Don't you lot have something more useful/fun/creative to do?
I tried to follow this thread in the hope of insight brain got fried with boredom oil.
I tried to follow this thread in the hope of insight brain got fried with boredom oil.
Go in to an Apple store, and ask the genius if the CPU is a "user serviceable part", same as the RAM is a "user serviceable part".
Guess what, it's not. The fact that you can get to it and disassemble it and DIY, doesn't mean it's what Apple classifies as "user serviceable". A technician can pull and replace the 2013's GPUs as well, going to claim they're "user serviceable"?
Just like the cMP's bluetooth and wifi aren't "user serviceable", while the drive sleds, ram and PCI cards, are. User Serviceable, are the parts Apple designs specifically to be replaced by the end user, not an Apple Certified Technician.
You wouldn't care, Apple would care. Splitting the userbase only makes sense when the separate products produce a market enlargement sufficient to cover the increased expenses of two different machines. A sealed appliance Mac Pro is not going to appeal to any significant market outside of markets already addressed by the iMac Pro, while stealing sales, and therefore component volume discounts from the iMac Pro.
The more screens Apple sells, the cheaper the screens are, and the better either their margins, or their ability to lower prices - that means they can make the iMac Pro cheaper than it would otherwise have to be, or the iMac, depending on where they want to push around their pricing.
So long as Apple buys enough of them that LG wouldn't be better off using the production capacity to build something else that sells in greater volume, and is therefore more profitable.
Lots of reports are the ultrafine is pretty much no longer stocked - it's an order-ony product. Given how badly it was received, quality issues etc, and being TB3 (so basically Mac)-only, I'll go out on a limb and say the entire product was probably a rush job, created to soak up overproduction on panels, not as a serious attempt to set up an independent LG 5k display line.
It's not enough for 5K panels to be profitable for LG to make them, it has to be more profitable to make them, than it would be to make something else, and 5k is basically an orphan resolution that only Apple are invested in, and even then, the only reason they've invested in it, literally the only reason, is because they couldn't get a proper resolution independent vector-based UI to work out. 5K / retina is a kludge, pure and simple.
8k is a mainstream video format, and 8k displays are going to be mainstream displays in a few years, similar to the transition from 1080p to 4K. 5K is its own little wilderness, existing only by the chance of fate that it's double the 1440p resolution of a non-retina 27" display.
IIRC the iMac Pro has more in common with the 2013 Mac Pro, than the normal iMac in terms of its hardware system design. I guarantee you, the way it was announced was not the way it was intended to be. If there had not been the fever pitch in the mac community about Apple abandoning the pro space, if you hadn't had Gruber, Ritchie etc openly saying "something has gone wrong in Apple" about the 2013, there would have been no mea culpa meeting, the iMac Pro would have just launched as "The new (i)Mac Pro", and that would have been Apple's sole pro desktop.
Yeah, it's not official. But, the user can service them if they wanted to. Hence, "user-serviceable." And, one would DIY, a RAM upgrade for example, because it's cheaper and not that hard to do.
So, for RAM upgrades, most people on here would agree that the best route is DIY. And, it's safe and not hard to do. So, even though it's not "official." It's also totally official. Know what I mean? Like, everybody does it.
If the nMP couldn't edit videos, we would have seen dozens and dozens of similar stories. But we haven't. We just keep seeing the several years-old deadpool example repeated over and over again.
No they can't satisfy every pro. But most are or will be served just fine.
Apple bet heavily on Dual GPUs gaining traction, and they lost big time on that one.
The 2013 Mac Pro has 2 GPU's for a number of reasons. But, I don't think those reasons include gaining traction into whatever thing your thinking about.
wow this is rabbit holeDon't you lot have something more useful/fun/creative to do?
I tried to follow this thread in the hope of insight brain got fried with boredom oil.
....
I think most people weren't well served by the nMP. You think most were. This was debatable up until Apple's press event. Apple didn't serve the pros that, by their definition, they were trying to reach with the 6,1 Mac Pro.
Craig Federighi speaking about the 6,1:
“It’s good for some; it’s an amazingly quiet machine, it’s a beautiful machine… But it does not address the full range of customers we wanna reach with Mac Pro.”
@Silencio is correct.
Craig Federighi again:
"We designed a system that we thought with the kind of GPUs that at the time we thought we needed, and that we thought we could well serve with a two GPU architecture … But workloads didn’t materialize to fit that as broadly as we hoped."
wow this is rabbit hole
There is nothing in Federighi comment that breaks down firmly the percentages. 'Some' means a significant quantity. It isn't 'all' or 'every' so it isn't the whole/full targeted market. It doesn't necessarily mean a relatively small one.
There is nothing in Federighi comment that breaks down firmly the percentages. 'Some' means a significant quantity. It isn't 'all' or 'every' so it isn't the whole/full targeted market. It doesn't necessarily mean a relatively small one. Some of the Mac Pro 2013 target market Apple addressed with the iMac Pro. That subset also includes some folks coming off of previous Mac Pro in addition to that MP 2013.
Apple hit some with the Mac Pro 2013 (6,10) and the missed some with the 6,1. You've conveniently trimmed out this statement also.
"... The original iMac, you never would’ve thought as remotely touching pro uses. And now you look at today’s 5k iMac, top configs, it’s incredibly powerful, and a huge fraction of what would’ve traditionally required the Mac Pros of old and are being well addressed by iMac — whether its audio editing, video editing, graphics, arts and so forth. But there’s still even further we can take iMac as a high performance, pro system, and we think that form factor can address even more of the pro market. ..."
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/t...-john-ternus-on-the-state-of-apples-pro-macs/
Apple's comments is that they have seen substantive customers coming out of the Mac Pro onto other Macs also.
There are also two other things.
First, there are several things in the that and other talks Apple has done that indicate that the next Mac Pro isn't targeting the same market they had intended to target with the Mac Pro 2013 ( and that the Mac Pro 2013 was targeting 100% of the previous Mac Pro market. It wasn't for example the two processor package set ups. Apple probably still isn't going to targets two processor package set ups but the dynamics 6-9 years later, depending upon your perspective is different now. )
Are they some folks that skipped both the 6,1 and iMac Pro who are circling the airport on 5,1 (and previous)? Yes. Is that the only (100%) folks Apple is going after with the next Mac Pro? Probably not. A large chunk? Yes. But Apple in no way has indicated that they are focused on building a HP z8 (or Dell 7920 ) clone either.
Second, all that Apple has really indirectly indicated is that there is "enough" folks that that scope outside the iMac Pro (and rest of Mac line ) to be interesting enough to take another stab at a Mac Pro. That doesn't mean that they most of the folks aren't covered already, just that there is enough 'left over' to do something with. From a 11-15 trend line most folks are dropped out of desktops. (the evidence is widely available). The real issue is how many are left.... not that there is some massive, growth market for the Mac Pro that is untapped.
But Apple didn't just 'loose' here just because of hardware. More accurately Apple 'beat the farm' on both dual GPUs and OpenCL. The hardware GPUs ran into problems but OpenCL ran into a buzzsaw of shifting technical strategic plans also. Apple didn't put their full weight behind OpenCL, Nvidia (and Microsoft ) pragmatically did a variation of "embrace, extend , extinguish" with other solutions variants. Apple shifted all their weight behind Metal (and metal on iOS pervasive shared memory architectures first priority).
Again some workloads surfaced to match the moves they made and some stuck to the status quo. ( the quote is that they didn't broadly appear. Not that they didn't appear at all. ). In some of the workloads where the GPUs failures were more common, lots of indicators is that it was too much dual usage was a contributing factor to the problem; not too little.
Apple didn't quite get the two GPUs right either at the higher ends of those workloads. The bigger issue there was more so going into "Rip van Winkle" mode. Not the hardware or the software specifics at any one time. That's where there still seems to be a problem ( if measuring on tasks finished and accomplished. )
@deconstruct60 is one of the very few posters around here who really knows what he's talking about, and all his posts are completely ignored... none of the typical crowd wants to engage discussion with him because they're all in make-believe land while he's talking reality)
That is what's so weird... what are you in "strong disagreement" with him about? 90% of what he says are just the facts and/or common understanding by people in this industry who know what the heck they're talking about, unlike most of the crowd that's still left to frequent this forum.For sure @deconstruct60 is one of the smartest and most analytical people around here. I say this even though I'm often in strong disagreement with him.
Not true on the quotes. Anyone can check out his post history for themselves - they all include usernames in the first quote. What he often does is emit the same username in further quotes within the same post.But your interpretation of why people don't engage with him is a bit one-sided and ignores a very real technical issue...he often deletes the username when quoting, which prevents notification for that user...
Not only did the "trash can" Mac Pro remove useful features, but the new features it brought to the table (small size, inadequate single-fan thermal solution, proprietary GPUs) were not things that most professionals cared about.
I've worked in a few offices over the years (in art departments). Small form factor and near silent operation is something that would have been appreciated in all of them. Most of the big towers we had were never opened or upgraded but simply phased out after a few years.
I suspect that's the crowd Apple had in mind, not the ones with a forest of cables sticking out of their tower case, side panels off and an extra fan pointed at the innards.
I'm not speaking for D60, but regarding the GPU failures...I am more or less on your side here and I agree with the things you mentioned, especially about target audience, etc.
What I am still gray on is towards the end of your post where you specifically talk about the 2013 Mac Pro, OpenCL, Metal, and GPU failures.
I have read of the GPU failures. Since I don't have a trashcan MP, I am only relying on ppl posting on here about them. Has anyone ever figured out the cause of them?
I am also gray on the whole OpenCL, Metal thing since I am not a developer and when I hear Metal and OpenCL, my experience with them is from a UI interface perspective and in FCPX where those API's might be leveraged. Basically, they're suppose to make things faster, make UI smoother since MacOS is so UI extensive in terms of visual/graphical elements.
And, so, Apple basically switched to Metal because it merges the OpenCL and OpenGL thing, right?
So, it doesn't seem like Apple abandoned OpenGL or OpenCL, they sort of, merged the two? Or am I wrong on this?
So, I don't see how Dual GPU usage would lead to GPU failure. Can you elaborate more on this? It sounds interesting....
I
I have read of the GPU failures. Since I don't have a trashcan MP, I am only relying on ppl posting on here about them. Has anyone ever figured out the cause of them?
I am also gray on the whole OpenCL, Metal thing since I am not a developer and when I hear Metal and OpenCL, my experience with them is from a UI interface perspective and in FCPX where those API's might be leveraged. Basically, they're suppose to make things faster, make UI smoother since MacOS is so UI extensive in terms of visual/graphical elements.
And, so, Apple basically switched to Metal because it merges the OpenCL and OpenGL thing, right?
So, it doesn't seem like Apple abandoned OpenGL or OpenCL, they sort of, merged the two? Or am I wrong on this?
So, I don't see how Dual GPU usage would lead to GPU failure. Can you elaborate more on this? It sounds interesting....
...Apple bet the farm that there was a bigger market for workflows dependent on multiple GPUs (using OpenCL, now the focus on Metal). That never materialized in the way Apple was hoping.
The 2013 MP is a great little computer for its time, and if it had parts and price more akin to the iMac in that form factor, it would have sold like hotcakes. But Apple has so far refused to make that computer
- they're stubbornly just not interested (the super long-odds bet is the 2019 MP is basically that, the xMac, and they finally give up on workstation-class hardware... it's just such a tiny niche that needs it). At its price point, it just wasn't appealing to a large enough market to warrant further updates by Apple.
I realize that this is a quote and not your words - but the MP6,1 thermal core is anything but balanced.The triangle you mentioned, the thermal core, is designed to have three fairly similar loads – similarly balanced in power. And so the overall size of the product and the fan, that defines the overall thermal capacity for the enclosure.
The 2013 MP is a great little computer for its time, and if it had parts and price more akin to the iMac in that form factor, it would have sold like hotcakes. But Apple has so far refused to make that computer - they're stubbornly just not interested (the super long-odds bet is the 2019 MP is basically that, the xMac, and they finally give up on workstation-class hardware... it's just such a tiny niche that needs it). At its price point, it just wasn't appealing to a large enough market to warrant further updates by Apple.
That is what's so weird... what are you in "strong disagreement" with him about? 90% of what he says are just the facts and/or common understanding by people in this industry who know what the heck they're talking about, unlike most of the crowd that's still left to frequent this forum.
Not true on the quotes. Anyone can check out his post history for themselves