2018 MacBook Pros Have New 'Titan Ridge' Thunderbolt 3 Controller, But DisplayPort 1.4 Isn't Truly Supported

[dwaite]

Actually, if history is any indicator, Apple kinda does get to choose the port used by Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt and Thunderbolt 2 both used the Mini DisplayPort connector which Apple developed and then turned over to VESA, despite Intel's plans to use an optical extension to the USB Type-A connector.

The USB-IF killed the plan for TB1 to be melded into the USB port, because they had no intention with USB 3.0 to support alt modes for the port, and removed the optical extensions.

Sony had a different port for TB1 than mini-DisplayPort, but I forget what they used off the top of my head.

I'm not sure if they felt like alt mode was too much overloading of USB-A and required a new port, or if some other change happened between then and 3.1 gen 2/USB-C to get alt modes supported.

Then Apple sent a whole bunch of engineers to the USB-IF working groups to help develop the Type-C connector. It was compact and reversible like their proprietary Lightning connector, but was also designed from the outset to support Thunderbolt and DisplayPort via alternate modes. Low and behold, Thunderbolt 3 uses the USB Type-C connector.

Unfortunately I'm not privy to what went on within the USB-IF discussions. I *suspect* Apple would actually try to steer things toward exactly lightning, but that USB-IF would veto the plug design due to the issues with mini-B (mini-B was killed/replaced with micro-B because devices had the wear from connection, and some cheap connectors were failing at around 500 inserts. For a cellphone, that meant a significant # of phones failed to charge within their 2 year contract).

So we got the larger 'inverted' USB-C plug instead, so that cheap cables fail rather than cheap device connectors.

Thunderbolt 4 will almost certainly continue to use the USB Type-C connector and copper cables for short hauls, but will switch to PAM4 signaling, which effectively doubles the throughput while keeping the Nyquist frequency the same. The Thunderbolt PHY pretty much follows along the lines of whatever Intel has going on for transceivers in the converged network adapter and FPGA spaces.

Using something other than USB-C looks like a nonstarter for at least a few years (until USB-D is out perhaps). With the USB-C alt modes and active thunderbolt cables, the USB-C port starts to look more like a connector than a cable format - like an alternative to ExpressCard perhaps.

Before Intel can speed up the connector they are going to have to figure out how to solve the lane shortage on portables, though

 

[travisjaymoore]

I went into the Apple Store in Anchorage yesterday to buy the 2018 MacBook Pro 13". I was committed to the purchase way before I walked in the door. But a casual glance at the ports on the MacBook caused a pivotal revelation. The ports on their flagship line are only Thunderbolt 3. And NOTHING else. This is unbelievably shortsighted to the point that I'm certain Apple has lost its way. There are ZERO compatible ports on this new machine. I can't plug my iPhone into it, I can't plug my thumb drive into it, I can't plug a peripheral into it, I can't plug anything but the power cord into it. Really? This is the FLAGSHIP? I need to carry an external dongle to plug anything into my flagship Apple? That's ridiculous! I didn't buy the MacBook. Apple has lost their way. I've made the decision this morning to give up on Apple. I just ordered a new Microsoft Surface Pro a few minutes before writing this. Too bad Apple, you're your own worst enemy.

Have you been living under a rock the last 18mos? It's kinda weird you just found out about the (lack of) ports.
The beauty of TB3/USB-C is you can plug EVERYTHING into it. I replaced most of my cables (for example USB-A to USB-C cable instead of using the USB-A dongle) sounds everything is simple.
I DO WISH someone would make a USB-C to Apple Watch charging cable for when I'm on business trips and charge from the laptop.

 

[Lennyvalentin]

I DO WISH someone would make a USB-C to Apple Watch charging cable for when I'm on business trips and charge from the laptop.

Here's to Apple Watch Series 4 shipping with USB-C chargers this autumn...!

 

[repoman27]

The USB-IF killed the plan for TB1 to be melded into the USB port, because they had no intention with USB 3.0 to support alt modes for the port, and removed the optical extensions.

Right, the story was that the USB-IF didn't want arbitrary proprietary extensions to the spec without approval from the members. Which is legit because Intel did try to railroad this one past them, however, don't forget who the USB-IF is:

• President & COO - Jeff Ravencraft, Intel Corporation
• Chairman - Brad Saunders, Intel Corporation
• CTO - Abdul R. Ismail, Intel Corporation

Apple had no intention of using the optical PHY that Intel had cobbled together, held the trademark for Thunderbolt, and had negotiated a de facto one year exclusive on the technology. They told Intel that the product was going to be branded as Thunderbolt and use the miniDP connector and that was that. Intel used the "USB-IF killed our optical star" story to downplay why several years of R&D involving multiple partners was now being chucked into the dust bin.

Sony had a different port for TB1 than mini-DisplayPort, but I forget what they used off the top of my head.

I'm not sure if they felt like alt mode was too much overloading of USB-A and required a new port, or if some other change happened between then and 3.1 gen 2/USB-C to get alt modes supported.

Sony was allowed to ship one model of the VAIO Z using the Light Peak prototype PHY (USB Type-A plus optical) but not as Thunderbolt. It was embodied as a proprietary interface that only worked with their Power Media Dock, which included a tethered cable that also ganged power alongside the USB connector. Aside from that, Apple had an exclusive on Thunderbolt until Ivy Bridge was launched.

Proprietary versions of USB ports were incredibly common at the time though. The most common example being the hybrid USB Type-A plus eSATA port, which was never condoned by the USB-IF but appeared on millions of PCs and motherboards.

Unfortunately I'm not privy to what went on within the USB-IF discussions. I *suspect* Apple would actually try to steer things toward exactly lightning, but that USB-IF would veto the plug design due to the issues with mini-B (mini-B was killed/replaced with micro-B because devices had the wear from connection, and some cheap connectors were failing at around 500 inserts. For a cellphone, that meant a significant # of phones failed to charge within their 2 year contract).

So we got the larger 'inverted' USB-C plug instead, so that cheap cables fail rather than cheap device connectors.

Apple would never give up their grip on Lightning and the MFi ecosystem. Also, USB Type-C had entirely different design goals. And despite the FireWire argument that the moving parts should be in the cable side of the connector, the minimum mating cycle requirement of Lightning connectors is likely higher than that of USB Type-C. Consider how robust 8P8C modular jacks are despite containing sprung (moving) contacts—it's almost always the plastic latching mechanism on the plug that fails. I believe Type-C connectors have sprung parts on both sides, so only time will tell which side tends to fail more often.

Using something other than USB-C looks like a nonstarter for at least a few years (until USB-D is out perhaps). With the USB-C alt modes and active thunderbolt cables, the USB-C port starts to look more like a connector than a cable format - like an alternative to ExpressCard perhaps.

Before Intel can speed up the connector they are going to have to figure out how to solve the lane shortage on portables, though

Thunderbolt is exactly that: the successor to ExpressCard. And Intel probably won't give us more PCIe lanes, especially not on the Thunderbolt controller. However, they will move to PCIe 4.0 for Thunderbolt 4. So you'll have 63 Gbit/s of PCIe bandwidth given an x4 link which should pair nicely with 80 Gbit/s Thunderbolt links.

 

[phillytim]

In related news, Apple has also confirmed that all four Thunderbolt 3 ports on the new 13-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar are now full speed, compared to only the two left-facing ports on the equivalent 2016 and 2017 models.

Sure has heck had better be full speed Tb3 ports, for the premium that Apple charges for these disposable appliances!

 

[nords]

Does 15-inch MacBook Pro 2018 support 10bpc on external 4K HDR monitors such as EIZO?
Where can I find TB3 —> DP1.4 adapter to connect ?

 

[cube]

Where are the Titan Ridge docks with DisplayPort 1.4 ?

 

[corinthos]

I could use some clarification, please. Could some experts chime in?

For Mac Mini 2018 and MacBook Pro 15" 2018 w/ Vega Graphics, both coming with 4 x TB3 ports, I'd like to confirm the following or have my understanding corrected:

1. Each of the aforementioned systems above comes with 2 Titan Ridge TB3 controllers. Each controller is capped at
40GB/S. Each controller is connected to 2 TB3 ports. This would mean 2 TB3 ports would share 40GB/S of bandwidth.
Is this correct? I was previously assuming every TB3 port would get 40GB/S bandwidth.

2. Is #1 above dependent upon the # of total PCIe lanes available? If so, would that mean for iMac Pro with Xeon
processors, there would be more PCIe lanes available and therefore all of its TB3 ports would be a full 40GB/S?

3. Would the new MBP 15' 2018 W/ Vega 20 be able to support 8K monitors?

4. Any difference between the 4 x TB3 ports in Mac Mini 2018 vs MBP 15" 2018 w/ Vega 20?

I'm trying to determine which route to take... Mac Mini 2018 w/ eGPU vs MBP 15" w/ Vega 20 (adding eGPU if/when
I need extra GPU power), and want to determine if there's any differences in the TB3 ports between the two.

 

[dwaite]

Yes on both.

1. The current Thunderbolt 3 controllers use 4 lanes for maximum bandwidth, and can have 1 or 2 devices attached to them. If you have two devices, they share the bandwidth. For the 15" MBP for instance, I can power two 5k screens but I need to plug them into opposite sides.
2. Yes. Even the i9 upgrade in the MBP 2018 has only 16 lanes. Lanes are needed for other functions like the communication with the T2 chip (e.g. disk I/O)
3a. Using Thunderbolt 3 - assuming 8k is 4x 4k (just like 4k was 4x 1080p), and assuming 10 bit color depth and 60hz, you'd need about 60 gbps to power the pixels. It should theoretically be able to handle 30hz.
3b. Using DisplayPort Alt mode - since Thunderbolt 3 is just an alt mode of USB-C, it should theoretically also be able to support the DisplayPort alt mode. I think this would require a replacement or augmentation of the Titan Ridge TB3 controller, as well as running more lanes for the DP signal to those custom USB-C controllers. Very unlikely to be a hidden feature in the 2018 MBPs.
4. Not that I know of. The integrated graphics in the mini isn't spec'd to support two 5k screens, but that's not a difference with the ports.

Regarding eGPU, I'd recommend you try to not be the early adopter - check to see if the vendor or other users can attest to eGPU support for the software titles you care about. Thunderbolt 3 will add latency to the round trip between the eGPU and CPU, which was why Apple originally shipped eGPU boxes to developers for advanced testing/certification. For software that expects to be able to move data back and forth quickly or otherwise to be able to perform actions synchronously, you could see significantly impacted performance.

 

[corinthos]

thanks for your reply. it helps clear up a lot. so, can I safely say that the 4 TB3 ports on the new 2018 Mac Mini and the 2018 MacBook Pro 15" with Vega 20 have the same functionality and limitations? Neither has an advantage? I thought maybe the MacBook might, because it has a built in display, so I wouldn't need to use up a TB3 port or use up any of the 40gb/s bandwidth from either controller for the internal display. Or does the internal display use up some PCIe lanes? If so, then would that mean the Mac Mini would have more free lanes?

I'm debating whether to get a MacBook Pro 15" 2018 w/ Vega 20 for video editing, or 2018 Mac Mini w/ i7. Performance wise they seem to be very close, with maybe the i7-8700b in the mini having a bit more headroom.

I don't really need the portability at this time, as I'd be able to do my editing at home most times. I don't really travel enough to make it a priority requirement. But that could change. So there MBP has some appeal to me for that reason.. that plus Vega 20 should hold me over for a while and I wouldn't have to get an e-GPU right away. With Mac Mini, I likely will have to get one fairly soon.

The MBP is at least $600 to $1000 more, when I add up all the costs of keyboard, mouse, adding 32gb ram, adding e-GPU case w/ a Vega 64, etc.
That's a hefty premium for mobility.

Other option is to get the Mac Mini for home, and a more portable MacBook for when I'm out and about. It'd be much slower to edit video but in a pinch it'd do.

Or, for $1500 less than MBP w/ Vega 20, I can get a fully loaded XPS 15 with 4K display with 100% adobe rgb, 1tb ssd, 32gb ram, and 1050Ti. Resale value probably wouldn't be as good but then again my cash outlay wouldn't be as high either. Windows 10 isn't that bad to use nowadays, as it has improved a lot, but I like OS X since it's cleaner and seems leaner.
I can always run any Windows apps I need in a VM (like Office, Visual Studio). The only thing I don't like about OS X is by default the file system is case insensitive and I prefer case sensitive. If I change it I don't know what application will present problems down the road.

Yes on both.

1. The current Thunderbolt 3 controllers use 4 lanes for maximum bandwidth, and can have 1 or 2 devices attached to them. If you have two devices, they share the bandwidth. For the 15" MBP for instance, I can power two 5k screens but I need to plug them into opposite sides.
2. Yes. Even the i9 upgrade in the MBP 2018 has only 16 lanes. Lanes are needed for other functions like the communication with the T2 chip (e.g. disk I/O)
3a. Using Thunderbolt 3 - assuming 8k is 4x 4k (just like 4k was 4x 1080p), and assuming 10 bit color depth and 60hz, you'd need about 60 gbps to power the pixels. It should theoretically be able to handle 30hz.
3b. Using DisplayPort Alt mode - since Thunderbolt 3 is just an alt mode of USB-C, it should theoretically also be able to support the DisplayPort alt mode. I think this would require a replacement or augmentation of the Titan Ridge TB3 controller, as well as running more lanes for the DP signal to those custom USB-C controllers. Very unlikely to be a hidden feature in the 2018 MBPs.
4. Not that I know of. The integrated graphics in the mini isn't spec'd to support two 5k screens, but that's not a difference with the ports.

Regarding eGPU, I'd recommend you try to not be the early adopter - check to see if the vendor or other users can attest to eGPU support for the software titles you care about. Thunderbolt 3 will add latency to the round trip between the eGPU and CPU, which was why Apple originally shipped eGPU boxes to developers for advanced testing/certification. For software that expects to be able to move data back and forth quickly or otherwise to be able to perform actions synchronously, you could see significantly impacted performance.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I could use some clarification, please. Could some experts chime in?

For Mac Mini 2018 and MacBook Pro 15" 2018 w/ Vega Graphics, both coming with 4 x TB3 ports, I'd like to confirm the following or have my understanding corrected:

1. Each of the aforementioned systems above comes with 2 Titan Ridge TB3 controllers. Each controller is capped at
40GB/S. Each controller is connected to 2 TB3 ports. This would mean 2 TB3 ports would share 40GB/S of bandwidth.
Is this correct? I was previously assuming every TB3 port would get 40GB/S bandwidth.

2. Is #1 above dependent upon the # of total PCIe lanes available? If so, would that mean for iMac Pro with Xeon
processors, there would be more PCIe lanes available and therefore all of its TB3 ports would be a full 40GB/S?

3. Would the new MBP 15' 2018 W/ Vega 20 be able to support 8K monitors?

4. Any difference between the 4 x TB3 ports in Mac Mini 2018 vs MBP 15" 2018 w/ Vega 20?

I'm trying to determine which route to take... Mac Mini 2018 w/ eGPU vs MBP 15" w/ Vega 20 (adding eGPU if/when
I need extra GPU power), and want to determine if there's any differences in the TB3 ports between the two.

Answers, short and sweet.

1) Yes, two Thunderbolt 3 port per controller and they share the 40Gbps bandwidth.

2) No, the Thunderbolt 3 specification is capped at PCIe 3.0 x4 currently. Besides, Core i-Series CPUs and their respective PCH (300-Series chipset) do not have enough PCIe lanes to provide higher bandwidth. I suspect that should there be a Thunderbolt 4, it will most likely use PCIe 4.0, so we have a wait on our hands as Intel has given no indication if and when it will support PCIe 4.0.

The iMac Pro has two Alpine Ridge (JHL6540) Thunderbolt 3 controllers, which support DisplayPort 1.2, not DisplayPort 1.4 and therefore, not 8K, at least with a single cable, not unless Apple has done a silent revision to the motherboard, which I have not heard a peep about from anyone.

3) Two part answer - First part is a question - Why do you need an 8K display? Are you working with RED Weapon or Arri Alexa footage? Even if you are, a 4K or 5K display will probably be a more economical, attainable choice.

Second part - You should not assume that ANY Mac shipping this year will support any unannounced 8K display from Apple or anyone else. Doing so is just asking for disappointment from Apple.

4) There is no difference between the TB3 ports in the 2018 Mac mini or the 2018 15" MacBook Pro.

If you are waiting for an Apple branded 8K Cinema Display, I would advise you not to buy anything until the 2019 Mac Pro and an Apple 8K Cinema Display are actually announced and shipping. If you want portable GPU power now, you should buy a 2018 MacBook Pro with the Vega 20, and not worry about an eGPU for quite a while. My reasoning - To support an 8K display you are going to need, at a minimum, a Vega 64 or a Radeon Pro WX9100, plus an eGPU box that can supply the requisite 650w of power, which means a Sonnet Tech eGFX Breakaway Box 650. Your cash outlay for the eGPU alone is anywhere from $1,200.00-$1,700.00 to get an eGPU sporting one of those GPU cards.

Good luck!
[doublepost=1543198887][/doublepost]

thanks for your reply. it helps clear up a lot. so, can I safely say that the 4 TB3 ports on the new 2018 Mac Mini and the 2018 MacBook Pro 15" with Vega 20 have the same functionality and limitations? Neither has an advantage? I thought maybe the MacBook might, because it has a built in display, so I wouldn't need to use up a TB3 port or use up any of the 40gb/s bandwidth from either controller for the internal display. Or does the internal display use up some PCIe lanes? If so, then would that mean the Mac Mini would have more free lanes?

I'm debating whether to get a MacBook Pro 15" 2018 w/ Vega 20 for video editing, or 2018 Mac Mini w/ i7. Performance wise they seem to be very close, with maybe the i7-8700b in the mini having a bit more headroom.

I don't really need the portability at this time, as I'd be able to do my editing at home most times. I don't really travel enough to make it a priority requirement. But that could change. So there MBP has some appeal to me for that reason.. that plus Vega 20 should hold me over for a while and I wouldn't have to get an e-GPU right away. With Mac Mini, I likely will have to get one fairly soon.

The MBP is at least $600 to $1000 more, when I add up all the costs of keyboard, mouse, adding 32gb ram, adding e-GPU case w/ a Vega 64, etc.
That's a hefty premium for mobility.

Other option is to get the Mac Mini for home, and a more portable MacBook for when I'm out and about. It'd be much slower to edit video but in a pinch it'd do.

Or, for $1500 less than MBP w/ Vega 20, I can get a fully loaded XPS 15 with 4K display with 100% adobe rgb, 1tb ssd, 32gb ram, and 1050Ti. Resale value probably wouldn't be as good but then again my cash outlay wouldn't be as high either. Windows 10 isn't that bad to use nowadays, as it has improved a lot, but I like OS X since it's cleaner and seems leaner.
I can always run any Windows apps I need in a VM (like Office, Visual Studio). The only thing I don't like about OS X is by default the file system is case insensitive and I prefer case sensitive. If I change it I don't know what application will present problems down the road.

The CPU in the both the Mac mini and the MacBook Pro each have x16 PCIe 3.0 lanes. In the 15" MacBook Pro, x8 lanes go to the GPU (always has), x4 goes to one TB3 controller and the remaining x4 to the other TB3 controller. The PCIe NVMe Storage goes through the PCH PCIe lanes.

Personally, if you think you are going to need to go mobile, I would get the 15" MacBook Pro w/2.9GHz Core i9, 32GB DRAM, 2TB SSD and the Vega 20 GPU which is a hefty $5,049.00. Add a 4K or 5K display and call it a day. You do not need an eGPU right now, that is plenty of horsepower. Again, are you editing REDCODE RAW or ProRes 4444XQ? Or something a bit less challenging? If so, an eGPU at this point is superfluous. Besides, unless you absolutely have to have an eGPU now, you should wait until 7nm AMD VEGA Instinct is released next year. Both the Vega 56 and 64 are great GPUs, but they are at the tail end of AMD's roadmap, and I would not recommend buying one unless your job demands it.

Also, why would you not be considering the iMac Pro? Even the base level is more complete than either of these two choices.

 

[corinthos]

Answers, short and sweet.

1) Yes, two Thunderbolt 3 port per controller and they share the 40Gbps bandwidth.

2) No, the Thunderbolt 3 specification is capped at PCIe 3.0 x4 currently. Besides, Core i-Series CPUs and their respective PCH (300-Series chipset) do not have enough PCIe lanes to provide higher bandwidth. I suspect that should there be a Thunderbolt 4, it will most likely use PCIe 4.0, so we have a wait on our hands as Intel has given no indication if and when it will support PCIe 4.0.

The iMac Pro has two Alpine Ridge (JHL6540) Thunderbolt 3 controllers, which support DisplayPort 1.2, not DisplayPort 1.4 and therefore, not 8K, at least with a single cable, not unless Apple has done a silent revision to the motherboard, which I have not heard a peep about from anyone.

3) Two part answer - First part is a question - Why do you need an 8K display? Are you working with RED Weapon or Arri Alexa footage? Even if you are, a 4K or 5K display will probably be a more economical, attainable choice.

Second part - You should not assume that ANY Mac shipping this year will support any unannounced 8K display from Apple or anyone else. Doing so is just asking for disappointment from Apple.

4) There is no difference between the TB3 ports in the 2018 Mac mini or the 2018 15" MacBook Pro.

If you are waiting for an Apple branded 8K Cinema Display, I would advise you not to buy anything until the 2019 Mac Pro and an Apple 8K Cinema Display are actually announced and shipping. If you want portable GPU power now, you should buy a 2018 MacBook Pro with the Vega 20, and not worry about an eGPU for quite a while. My reasoning - To support an 8K display you are going to need, at a minimum, a Vega 64 or a Radeon Pro WX9100, plus an eGPU box that can supply the requisite 650w of power, which means a Sonnet Tech eGFX Breakaway Box 650. Your cash outlay for the eGPU alone is anywhere from $1,200.00-$1,700.00 to get an eGPU sporting one of those GPU cards.

Good luck!
[doublepost=1543198887][/doublepost]

The CPU in the both the Mac mini and the MacBook Pro each have x16 PCIe 3.0 lanes. In the 15" MacBook Pro, x8 lanes go to the GPU (always has), x4 goes to one TB3 controller and the remaining x4 to the other TB3 controller. The PCIe NVMe Storage goes through the PCH PCIe lanes.

Personally, if you think you are going to need to go mobile, I would get the 15" MacBook Pro w/2.9GHz Core i9, 32GB DRAM, 2TB SSD and the Vega 20 GPU which is a hefty $5,049.00. Add a 4K or 5K display and call it a day. You do not need an eGPU right now, that is plenty of horsepower. Again, are you editing REDCODE RAW or ProRes 4444XQ? Or something a bit less challenging? If so, an eGPU at this point is superfluous. Besides, unless you absolutely have to have an eGPU now, you should wait until 7NM AMD VEGA Instinct is released next year. Both the Vega 56 and 64 are great GPUs, but they are at the tail end of AMD's roadmap, and I would not recommend buying one unless your job demands it.

Also, why would you not be considering the iMac Pro? Even the base level is more complete than either of these two choices.

Thanks for your reply. Answer to #3 - I don't *need* an 8K display, but because it's a considerable outlay of cash for a MBP or Mini and associated equipment, I wanted to make sure it's as future proof as possible, as i'd be keeping it for quite a few years. But you have a point, I wouldn't need an 8K display to edit 8K footage.

Also thanks for the recommendations and advice. Things to consider, for sure. Especially the part about not investing in Vega 56/64 at this time unless I need it right now.

As to your question about iMac Pro. I actually like it quite a bit. The 5K display is excellent quality. It comes with keyboard and mouse already. Base model would give me 2 extra cores. It uses ECC memory - not necessary for me but nice nonetheless. A MacBook Pro 15" w/ Vega 20, i9/32GB/1TB is already about $4k. I can get iMac Pro for $4500.

My main apprehension about iMac Pro is that Apple no longer features Target Display Mode, which is nice to have to allow you to reuse such a fine display as a secondary, once it no longer provides the power or features I need in a primary system and need to repurpose the hardware. Either that or sell it at that point.

BTW, since the iMac Pro has 48 pcie lanes, are some of them perhaps unutilized? Could Apple have put in 4 TB3 controllers so each port gets a full 40GB/S?

Thanks.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Thanks for your reply. Answer to #3 - I don't *need* an 8K display, but because it's a considerable outlay of cash for a MBP or Mini and associated equipment, I wanted to make sure it's as future proof as possible, as i'd be keeping it for quite a few years. But you have a point, I wouldn't need an 8K display to edit 8K footage.

Also thanks for the recommendations and advice. Things to consider, for sure. Especially the part about not investing in Vega 56/64 at this time unless I need it right now.

As to your question about iMac Pro. I actually like it quite a bit. The 5K display is excellent quality. It comes with keyboard and mouse already. Base model would give me 2 extra cores. It uses ECC memory - not necessary for me but nice nonetheless. A MacBook Pro 15" w/ Vega 20, i9/32GB/1TB is already about $4k. I can get iMac Pro for $4500.

My main apprehension about iMac Pro is that Apple no longer features Target Display Mode, which is nice to have to allow you to reuse such a fine display as a secondary, once it no longer provides the power or features I need in a primary system and need to repurpose the hardware. Either that or sell it at that point.

BTW, since the iMac Pro has 48 pcie lanes, are some of them perhaps unutilized? Could Apple have put in 4 TB3 controllers so each port gets a full 40GB/S?

Thanks.

If I might try to change a negative into a positive...forget TDM on the iMac Pro. Instead, think about how you might increase the longevity of your investment in the iMac Pro.

To me, the sweet spot for the iMac Pro is the 10-core Xeon, 64GB DRAM, 2TB SSD, Vega 64. The downside is the cost - $7,999.00.

However, the iMac Pro is still an expandable platform, so even if you can only get the base version, you can upgrade the DRAM and the CPU (now showing up in retail). The Vega 56 uses a bit less power and generates less heat, it's not like its a slouch either, and 1TB is fine for a desktop, since you are can offload more to external storage than you might be comfortable doing with a MBP.

So, 3-4 years from now, you can move from 32GB of DRAM to 64Gb or 128GB, and upgrade the CPU to the 14 or 18 core (only the 8-core and 10-core are custom lower clocked versions). Currently, the 14-core is ~$2,000.00, the 18-core is ~$2,800.00 and are sold as a tray CPU. Hopefully, Intel will start selling them as boxed CPUs, but any competent Apple Tech should be able to install both the CPU and the DRAM once the iMac Pro is out of Apple Care. I think OWC does this...but not positive.

Right now, upgrading to 128GB of DRAM and a 14-core CPU would cost around $4,000.00. However, in the future, if patterns hold true, you will be able to get that same CPU for ~$1,300.00-$1,500.00 and the 128GB of DRAM will probably be close to the same price. So, for $3,000.00 you can upgrade that same iMac Pro to match your workflow (if necessary). You would only need to add an eGPU if you needed extra horsepower for transcoding or driving another 5K/8K display.

FYI, you can find Apple factory-refurbished base iMac Pros for $3,899.00 on eBay, which are eligible for AppleCare, if you do a little sleuthing.

Yes, some of those PCIe lanes are not used, which is a shame. The TB3 controller has to be within a certain physical distance of the ports and looking at the teardown on iFixit, there is no room to do that. There may other reasons...also, I am not an Electrical Engineer (IANAEE), so I will yield to any EE who has a better explanation than I can give you here.

 

[corinthos]

If I might try to change a negative into a positive...forget TDM on the iMac Pro. Instead, think about how you might increase the longevity of your investment in the iMac Pro.

To me, the sweet spot for the iMac Pro is the 10-core Xeon, 64GB DRAM, 2TB SSD, Vega 64. The downside is the cost - $7,999.00.

However, the iMac Pro is still an expandable platform, so even if you can only get the base version, you can upgrade the DRAM and the CPU (now showing up in retail). The Vega 56 uses a bit less power and generates less heat, it's not like its a slouch either, and 1TB is fine for a desktop, since you are can offload more to external storage than you might be comfortable doing with a MBP.

So, 3-4 years from now, you can move from 32GB of DRAM to 64Gb or 128GB, and upgrade the CPU to the 14 or 18 core (only the 8-core and 10-core are custom lower clocked versions). Currently, the 14-core is ~$2,000.00, the 18-core is ~$2,800.00 and are sold as a tray CPU. Hopefully, Intel will start selling them as boxed CPUs, but any competent Apple Tech should be able to install both the CPU and the DRAM once the iMac Pro is out of Apple Care. I think OWC does this...but not positive.

Right now, upgrading to 128GB of DRAM and a 14-core CPU would cost around $4,000.00. However, in the future, if patterns hold true, you will be able to get that same CPU for ~$1,300.00-$1,500.00 and the 128GB of DRAM will probably be close to the same price. So, for $3,000.00 you can upgrade that same iMac Pro to match your workflow (if necessary). You would only need to add an eGPU if you needed extra horsepower for transcoding or driving another 5K/8K display.

FYI, you can find Apple factory-refurbished base iMac Pros for $3,899.00 on eBay, which are eligible for AppleCare, if you do a little sleuthing.

Yes, some of those PCIe lanes are not used, which is a shame. The TB3 controller has to be within a certain physical distance of the ports and looking at the teardown on iFixit, there is no room to do that. There may other reasons...also, I am not an Electrical Engineer (IANAEE), so I will yield to any EE who has a better explanation than I can give you here.

That iMac Pro strategy is pretty good. Also, I didn't consider refurb. That's a considerable savings. I'm surprised they are already popping up as refurbs at such a sharp discount. Also appreciate the explanation about the extra iMac Pro PCIe lanes. Thanks for sharing!

Now I just got to decide whether to make that leap to Mac from PC. I like Apple hardware and overall user experience. I've been a PC user all of my life and have done my share of spending time tinkering hardware and software and messing with configuration files and kernel/package rebuilds (Linux) over the years and now find time much more precious and valuable so I appreciate the value of just having things that work, let me be productive quickly, and doesn't interfere with the rest of my life.

For the same cash outlay for an iMac Pro base model, refurb, I can actually get:

AMD 1950x 16 core 3ghz cpu ($450 or lower since Black Friday)
heatsink/fan ($70)
64gb ram ($500)
x399 motherboard ($250)
Vega 64 ($425)
1TB SSD ($150)
enclosure ($75)
Grand Total = $1920

PLUS I can also get

XPS 15 9570 4K 100% AdobeRGB,/32GB/1TB/1050Ti (about equivalent to Vega 20), 4 year warranty if
purchased from Costco and using Costco Visa.
Grand Total = $2015 after tax.

Combined Total: $3935

I'd have the raw horsepower/cores at home for heavier lifting, and a mobile/portable solution that would be roughly equivalent to an MBP 15" Vega 20/32GB/1TB/i7.

I'd be using Da Vinci Resolve if I go the PC route, and Final Cut Pro X if I went the Apple route. FCPX has certain optimizations/advantages. I think export times and stabilization times are way ahead of the competition, but Resolve has made some significant strides forward in recent versions and may have taken some of FCPX's advantage it gets from leveraging QuickSync by also supporting it.

Guess I'll have to weigh all of the pros and cons and decide.

Thanks again.

 

[Zdigital2015]

That iMac Pro strategy is pretty good. Also, I didn't consider refurb. That's a considerable savings. I'm surprised they are already popping up as refurbs at such a sharp discount. Also appreciate the explanation about the extra iMac Pro PCIe lanes. Thanks for sharing!

Now I just got to decide whether to make that leap to Mac from PC. I like Apple hardware and overall user experience. I've been a PC user all of my life and have done my share of spending time tinkering hardware and software and messing with configuration files and kernel/package rebuilds (Linux) over the years and now find time much more precious and valuable so I appreciate the value of just having things that work, let me be productive quickly, and doesn't interfere with the rest of my life.

For the same cash outlay for an iMac Pro base model, refurb, I can actually get:

AMD 1950x 16 core 3ghz cpu ($450 or lower since Black Friday)
heatsink/fan ($70)
64gb ram ($500)
x399 motherboard ($250)
Vega 64 ($425)
1TB SSD ($150)
enclosure ($75)
Grand Total = $1920

PLUS I can also get

XPS 15 9570 4K 100% AdobeRGB,/32GB/1TB/1050Ti (about equivalent to Vega 20), 4 year warranty if
purchased from Costco and using Costco Visa.
Grand Total = $2015 after tax.

Combined Total: $3935

I'd have the raw horsepower/cores at home for heavier lifting, and a mobile/portable solution that would be roughly equivalent to an MBP 15" Vega 20/32GB/1TB/i7.

I'd be using Da Vinci Resolve if I go the PC route, and Final Cut Pro X if I went the Apple route. FCPX has certain optimizations/advantages. I think export times and stabilization times are way ahead of the competition, but Resolve has made some significant strides forward in recent versions and may have taken some of FCPX's advantage it gets from leveraging QuickSync by also supporting it.

Guess I'll have to weigh all of the pros and cons and decide.

Thanks again.

I have used Macs since 1989. Used to support and administer a mixed Mac & Windows network. Spent so many wasted hours on Windows issues that should not have been issues and, as a result, Windows is not a viable alternative for me. I no longer care to tinker ad nauseam anymore with registry hacks, viruses, DLLs, driver issues, being interrupted to install a system update only to watch the PC spend half an hour updating when I need to get something done. Just spent an entire day troubleshooting a very persistent piece of malware on a relative's HP laptop, which reminded me why I do not use Windows anymore. Life is too short and I have no patience to deal with Microsoft's compromises.

I am sure I sound pretty strident, but no version of Windows has proven worth the time and trouble...for me, at least. YMMV.

You're welcome. Good luck!

 

[dwaite]

thanks for your reply. it helps clear up a lot. so, can I safely say that the 4 TB3 ports on the new 2018 Mac Mini and the 2018 MacBook Pro 15" with Vega 20 have the same functionality and limitations? Neither has an advantage? I thought maybe the MacBook might, because it has a built in display, so I wouldn't need to use up a TB3 port or use up any of the 40gb/s bandwidth from either controller for the internal display. Or does the internal display use up some PCIe lanes? If so, then would that mean the Mac Mini would have more free lanes?

The dGPU is connected to the CPU over PCIe, so that's going to use lanes. The limitations of the mini are no dGPU and supposedly because of that, support for only one 5k display on its thunderbolt ports.

I'm debating whether to get a MacBook Pro 15" 2018 w/ Vega 20 for video editing, or 2018 Mac Mini w/ i7. Performance wise they seem to be very close, with maybe the i7-8700b in the mini having a bit more headroom.

I don't really need the portability at this time, as I'd be able to do my editing at home most times. I don't really travel enough to make it a priority requirement. But that could change. So there MBP has some appeal to me for that reason.. that plus Vega 20 should hold me over for a while and I wouldn't have to get an e-GPU right away. With Mac Mini, I likely will have to get one fairly soon.

For my use case, I made sure I had desk space and a good 'docking' setup so my portable machine could be made portable quickly. I'm a little upset that the Vega 20 wasn't an option when I BTO'd my 2018 MBP. I'm mostly development, so honestly the intel GPU wouldn't be a problem. I'm glad they are accelerating video encoding with the T2 on that mini.

You probably could tell I'm nervous about eGPUs still. I'd prefer to be a very late adopter for all the benefits, none of the kinks. Still, I'm not the target audience.

The MBP is at least $600 to $1000 more, when I add up all the costs of keyboard, mouse, adding 32gb ram, adding e-GPU case w/ a Vega 64, etc.
That's a hefty premium for mobility.

Other option is to get the Mac Mini for home, and a more portable MacBook for when I'm out and about. It'd be much slower to edit video but in a pinch it'd do.

IMHO, the prices currently are only justifiable if the equipment has a long life span. I typically figure out a budget per year, not just to think about quantifying the value of the machine, but also so I can compare with cheaper options with a shorter life span.

For example, a future-proof, fully loaded setup might not make sense if you suspected there would be a compelling upgrade (possibly ARM-based) in the near term.

Of course, that sort of thinking has also led me to believe Apple has seen people using their machines (phones, tablets, and computers) longer, and has increased their base cost/hardware cost/profits per unit in response. Most of the compelling upgrades this year have been because of more expensive hardware, not the traditional tech part treadmill where the next gen is now at the previous gen's launch price.

Or, for $1500 less than MBP w/ Vega 20, I can get a fully loaded XPS 15 with 4K display with 100% adobe rgb, 1tb ssd, 32gb ram, and 1050Ti. Resale value probably wouldn't be as good but then again my cash outlay wouldn't be as high either. Windows 10 isn't that bad to use nowadays, as it has improved a lot, but I like OS X since it's cleaner and seems leaner.
I can always run any Windows apps I need in a VM (like Office, Visual Studio). The only thing I don't like about OS X is by default the file system is case insensitive and I prefer case sensitive. If I change it I don't know what application will present problems down the road.

For me its again a matter of cost - even a $1500 difference pays for itself when considering the frustration and deadline impacts of a few weeks of lost productivity from adjusting to windows 10, let alone my suspicions of just not being as productive with it due to past issues with windows (that were really issues with the core system design, not something win10 could solve)

That said, the XPS screen is lower brightness and not P3, but the 4k would be a big benefit for mobile video editing. A high quality HDR 4k screen would be king, but neither is offering that.

TBH I haven't had significant problems in the past with case sensitive, which I ran on my previous mini due to it originally running the macOS Server distribution. Occasionally I'd have a source code build issue for scripts which assumed it didn't matter when building on the Mac, but such things were trivial to fix.

Unfortunately, the one type of app I fear is third party apps which are minimal ports rather than true Mac apps. If I had to give two examples, they would be java desktop apps and consumer video editing apps

It is worth noting that APFS is pretty much the ideal setup for case insensitive as of Mojave - it is case-preserving case insensitive. Basically, each file has two names - the displayed/shared filename you give it as a user, and an internal processed name (Unicode normalized and lower cased to a canonical representation). When you reference a file by name, it will do that normalization/lower-casing to look for the file or prevent conflicts, but it still preserves the name you gave it.

When in case sensitive mode, it still does the unicode normalization but does not alter case.

 

[curmudgeonette]

1. Each of the aforementioned systems above comes with 2 Titan Ridge TB3 controllers. Each controller is capped at
40GB/S. Each controller is connected to 2 TB3 ports. This would mean 2 TB3 ports would share 40GB/S of bandwidth.
Is this correct? I was previously assuming every TB3 port would get 40GB/S bandwidth.

The 40Gbit (aka 40Gb: lowercase b means bit) bandwidth is not shared between the two conjoined ports - each port is capable of using it's full bandwidth. However, on the other side of the Titan Ridge chip, the PCIe 3.0 x4 link is shared. That link has 3.94GByte (approximately 31.5Gbit) bandwidth. As you can see, one TB3 port can fully utilize the PCIe interface.

The 40Gbit individual port bandwidth of paired ports can best be utilized by using one for video and one for data. That is because motherboard video has a separate path from the iGPU/dGPU to the Titan Ridge chip - i.e. it does not take away PCIe bandwidth. (You could also use about half the bandwidth of each port driving a 4K display, leaving the other half for data. Then PCIe 3.0 x4 is enough for two ports.)

...

It is good that you bumped this topic. The new Vega GPU's create reason to readdress the premise of this thread. The Polaris based MBP's can't support DP1.3/1.4 because neither the dGPU* nor the iGPU can output video at those speeds. Might it be possible that the new Vega chips do support DP1.3/1.4? At present there's very little information about them. It is high time that AMD supports a four year old standard (DP1.3) or the two year old enhancement (DP1.4).

* Could someone reconfirm this? I couldn't find a quick reference so I'm going by memory.

 

[jimthing]

5K USB-C gen.2 10Gbps displays should arrive soon, given Apple said at the iPad event that the 2018 iPad Pros support up to 5K displays, and those have non-TB3 ports.

I'm gonna presume that 2019 January CES will have them, at a guess, though likely not released til third quarter 2019, unfortunately.

 

[Joris Eversen]

Does anyone know if this means that I can use the https://iiyama.com/gl_en/products/prolite-xb2779qqs-s1/ with my 15 inch 2018 MBP through a DP1.4 cable ?