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

[iSayuSay]

Didn't the high end iMac outperform the Mac Pro before the update? Those iMac's can take most things thrown at them.

Yeah because "MacPro before the update" is essentially 3 years old machine.
Hey, a 2012 Civic smokes a 1980 Mustang. Who would've thought, right?

You want to compare iMac, you compare it to modern, up-to-date desktop solution. Something with GTX680 or 690, and maybe with 1TB SSD? 680MX is more like 660Ti which costs about $275. Hardly "enthusiast" and SSD option pricing is pure robbery for iMac.

 

[shaunp]

Doesn't make sense.

There really is no middle ground between Mac Mini & Mac Pro. (an iMac is a Mac Mini with a display.) You're either doing compute intensive work, or lightweight UI work. There is no such thing as "medium" work.

What you want is a Mac Mini (or iMac). Get it. It's plenty fast, and does everything you need, and is cheap.

No middle ground? Games? Photoshop? Anything that is beyond the abilities of the HD4000 graphics really. Many consumers can do with the core i7 in the Mini, but not the graphics.

It's not all about compute some of us like to have a little fun too! A higher-spec mini would fill this requirement.

----------

Yeah because "MacPro before the update" is essentially 3 years old machine.
Hey, a 2012 Civic smokes a 1980 Mustang. Who would've thought, right?

You want to compare iMac, you compare it to modern, up-to-date desktop solution. Something with GTX680 or 690, and maybe with 1TB SSD? 680MX is more like 660Ti which costs about $275. Hardly "enthusiast" and SSD option pricing is pure robbery for iMac.

Not to mention crappy glossy screens. The iMac would be a better machine with matt option.

 

[alvindarkness]

No middle ground? Games? Photoshop? Anything that is beyond the abilities of the HD4000 graphics really. Many consumers can do with the core i7 in the Mini, but not the graphics.

It's not all about compute some of us like to have a little fun too! A higher-spec mini would fill this requirement.

Or a (much) lower spec mac pro Stick the haswell i7, and a gtx770 or gt780 into something like a new mac pro chassis, and my credit card will be out so fast i'll get whiplash.

 

[shaunp]

Or a (much) lower spec mac pro Stick the haswell i7, and a gtx770 or gt780 into something like a new mac pro chassis, and my credit card will be out so fast i'll get whiplash.

That would work too. Either way there is a big gap between a mini and a pro and if you don't want an iMac there is no way to fill it.

 

[rydewnd2]

I don't want to hear anymore "Mac Mini Pro" nonsense.

It does remind of the time when everyone was calling the iPad a giant iPhone.

 

[rydewnd2]

Yeah, I was just pulling from my previous post for devices. Besides, if you use a USB TV tuner you're now adding a dongle device, which was my point. A USB TV tuner is just a PCI tuner card's hardware stuffed into a package that's more marketable to consumers.

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. Same issue with the expansion chassis. Yeah, if you have a dozen cards and might relocate them to another machine occasionally it's a good idea. But for the more modest user you could look at the new Mac Pro as Apple selling you half the computer at what will likely be 100% of the price, then expecting you to buy extra hardware to do the rest.

So even ignoring the cord business the new Mac Pro will be overall more expensive.

You're only looking at this from the perspective of legacy devices. The idea here is to push the industry towards thunderbolt adoption, which will create cheaper thunderbolt devices, better performing peripherals, and interoperability between workstations and laptops. I think this last point is one of the most overlooked. Currently you spend all of these thousands of dollars on internal hard drives and cards and can only use them on your Mac Pro tower. With thunderbolt devices, you'll be able to jack these into your MacBook pro without falling back to a relatively slow interface like firewire or usb. The computer becomes the brain and the machine is irrelevant outside of number crunching ability. You could even connect a high end graphics card to your laptop that only supports integrated graphics via a PCI-E chassis.

Sure there is added expense now, but if this product succeeds, this is the transition period. Moving forward, hopefully there will be more, cheaper options for thunderbolt peripherals that can accomplish professional objectives.

 

[cmanderson]

Yes, I'll just buy that other Macintosh that hasn't been discontinued and still has internal expandability

... oh wait, there isn't one.

Okay, then if Apple can't fulfill my needs, I'll by a Mac from another manufacturer who does.

... oh wait, Apple ended the clone program. There are no other Mac makers besides Apple.

A Hackintosh is starting to look more and more like the only alternative.

You're going to put Apple out of business. Then what will you complain about?

 

[Drunken Master]

Best to get used to it.

People are STILL making "pad" jokes about the iPad name, despite years of using mouse pads, keypads and gamepads every day. The beloved PowerMac G5 design lasted 10 years, but got "cheese grater" comments for nine of them

Yeah, well, most people are dumb.

 

[MacVidCards]

I'm waiting for objective benchmarks, and reviews.

What, even after they went to the trouble of hosting two perfectly good Infomercials? They had their family and friends come say REAL nice stuff too.

You could even connect a high end graphics card to your laptop that only supports integrated graphics via a PCI-E chassis.

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? Lots of Kool Aid mixed with Unicorn Poop going round right now.

 

[fertilized-egg]

This turned into an xMac thread. For those who haven't heard the word before it refers to the mystical headless expandable affordable Mac which geeks really want but Apple never make. The word has been around for over a decade which explains why we get so many of these threads and the same point comes up over and over again.

For a quick primer, here's John Siracusa at Arstechnica writing nearly in 2005 what the commotion is about, and why he doesn't think Apple will make one even though he wants one: http://arstechnica.com/staff/2005/10/1676/

Having said all that, I wouldn't mind seeing a cheaper, less powerful version of the new Mac Pro, especially with a decent GPU.

 

[kendallb]

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!

I have to admit I will be one of the first to get one of these, but I know where you are coming from. A mid range version with a Haswell Core i7 CPU and a single consumer level graphics card would be an awesome machine for people who want a desktop and not an iMac. Then again performance would be real similar to an iMac so I doubt they will do it

 

[Constable Odo]

Yeah because "MacPro before the update" is essentially 3 years old machine.
Hey, a 2012 Civic smokes a 1980 Mustang. Who would've thought, right?

You want to compare iMac, you compare it to modern, up-to-date desktop solution. Something with GTX680 or 690, and maybe with 1TB SSD? 680MX is more like 660Ti which costs about $275. Hardly "enthusiast" and SSD option pricing is pure robbery for iMac.

It'll be a damn shame if it's slower than some CTO version of a Dell Alienware desktop. Apparently gamers need more horsepower than pro-sumers and Apple knows and cares nothing about building high-performance gaming rigs. In the Alienware desktop they can just stick in three or four Crossfire GPUs and run rings around whatever the new Mac Pro offers. Apple probably doesn't have clue about what goes for cutting-edge desktops nowadays. There's no reason for them to care because they can't compete unless they're willing to lose money.

What's really sad is that with Apple having $150 billion in cash sitting idle, they could theoretically build the fastest desktops on the planet. But hey, we're talking Apple and they just don't care about anything except profits. Apple decided to build a Mac Pro with a shape that nothing extra can fit into. I'm not sure what that's all about, but I'm sure it really doesn't matter because Apple's goals are entirely different from the rest of the computer industry. I personally like the new Mac Pro and if I could afford the top model I'd buy it in an instant because it would more than suit my needs. However, I already know the high-end 12-core will cost about $4500 and that's a bit out of my practical price range.

 

[heisetax]

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

But it does look more like a trash can than a computer.

 

[agmaster]

I went to the Apple website and there I see this black trash can looking thing and I'm thinking what the heck. I then noticed it was the new Mac Pro and the design is genius. Only thing is I don't see it having the ability to be upgraded much.

 

[avkills]

It'll be a damn shame if it's slower than some CTO version of a Dell Alienware desktop. Apparently gamers need more horsepower than pro-sumers and Apple knows and cares nothing about building high-performance gaming rigs. In the Alienware desktop they can just stick in three or four Crossfire GPUs and run rings around whatever the new Mac Pro offers. Apple probably doesn't have clue about what goes for cutting-edge desktops nowadays. There's no reason for them to care because they can't compete unless they're willing to lose money.

What's really sad is that with Apple having $150 billion in cash sitting idle, they could theoretically build the fastest desktops on the planet. But hey, we're talking Apple and they just don't care about anything except profits. Apple decided to build a Mac Pro with a shape that nothing extra can fit into. I'm not sure what that's all about, but I'm sure it really doesn't matter because Apple's goals are entirely different from the rest of the computer industry. I personally like the new Mac Pro and if I could afford the top model I'd buy it in an instant because it would more than suit my needs. However, I already know the high-end 12-core will cost about $4500 and that's a bit out of my practical price range.

You are right, the new Mac Pro is no gaming rig; but I will tell you it will be faster than most gaming rigs for apps like Maya, Lightwave 3D, Mari and just about any other program that pushes OpenGL to the limit with massive polygon counts.

Now what would be totally kick ass is if Apple allowed you to choose the driver set on a per app basis, thus making it much better as a gaming rig.

-mark

 

[wesk702]

Just to mimic some of my most favorite needs so far...
GPU powered Logic Pro and AUs
And a new Logic Pro of course,

 

[skier777]

It worked great when it was encased in a "giant" cabinet, yeah they hooked all of the crazy peripherals up to it one that haven't and wont be released, will cost more than we can afford, and will take up so much space that we will need a "giant" filing cabinet sized unit to hold them all.

Its not that we aren't impressed by the speed, im sure it will be one of the fastest computers to be mass produced for its time, but why cant we have all of that inside a big square of metal that looked exactly like the last one and housed our standard computer components.

 

[SeaFox]

You're going to put Apple out of business. Then what will you complain about?

I'm going to put Apple out of business?

If Apple doesn't make products consumers want, and they do this for a large enough percentage of potential customers that it keeps them from staying in business, whose fault is it? I think you've forgotten what running a business is about.

I never said I would be adverse to paying for a copy of OSX to run on hardware elsewhere. But I'm not going to pay for boutique-design computer hardware if it doesn't have the features I want. I think the new Mac Pro is pretty cool honestly, but there's this small issue where I buy PCs to use, not to look pretty on a white glass-top desk. Apple didn't have to do things like this. I know folks used to complain about the size of the old Mac Pro, but we seem to have gone too far the other direction. Apple could have made something of similar aesthetic design but made it 1/4 the size of the old tower or even 1/2 -- instead of 1/8. Then, they could have used the extra room to add space for internal expandability.

Apple could also offer the Mac Pro in the size it is right now with consumer graphics cards and have a real nice designer gamer machine. A machine that comes with a linked graphics card setup from the factory would certainly find a market on a platform that at this point is completely missing a gamer-oriented machine (the kind of niche the xMac would also fit).

 

[HelveticaRoman]

OK, so it's good enough for the next generation of 4K RAW and 3D Hollywood stuff, but can it handle my next SD wedding video? ;-))

 

[lannisters4life]

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!

what could someone possibly want to do than an imac or a macbook pro couldn't? 3d modelling/film post/hardcore gaming? if this were an actual market, i'd say apple would have a product for it...

 

[mcnallym]

1. The new Mac Pro has expensive, professional graphics cards not made for gaming. Unlike the previous Mac Pro, a user cannot replace those cards with ones more appropriate.
2. Being able to expand the capabilities of your computer and not having to pick up several external components when you move it are not mutually exclusive. I know consumer-types who are scared to open their computer may not realize that, but it is possible to increase the abilities of your machine beyond how it was when you bought it, without having to take it to a repair place and pay someone $25-50/hour plus parts costs.
3. Some people want a powerful machine but the freedom to choose not to buy an Apple monitor.

Whenever someone used to complain about there not being a consumer-level Mac they could add, say a TV Tuner PCI card to, or more than two internal hard drives (without sacrificing an optical drive), or even a graphics card on NewEgg, people used to chime in "you'll just have to pony up for a Mac Pro".

The fact one has to buy such an expensive machine to do these doesn't seem to register as "wrong" with anyone here. This is the brain-washed "kool-aid" syndrome you so hate being accused of.

The old Mac Pro fulfilled these three desires, but did it in an overkill way.
The new Mac Pro fulfills only the last of these desires.

There is even MORE argument to be made for an xMac now.

I personally like being able to expand my computer and still pick up a single box when I move it.

Apple wants everything to be external now. I guess they really have forgotten themselves...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz0F5cLlazk

And is that a market that Apple is interested in supplying? At the moment they are shipping small numbers ( but increasing ) of units into the PC market, but make a higher margin on what they sell.

If they start selling the xMac, then margins will drop as will be competing with regular box shifters and the DIY markets where margins are lower.

Is the same in the phone market, look at the numbers of units sold as a percentage of the market, and then look at the percentage of profits in that market they make.

Apple simply has no need (currently) to enter a higher volume, lower margin market area.

Instead they know there target audience ( target as defined by Apple, not by users of the computers ) and aim to serve up a product for that audience.

 

[Bonte]

They should have just hidden it inside the old Mac Pro. They could have fit several of the new model, plus a few TB2 RAIDs, a PCI card chassis, and a taco stand.

Won't be long before we see this from the mod community, great resale value for old MP's.

 

[theluggage]

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? Lots of Kool Aid mixed with Unicorn Poop going round right now.

Yeah, video cards are a daft example because they're one thing that Thunderbolt really doesn't have the bandwidth to handle. Otherwise, they wouldn't have built dual GPUs into the new Pro... However, for all sorts of other things that you might plug into PCIe, the chassis is there (http://www.sonnettech.com/product/thunderbolt/index.html) albeit at an eye-watering price.

One game that Apple is playing with the new Pro is to drive the uptake of Thunderbolt. Remember the iMac? Every recent PC had USB on the motherboard alongside all the legacy ports, but there were no devices and Windows didn't really support it. Then the iMac launches, dropping ADB, Localtalk, RS232 etc. in favour of USB, and a few months later the shops are full of USB printers, modems, hubs, all resplendent in translucent Bondai blue. If the Mac Pro can pull the same trick then it should improve the range and price of TB peripherals (although they're always going to be pitched at the pro market, with USB3 for the masses).

Having said all that, I wouldn't mind seeing a cheaper, less powerful version of the new Mac Pro, especially with a decent GPU.

The question is, what kind of deal have they done with Intel and AMD on those workstation-class parts, and how much will they sell it for? My guess is that it will be $many dollars, but if they can make it substantially less than a similarly-specced workstation then they may be able to sell it to a lot of people who wouldn't normally consider that spec. If they can bring it in at a similar price point to the current base Mac Pro then that would be a hell of a lot of bangs per buck.

They'll probably shift a few of these to non-pro people who have deep pockets and just want the best machine. The critical equation would be how many 'xMacs' they'd have to sell to make the same profit.

 

[Lancer]

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

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

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

 

[JoeG4]

what could someone possibly want to do than an imac or a macbook pro couldn't? 3d modelling/film post/hardcore gaming? if this were an actual market, i'd say apple would have a product for it...

play games without the fans getting loud and the computer getting really hot.

I like the new Mac Pro and think it is an excellent replacement to the old Mac Pro. It's the ultimate video editing workstation, I suppose, and that's all Apple appears to be targeting it at. Xeon E5s? Yeah, those cost more than most gaming desktops do.

BTW, Geforce Titans were not made for gaming, that's what the GTX 780 is for. I don't like the iMac much, and I'm not even a 'gamer', just a regular guy that likes playing stuff every now and then, some of which my MacBook Air can handle.

For $1000 I got a PC desktop that could handle all of it fantastically. I would've happily given apple $1500-1600 for the same thing. Happily! An i7 4770 + GTX 670 and 16gb ram please? They could have a really nice profit margin there.

The Mac mini is a stupid computer and should just outright be replaced by this. I think they just make it to irritate people that don't want to buy an iMac and can't justify a Mac Pro. There, I got that off my chest - I think I've felt that way ever since they bumped it up from $499. At $499 it was a cheap taste of Mac that didn't come with a keyboard or a mouse, and it was kinda dumb then too.

I know that's not going to be a popular opinion and we're going to hear more about what "real PROs" (with the bold, as I keep seeing dozens of times) need.

Also: Thunderbolt is not a suitable replacement for PCIe. It's not a suitable replacement for eSATA, in fact it's not a suitable replacement for ethernet or dual link DVI-D. .. ok maybe dual link dvi. It's like replacing a toolbox with one of those multitool fold-out pliers. Sure, it'll get what you need done in a pinch, but almost never as well as the particular interface.

All of the above are CHEAPER. We're talking about a box that sits under your desk, not a half inch thick laptop that weighs 2lbs and is a delight to use. I love my macbook air, and for that I don't give a crap about external graphics cards.

PCIe x16 puts your video cards within 8" of the CPU and most importantly, system memory - at a much higher speed than thunderbolt, with exponentially smaller wire delays, and no need for noise mitigating hardware.

DVI-D and displayport allow the 2560x1600 monitors to cost $599 instead of $999. Then companies can focus on better image quality instead of industrial design.