Apple Allowed Developers to Test a Prerelease Mac Pro Hidden Inside a Metal Box

[69650]

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).

I did re-read it and the main article doesn't list any specs for the demo machine they used.

The current 12 core Mac Pro costs $3799. They're not suddenly going to jump to a price of $10k. They would be a laughing stock.

 

[ChrisA]

... 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.

You are right, the CPUs are not that much faster. But the GPUs are that much faster. Also they are now using GPUs to do some of the calculations that were done in the CPU.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

You are forgetting the impact of GPGPUs and OpenCL.

You are right, the CPUs are not that much faster. But the GPUs are that much faster. Also they are now using GPUs to do some of the calculations that were done in the CPU.

Which was being done on macs and PCs before the advent of the new Mac Pro. Current software is already doing this (in the case of realtime feedback in engines like in the current Lightwave and Modo, and countless other 3rd party engines like Arion, iRay, and newer version of vray).

I still don't believe that there is this remarkable increase that artists haven't seen. CPU+GPU acceleration is common now, with artists building PCI boxes stuffed with nvidia hardware to do today what apple seems to be bragging about doing later this year.

Here's Arion's demo from 2010 using outdated hardware:

I"m supposed to believe that Apple's new GPUs are seeing a massive leap over a modern day dual nVidia Titan setup and a blazing fast overclocked 4-6 core? Nah. More B.S.

 

[subsonix]

I"m supposed to believe that Apple's new GPUs are seeing a massive leap over a modern day dual nVidia Titan setup and a blazing fast overclocked 4-6 core? Nah. More B.S.

I don't know what the comparison was (I was not there), but you specifically referred to CPUs in your previous post. Although perhaps gnasher can tell us.

But this quote from the article:

Mari running on this machine out of the box is the fastest I have ever seen it run.

Seems to indicate that it's pretty damn fast.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Enough with the trash can comparisons already. This is getting just as bad as "Safari feels snapier".

The difference is the Mac Pro really does look like a trash can whereas Safari was never really very snappy to being with, IMO and it certainly wasn't getting snappier 99% of the time people posted that crap, which they've been doing for YEARS and YEARS (whereas this thread is only a few weeks old).

I actually think it looks better without the cover. It looks more like a reactor or something without the top being covered. Perhaps they should have used a clear cover?

 

[AdonisSMU]

The difference is the Mac Pro really does look like a trash can whereas Safari was never really very snappy to being with, IMO and it certainly wasn't getting snappier 99% of the time people posted that crap, which they've been doing for YEARS and YEARS (whereas this thread is only a few weeks old).

I actually think it looks better without the cover. It looks more like a reactor or something without the top being covered. Perhaps they should have used a clear cover?

Safari was way faster than the previous versions. It still feels faster than chrome on my rMBP. The mac pro looks like a battery to me.

 

[SeattleMoose]

I can't remember the last time I had this much "Techno Lust"....and sadly...for a product my wife will surely say we don't need (I have a MBP and she has a MB)....But "accidents do happen"

If this thing performs half as good as it looks it will be a winner!

 

[jonnysods]

I cannot wait to test one of these out. We are planning on getting one for our graphics/video dept at my office once they hit the stores.

 

[haruhiko]

The difference is the Mac Pro really does look like a trash can whereas Safari was never really very snappy to being with, IMO and it certainly wasn't getting snappier 99% of the time people posted that crap, which they've been doing for YEARS and YEARS (whereas this thread is only a few weeks old).

I actually think it looks better without the cover. It looks more like a reactor or something without the top being covered. Perhaps they should have used a clear cover?

Safari, especially when you use it on a Retina MBP, always freezes up when you browse Facebook. I really don't know why. The iPad's mobile Safari is much smoother than it.

 

[the8thark]

I have zero need for one, but I want one!

Will it be any good for gaming?

Yes, great I would assume. But exactly how good is up for debate at the moment. As those are not really gaming GPUs. They are better for other actual work. In saying that I think they'll kick the crap out of anything the iMac offers.

 

[mozumder]

As those are not really gaming GPUs. They are better for other actual work.

I don't understand this. People keep saying this but I don't know what this means.

Every benchmark I've seen that compared workstation GPUs to gaming GPUs show them virtually equivalent for gaming, with the gaming GPUs much slower for 64-bit FP processing.

Do you have any sources/benchmarks that show otherwise? please provide.

You do know that the actual chips are the same, and that the only difference between workstation GPUs and gaming GPUs are drivers that enable certain workstation features, right?

Additionally, Apple writes the drivers, and has no reason to limit features on this, since they're not selling lower-end GPUs than this. (apparently this dual GPU setup is going to be the base/only model, which is pretty intense..)

 

[PeterQVenkman]

I don't know what the comparison was (I was not there), but you specifically referred to CPUs in your previous post.

Yup, My original post was about the CPU not being a quantum leap ahead of the current gen. You brought up the GPUs here:

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=17434959#post17434959

But this quote from the article... Seems to indicate that it's pretty damn fast.

I'll take damn fast! I'll happily believe it is faster than older systems (one would hope!).

But I cannot believe an increase from "12 hours of waiting" to "real time". There is no way that leap is happening over a top of the line systems out now. We have never seen a leap like that from one gen to the next. If that happens some day, I'll be the first to sing its praises when I verify it myself, then plunk down my credit card to buy one for home and one for work!

before that, it's just reality distortion field.

 

[spm024]

What CPU did they test with?

Hello,

Perhaps this is a foolish question, but I was of the understanding that the next-gen 12-core XEONS won't be available until the fall.
If this is true, then how were these new Mac Pro's able to be tested? Did Apple use two 6-core Xeons temporarily or something?
Or would Intel have provided samples to them? Actually, now that I think about it, I guess that probably makes the most sense.

~Sean

 

[mozumder]

Hello,

Perhaps this is a foolish question, but I was of the understanding that the next-gen 12-core XEONS won't be available until the fall.
If this is true, then how were these new Mac Pro's able to be tested? Did Apple use two 6-core Xeons temporarily or something?
Or would Intel have provided samples to them? Actually, now that I think about it, I guess that probably makes the most sense.

~Sean

Seriously?

Companies generally allow manufacturers to prototype/test with prototype parts.

It generally takes 6 months to a year after initial manufacturing for an IC to be available to the public.

Fall is when it the Xeon will be released to the general public.

 

[spm024]

Seriously?

Companies generally allow manufacturers to prototype/test with prototype parts.

It generally takes 6 months to a year after initial manufacturing for an IC to be available to the public.

Fall is when it the Xeon will be released to the general public.

That is what I thought. Seriously.

 

[JoeG4]

But I cannot believe an increase from "12 hours of waiting" to "real time". There is no way that leap is happening over a top of the line systems out now.

Nope, I don't think so either. The Xeons are going from being cousins of Sandy E to being cousins of Ivy E. As far as I know, that will come with a nice speed boost, but nothing quite that big.

I suspect whoever made that statement was working on hardware gear or some new kind of program to do that.

 

[macs4nw]

The crucial point is going to be the price, they have a chance here to go mainstream with this and keep at the same price or lower than existing Mac Pro's. When I first saw the spec I thought it would be 5k! so they could go the other extreme end route which would be Apple's normal policy of top end prices. But looking at the reduced sized and the and the borrowed tech from their other Mac lines I'm hoping they set to shock people with a low price.

I hope you're right, but I'm having my doubts.

 

[subsonix]

Yup, My original post was about the CPU not being a quantum leap ahead of the current gen. You brought up the GPUs here:

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=17434959#post17434959

I feel we are talking past each other here. I brought up GPUs because you specifically only mentioned CPUs. We do not know what they compared against making the 12h to realtime claim. Yes I agree, simply moving a head one or two generations of the CPU will not see that dramatic shifts in performance, which is why I brought up GPGPUs and OpenCL. Not knowing the context, what was compared and tested it's hard to tell what they actually where saying.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I feel we are talking past each other here. I brought up GPUs because you specifically only mentioned CPUs. We do not know what they compared against making the 12h to realtime claim. Yes I agree, simply moving a head one or two generations of the CPU will not see that dramatic shifts in performance, which is why I brought up GPGPUs and OpenCL. Not knowing the context, what was compared and tested it's hard to tell what they actually where saying.

Benchmarks can't come soon enough!

 

[HurryKayne]

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

6 TB2 ports..total bandwidth is?
Do you think possible to use 2 or 3 TB2 ports to drive a special box
with a full length Gpu Card?

 

[G4DP]

It actually costs about this much: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202005

Apple writes their own drivers, so they don't need to have that markup for the drivers that AMD puts in for their workstation cards.

They make such a good job of it don't they.

 

[oneaday]

Current model Mac Pro

...would anyone be advised to buy the existing Mac Pro...?
now that we know what's coming...

- given it's probably more versatile for future upgrades
- how long before the existing model becomes obsolete(finding components)
- or is it possible to live without thunderbolt..?

cheers !

 

[MacSince1990]

I was flipping out until I saw it's only 2x the speed of three-year-old hardware. Pathetic.

**** you, Apple.

 

[mess3mess]

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

If this is the only configuration that they will offer, this machine probably won't work for me unless they have a way to use all that GPU power for DSP without me having to write the software. SAD! I really love OS X...

 

[milo]

If the drive you're adding is slower than the Thunderbolt bus, you're now paying extra for the "privilege" of using it outside the case.

For a slower drive, why would you waste money on hooking it up via TB when it would be fine on dirt cheap USB3?

You... DO realize you don't have to buy an ATD, correct? Thunderbolt ports can accept a DisplayPort-to-HDMI connector.

True, and some monitors have display port built in, I'm using it with my 2009 mac pro and dell monitors.

Can I drive my flying car to the store to buy this PCIE chassis? You do realize that as of today there is no such thing for OSX, yes?

I'm not sure why you're so confused, chassis have existed for years and people use them all the time for things like running Pro Tools cards hooked up to laptops.

Reality: To add a single card, a card I have to use, I have to buy some complicated 'chassis'...

What card is that specifically? If that functionality isn't already available as an external device, it likely will be at some point.

The thing that you missed is that the software was only running on Windows previously.

Actually, it has been linux only for years.

I was flipping out until I saw it's only 2x the speed of three-year-old hardware.

A bigger increase would be nice, but that's on Intel's end. PCs are using the same chips so the speed increase has been the same on that side as well. The big advantages for this new machine are the GPUs and the fast SSD.