Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Building 2TB Solid State Drives for Next Mac Pro Release?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
new Mac Pro
I think 2 TB SSD is insane..
A good Mac Pro (down to earth):
- Single CPU with i7 (no reason to use Xeon in single CPU at all (do you need more than 64gb of RAM and pay more $1000 for marginal performance increase?))
- Dual CPU with Xeon last generation
- This is a Pro machine, little smaller to be Rack mounted friendly 4U (ability to remove the handles and screw rack ears and rails)
- Redundant Power supply in Server Version (with the end of Xserver this is a good solution)
- SSD options
- Maybe hot swap front drives (can get 6 SATA/SAS - 3.5" ) and no 4 Bays inside.
- Two 2,5" SSD inside for OS single drive or dual for RAID 1 or 0.
- Real Pro graphics from Nvidia Quadro as base from 600 to 6000 and also ATI
- Thunderbolt with 2 or more ports!
- 1 Thunderbolt at front!
- Bluray as standard for long term storage (HDD is not long term) and can be slim like laptop and servers
- USB 3.0
- Firewire 800 and 400
- Hardware RAID 0,1 and 5 at least
This is all possible with some interest from Apple in making a Pro machine. Without making many changes between versions. For example the redundant power supply can be the same size of a single ATX type power supply (only deeper)...and only two motherboards a Single CPU for i7 and a Dual CPU for Xeon. The Rack ears can be achieved with the remove of the top and the bottom of mac pro and can be a accessory part you buy on order or later.
They are the Kings of Design and good design is not just what looks good. It also needs to perform, convert, astonish, and fulfill its purpose without workarounds!
For now i'm using HP and they are very good but for some applications i use Mac and i would like to have a good Apple machine like HP Z workstations don't get me wrong....
I think 2 TB SSD is insane..
A good Mac Pro (down to earth):
- Single CPU with i7 (no reason to use Xeon in single CPU at all (do you need more than 64gb of RAM and pay more $1000 for marginal performance increase?))
- Dual CPU with Xeon last generation
- This is a Pro machine, little smaller to be Rack mounted friendly 4U (ability to remove the handles and screw rack ears and rails)
- Redundant Power supply in Server Version (with the end of Xserver this is a good solution)
- SSD options
- Maybe hot swap front drives (can get 6 SATA/SAS - 3.5" ) and no 4 Bays inside.
- Two 2,5" SSD inside for OS single drive or dual for RAID 1 or 0.
- Real Pro graphics from Nvidia Quadro as base from 600 to 6000 and also ATI
- Thunderbolt with 2 or more ports!
- 1 Thunderbolt at front!
- Bluray as standard for long term storage (HDD is not long term) and can be slim like laptop and servers
- USB 3.0
- Firewire 800 and 400
- Hardware RAID 0,1 and 5 at least
This is all possible with some interest from Apple in making a Pro machine. Without making many changes between versions. For example the redundant power supply can be the same size of a single ATX type power supply (only deeper)...and only two motherboards a Single CPU for i7 and a Dual CPU for Xeon. The Rack ears can be achieved with the remove of the top and the bottom of mac pro and can be a accessory part you buy on order or later.
They are the Kings of Design and good design is not just what looks good. It also needs to perform, convert, astonish, and fulfill its purpose without workarounds!
For now i'm using HP and they are very good but for some applications i use Mac and i would like to have a good Apple machine like HP Z workstations don't get me wrong....
Last edited:
These are not the people that buy MacPros. 8TB of SSD would replace multibay RAID tower and probably 4x as fast at pretty much the same cost.
If you don't see the the benefit and logic in large SSDs then you simply don't need one, this isn't for you so just ignore it, Apple isn't making you buy one.
Their BTO prices are a joke no matter what Mac model you're talking about. They're probably cramming iPhone flash into a 3.5" SATA bridgeboard and it'll have a huge price premium, or, they're offering a 2Tb Fusion drive built from £250 worth of SSD and HDD, then charging £1,000 for it.
Have any of you looked at 2TB SSD drives? Volume purchasing starts at around $7,000 and up.
Who ever pulled this idea out of their arse had a field day. Even with Apples large purchasing power the would get at most say 50% off. At most it'll be a high end option for people with nothing better to spend their money on. Even if they charge cost for it - HA HA I know - your looking at the most expensive BTO option there is.
It's great to see a Mac Pro rumour, but could it be one that is in the realms of reality?
If the design is basically the same as before. What has stopped them retro-fitting a fan guard to keep the old model on sale until this new machine is available?
Who ever pulled this idea out of their arse had a field day. Even with Apples large purchasing power the would get at most say 50% off. At most it'll be a high end option for people with nothing better to spend their money on. Even if they charge cost for it - HA HA I know - your looking at the most expensive BTO option there is.
It's great to see a Mac Pro rumour, but could it be one that is in the realms of reality?
If the design is basically the same as before. What has stopped them retro-fitting a fan guard to keep the old model on sale until this new machine is available?
Shome mishtake shurely?Really?
So your telling us that 4 x 2 = 8 ? Wow that's just plain genius............ Thanks for clearing that up....
4 drive trays, plus another in the pointless second optical drive bay = 10TB.
The Mac product line that would work in the current market scenario would be this:
Mac Mini: from $600 to $1000, meant to be the Mac entry point (I'd leave the current Mini as is, although I'd perhaps move its higher end options to the Mac Cube, because it makes more sense there)
Mac Cube: from $1200 to $2500, meant for users who need desktops with high performance and with proper cooling for intense CPU/GPU use, but who don't actually need a Xeon. Also, unlike the iMac, it would be just a cube with no display. Top configuration would be a 3.7 i7 with a 4GB NVIDIA GPU and two 512 SSD disks, all this would be for $2500, remember there's no display included (Apple can match such a price even boosting the price up a 30%, and in case they cannot, make it one SSD instead of two).
Mac Pro: for users who need multi-chip machines. If it supports a single Xeon it would be just for letting the base price start at $2500, but otherwise I'd do the Mac Pro a dual Xeon machine, because single Xeon won't give much advantage from the Mac Pro.
Regarding the iMac, I'd drop it because it's not optimal neither as a entry point, nor for performance either (suboptimal cooling compared to the cooling you could get with a cube form factor). Also, more desktops users already have a 21inch or 28inch display on their desk. But if the iMac is important for Apple, they could continue it, although not vital for the Mac product line.
Regarding the MacBooks, they're fine in their current status, although Pro should imply discrete GPU. If it has an integrated GPU, it shouldn't be called Pro.
This is what I believe the Mac product line needs to be healthy again. If they continue their current trend, the Mac is gone in less than two years.
Mac Mini: from $600 to $1000, meant to be the Mac entry point (I'd leave the current Mini as is, although I'd perhaps move its higher end options to the Mac Cube, because it makes more sense there)
Mac Cube: from $1200 to $2500, meant for users who need desktops with high performance and with proper cooling for intense CPU/GPU use, but who don't actually need a Xeon. Also, unlike the iMac, it would be just a cube with no display. Top configuration would be a 3.7 i7 with a 4GB NVIDIA GPU and two 512 SSD disks, all this would be for $2500, remember there's no display included (Apple can match such a price even boosting the price up a 30%, and in case they cannot, make it one SSD instead of two).
Mac Pro: for users who need multi-chip machines. If it supports a single Xeon it would be just for letting the base price start at $2500, but otherwise I'd do the Mac Pro a dual Xeon machine, because single Xeon won't give much advantage from the Mac Pro.
Regarding the iMac, I'd drop it because it's not optimal neither as a entry point, nor for performance either (suboptimal cooling compared to the cooling you could get with a cube form factor). Also, more desktops users already have a 21inch or 28inch display on their desk. But if the iMac is important for Apple, they could continue it, although not vital for the Mac product line.
Regarding the MacBooks, they're fine in their current status, although Pro should imply discrete GPU. If it has an integrated GPU, it shouldn't be called Pro.
This is what I believe the Mac product line needs to be healthy again. If they continue their current trend, the Mac is gone in less than two years.
Why would Apple bring back a design failure?
The Cube was a crock, underpowered waste of space.You need to do a little research in to Apples real design failures. The G4 Cube is way up the list.
Try telling that to some of the badly written software that will hang anyway, or to OS X if you happen to have an external drive that it decides needs to be switched on in order to access files that aren't stored on it
As fast as it would be in the best case, I'm sure there are plenty of ways the massive investment would end up leaving a sour taste!
I do agree that a Fusion drive seems more likely; maybe what Apple is doing is producing an actual Fusion drive "module"; e.g - a 1.5tb capacity 2.5" platter drive combined with a controller and a one of the thin (circuit board) SSD's. Put them together into a 3.5" width unit and you've got yourself a Fusion Drive that you can actually hold in your hand. Want to make that Fusion Drive bigger? Add some more Fusion Drive Modules, so the flash memory grows with the capacity.
This might account for the drive that the rumour source saw, the capacity and the SSD speeds.
Drop the immensely consumer-popular iMac and go to a useless cube with no display that serves no niche.
I don't know what you're smoking, but I hope you brought enough for everybody.
I wonder if they will slim it down in half, removal optical media, and make it rack-mount and tower friendly.
----------
What's wrong with a single Xeon chip? it's much better than an i7 and heck, it powers several virtual OS's on our servers.
----------
What's wrong with a single Xeon chip? it's much better than an i7 and heck, it powers several virtual OS's on our servers.
Apparently, Apple PR clarified what Tim Cook meant by reaching out to Forbes. This link is to a MacRumors article that reports on this and links to the Forbes article. There is no mention of a dual-socket Xeon, but it appears that Apple is going to release a Mac Pro. Of course, Apple could change its mind at any time!
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/1...c-pro-and-imac-designs-likely-coming-in-2013/
For my experience the Single Xeon is not a good business i prefer an i7 they perform very good and save i money on motherboard and RAM without ECC and spend the saved money on Graphics and SSD =better performance
Allowing for the fact that none of us knows a damn thing about it, I think this is the most likely scenario. After all, Seagate's been manufacturing what's necessary to make this happen, for years, and in the 2.5" form factor as well. Put whatever firmware Fusion has to have on the same board, and you're done. I'd buy one of those.
Announcement of new Mac Pro, Thunderbolt Display and Numeric Keyboard with built-in USB3 at the National Association of Broadcasters
http://www.nabshow.com
http://www.nabshow.com
Because then it wasn't the time for the cube. Now it is. The reason is that the size of the Mac Mini isn't enough for having a powerful GPU inside. Don't call it cube if you don't like it, call it "taller Mini" if you prefer, but the result is the same: a machine with top desktop performance, with optimal cooling, and with optimal cost (no reason to invest on a display if you already have one, and no reason for ultrathin-limited cooling).
My god they better get that price down. The pro is already expensive and add an ssd the thing would cost as much as a car!
Love to see some Mac news especially Mac Pro news
Would that car be a Pinto, Corvair or a Yugo?
Many small businesses can - and do - use the iMac without having to spend a larger sum on their computers that are used for scheduling, payroll and billing. Why would Apple drop the very successful iMac?
The Core i7 and Xeons are the same price. Go look for yourself.
I'd prefer an Xeon to a Core i7 for ECC support.
Won't get hot swap drives.
FW400 won't return (2009 onwards don't have it!)
Unlikely to get hardware RAID.
I don't know how Thunderbolt will work as it will be abit of a hack either way it is done.
Other than that it's probable/maybe.
200 comments - 190 of them negative assumptions
One day there are 100 comments about Apple abandoning the Mac Pro. The next day there is a "rumor" and everyone "assumes" and complains.
One day there are 100 comments about Apple abandoning the Mac Pro. The next day there is a "rumor" and everyone "assumes" and complains.
I don't think we'll ever see any other Mac computer with built-in optical drive ever again. Apple counts optical drives as a dead/legacy devices, rightfully or not. Even more for the case of BR disk.
In any case, I wouldn't expect a Pro machine to rely on its own media for its long-term storage needs. Usually external NAS solutions are up for this job.
If you're using 2TB SSD drives for storage... you're doing it wrong
I didn't mean that consumers need 2TB SSD, but the poster I was replying to seemed to think that there's no need for 2TB storage whatsoever for most people.
Last edited: