete B.S.
 

subsonix

macrumors 68040
Feb 2, 2008
3,551
79
I'm sure Apple magically made the massive leap from 12 hours of rendering to real time... right. As if the next gen 12-core xeons are just that much faster than the previous 4, 8, or 16 core xeons setups. Nothing intel has released in the past has ever made a leap like that. Xeons within the same generation don't even scale linearly going from 4 to 8 cores.

12 hours to real time? Complete B.S.

You are forgetting the impact of GPGPUs and OpenCL.
 

Jynto

macrumors 6502
Jan 16, 2012
382
119
Nottingham, UK
This is a great design, which will be accompanied with a great price tag.

But the average consumer does not need Xeon's and dual workstation class GPU's. Way too many "developers" are going to buy this but people making iOS apps do not need a 12 core Xeon CPU to do the trick.

I am tired of Apple missing a market segment to build a "high-performing" consumer level desktop WITHOUT an integrated display. A lot of people think they are "pro" but they are deluded by Apple's marketing and the lack of a upper-middle tier desktop option. Apple just wants to funnel developers into an expensive desktop product.

Apple needs to come out with the "Mac", period. Not iMac, not Mac Mini, not Mac Pro, but a consumer level "high-end" desktop. And I don't want a laptop with "near" desktop performance.

Make a grey version of this using desktop Haswell CPU's, and the option to have one or two GPU's.

Fine, it will steal market away from the "pro" consumers, but it will INCREASE market presence overall. Now that services like Steam are no longer bound to PC gaming Apple is just ignoring the importance of not offering a desktop in this class without the Mini or "i" monikers.

Why not? It just makes sense. Do it now!

For most people who want a headless desktop, the Mac Mini is powerful enough. Yes, I know it's not good enough for gaming. Who said Apple ever gave a rat's ass about gamers?
 

r3m1

macrumors regular
Apr 7, 2012
220
120
Earth
My guess is $1995 and/or $2495. Apple really likes that price point for the flagship Mac product.

My guess is that price point will double if not more.

Just the price of the components and Apple's margin will make a starting price of $1995 unrealistic.
 

sna

macrumors newbie
Jan 13, 2012
20
0
I am sure if you put DELL workstation , or HP workstation with 2 Quadros 6000 cards and 16 cores (2x8) xeons , 128 G of Ram , 4G/s Raid sotorage behind the scene , people will be amazed 10 times more than you garbage Mac pro CAN
 

subsonix

macrumors 68040
Feb 2, 2008
3,551
79
I am sure if you put DELL workstation , or HP workstation with 2 Quadros 6000 cards and 16 cores (2x8) xeons , 128 G of Ram , 4G/s Raid sotorage behind the scene , people will be amazed 10 times more than you garbage Mac pro CAN

How can you be sure? Why 10 times? It seems you would at the most be able to produce identical results, if not, please explain your reasoning.
 

3282868

macrumors 603
Jan 8, 2009
5,281
0
To be fair, the 'reasonable price' argument doesn't really work because with inflation that's now nearer $2500.

Good point. I recall this being mentioned a while ago and someone did the "math", as this wasn't more than ~7-8 years ago, it wasn't a big difference. Then again, gas prices doubled almost overnight around 2002/2003 for many reasons. God I miss the 80's/90's when regular unleaded was consistently at or below the $2.00 mark.
 

69650

Suspended
Mar 23, 2006
3,367
1,876
England
No, your math is wrong. You forgot to add the pair of FirePro W9000 GPUs with 6GB each GDDR5 memory. I got the superdrive price from the option of a second superdrive from the Apple store.

I'm calling it Mac Tube Pro to easily distinguish it from a Mac Pro.

Are you claiming that the standard configuration price will be around $10K which is approx 3x the current price?

Or as I suspect are you factoring in a host of upgrades and optional extras to bump up the spec to around $10K?

There is no way they're going to treble the price of the standard config. Not everyone needs all those upgrades.
 

davida1

macrumors newbie
Jun 19, 2011
24
4
Atlanta
Constrained design

If you're wondering why there are two GPUs in the Mac Tube Pro, the answer is it's a required design constraint. The constraint follows a sequence of design decisions.

Apple wanted to eliminate internal PCIe slots, and use Thunderbolt instead. They didn't want to have special data-only Thunderbolt ports, so all Thunderbolt ports need to support displays. Without PCIe slots, 4 Thunderbolt ports would be too few, so 6 was chosen as the minimum.

The resulting architecture is a single Xeon CPU and two FirePro GPUs. The FirePro GPUs support what AMD calls eyefinity, which simply means it can route the display channels to different connectors as needed, and support multiple displays simultaneously.

The Mac Tube Pro has 7 (including the HDMI port) possible display connections. According to Apple, three support dual-link equivalent (over 1920x1200 pixel) displays. This puts a floor on which FirePro GPUs can be used.

The PCIe architecture therefore is like this:
1 Xeon CPU
32 PCIe lanes to the two GPUs
24 PCIe lanes to intel Falcon Ridge controllers, which join 6 displayport channels from the two GPUs, out to the 6 Thunderbolt ports
4? PCIe lanes to the internal SSD slots
1 PCIE lane for internal platform controller
 

69650

Suspended
Mar 23, 2006
3,367
1,876
England
Tablets never effected laptop sales, but did impact greatly on netbook sales.

Are you serious? Go look at the data again my friend. The tablet is killing laptop sales in a big way, both above and below the $500 mark.

It's widely predicted that tablet sales will overtake laptop sales for the first time this year, with tablet sales growing by around 60% this year alone.
 

davida1

macrumors newbie
Jun 19, 2011
24
4
Atlanta
Are you claiming that the standard configuration price will be around $10K which is approx 3x the current price?

Or as I suspect are you factoring in a host of upgrades and optional extras to bump up the spec to around $10K?

There is no way they're going to treble the price of the standard config. Not everyone needs all those upgrades.

No, if you look at my original post, I was estimating the cost of the demo machine described in the article that this thread is based on (and the 'up to' specs on Apple's web site). Please re-read it.

In theory, they could build a much cheaper quad-core-based machine, but it still needs two GPUs capable of supporting 3 or 4 displayport connections (It's possible the CPU could have a GPU to support the HDMI port).
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.