Apple Building 2TB Solid State Drives for Next Mac Pro Release?

[Rocketman]

Hmmm. Not only Mac news, but MacPro news. Must have a bunch of happy campers here now.

As usual it is delayed by Intel product offerings and late 2013 is a long time to wait for a speed bump. But on the other hand, between now and then the cost of all that SSD memory will drop another 30% or so, which supports the capacity claim of this article.

Apple does try to target specific price ranges so limits what it offers to stay within that.

I hope they offer a solid state dual processor Mac-Mini like form factor for co-lo's and small workgroups. When the MacPro becomes a dongle on the network, it becomes functionality an increasing number of users will buy.

Rocketman

 

[jmggs]

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.

You wright about the CPU price more or less, but memory and motherboard aren't. Just a preference for the price/performance.

Check: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E5-2630+@+2.30GHz

FW400 port and 800 to end with the adapters. Cameras and many hardware are 400. Like i said "down to the earth". i forgot to mention 1 thunderbolt at front panel.

Almost every PC Workstation motherboard have RAID support...
Hot swap hard drive pretty easy to implement with good design (look at Xserve RAID look)

I think that is an opportunity to Apple repair what they have done to the pros with the end of XServe and other things..

 

[mrxak]

I'm absolutely convinced this is a "Fusion" drive, not an actual 2 TB SSD. But who knows, maybe Apple figured out a way to make SSDs ridiculously cheap. A man can dream...

Anyway, it's good news any day that the Mac Pro gets a rumor, so I'm pretty excited. I just hope we see something soon, and the specs are truly modern. I don't need nor want a redesign, either, unless it provides greater functionality, not less.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

In 2003, a TB of SSD could cost you 2 million.

http://www.storagesearch.com/chartingtheriseofssds.html

Talk about a price decline...

 

[unplugme71]

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

The benefits of ECC memory support, lower CPU temps, stability, symmetric multiprocessing, hot-swap, management, and ability to run multiple sockets is good for business use. Core i-Series are great for consumer devices, like the MacBook Pro or iMac.

 

[jmggs]

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.

I can't agree, for a pro single user, the Bluray can be a good solution for archive. I don't think hard drives (NAS, SAS...) are a long term storage that have to be powered on...

LTO is good solution but expensive for single pro user.

The long term archive is a big problem of these days. In the past we have tapes that can be on self for years...We take pictures and archive the film and in good conditions and last for 100 years.

ARCHIVE IS A BIG PROBLEM!

----------

The benefits of ECC memory support, lower CPU temps, stability, symmetric multiprocessing, hot-swap, management, and ability to run multiple sockets is good for business use. Core i-Series are great for consumer devices, like the MacBook Pro or iMac.

Yes but i'm talking for low end SINGLE CPU not multiple with great performance/price

Low end workstation not server!

i have 15 workstations with i7 and other 15 with Xeon and i regret to have spend more money in Xeons workstations. They work all day long editing in Premiere CS6 no problems at all in both.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E5-2630+@+2.30GHz

 

[31rhcp]

It's probably just a 2TB fusion drive, maybe with a 512gb SSD as the flash part.

A 2TB SSD at apples prices would be like....$5,000

That makes sense until you see that the iMac has both a 1 TB and a 3 TB fusion drive option. I doubt they'd split the difference.

 

[milo]

Read it again.The processors have not been released.Complain to Intel.

Bull. Over the last three years there have been plenty of cpus that would have been appropriate for this model.

Most people use their computer for email, internet, word processing and perhaps games...

Seriously, go back and look at what this article is about.

 

[nutjob]

I'd buy that

That's funny since you don't ask about the price. You are Apple's prime market.

 

[hayesk]

Leave that for third party developement, Just release the Macpro

So where can I buy a 2TB SSD in a 3.5" form factor? Apple steps in when the third parties don't step up.

i'd rather see a more affordable core i-7 class mac pro option

Nobody says these drives will be mandatory. You'll likely be able to afford it. As for the mythical cheap minitower (i.e. Mac mini pro) not going to happen.

I can't agree, for a pro single user, the Bluray can be a good solution for archive.

That market is small and already well served with external drives.

 

[ChrisA]

Leave that for third party developement, Just release the Macpro

If the form factor will be just like a SATA hard drive than, yes, leave that to others. But I see no reason for Apple to make it look like a SATA drive. The ONLY reason you'd make a flash drive look and act like a hard drive is because you want to sell your flash device to a person who has a computer that only accepts SATA drives.

Apple should make the FLASH memory byte addressable. Then they can move much of the low level functions into the file system. It would be much faster not to have to go through a SATA interface, especially on a MacPro with all those CPU cores available.

 

[champ01]

Seriously... Who gives a **** about SSD's made by Apple.

Most of us never by our SSD's etc. from Apple because it cost 3 times the normal price.

This whole article only pisses me off. Thinking that Apple is working on something that nobody gives a **** about.

 

[arcite]

That makes sense until you see that the iMac has both a 1 TB and a 3 TB fusion drive option. I doubt they'd split the difference.

Good catch....

the plot thickens

----------

Seriously... Who gives a **** about SSD's made by Apple.

Most of us never by our SSD's etc. from Apple because it cost 3 times the normal price.

This whole article only pisses me off. Thinking that Apple is working on something that nobody gives a **** about.

Excuse me for observing, but you don't sound like the market segment that Apple is targeting their Mac Pros to.

 

[ChrisA]

I didn't mean that consumers need 2TB SSD, but the poster It was replying to seemed to think that there's no need for 2TB storage whatsoever for most people.

"Most People" only use the computer for reading email, the web and watching videos. For that the Macbook Air or iPad is what they should have.

The MP is best used by that rare person who is creating digital content of some type. Apple used to depend on these people for business but at some point they figured out there were a LOT more consumers than producers and they should sell to the larger market.

At some point a consumer type application will come along that really does need 12 cores and 2TB of fast storage. I guess is that this app will be a general purpose AI. It will likely take a LOT more than 12 cores and 2T but when the software is up to the task in 25 years, hopefully the required "kilo-core" processor will be affordable.

The poster was right today most consumers do NOT need even a MP to do the kinds of thinks that use a computer for. But later they might do different things with their computer. For example my computer will have a wireless camera speaker and microphone in every room and I will be able to do a hands free phone call and the sound will follow me around the house. I might ask my computer "Did you see where I put my car keys?" then the computer's voice says "on the table, under your backpack." Then As I leave I tell it "And if Jim calls tell him Yes I'll see him at 4:00 but if he wants to change the time or something forward him to my cell phone."

The above app might be "standard" for most people in 25 years and a good reason to justify those 1,000 core processors.

 

[bretm]

The benefits of ECC memory support, lower CPU temps, stability, symmetric multiprocessing, hot-swap, management, and ability to run multiple sockets is good for business use. Core i-Series are great for consumer devices, like the MacBook Pro or iMac.

Yeah, consumer. Like professional color correction/grading with DaVinci Resolve. Television and movies are editing on MacBook Pros and iMacs. i7 is a bit beyond consumer. In fact, it's extremely overkill for consumer. Most consumer PCs are runnig i3 and i5 for the expensive ones. Apple won't even consider an i3 anymore.

----------

"Most People" only use the computer for reading email, the web and watching videos. For that the Macbook Air or iPad is what they should have.

The MP is best used by that rare person who is creating digital content of some type. Apple used to depend on these people for business but at some point they figured out there were a LOT more consumers than producers and they should sell to the larger market.

At some point a consumer type application will come along that really does need 12 cores and 2TB of fast storage. I guess is that this app will be a general purpose AI. It will likely take a LOT more than 12 cores and 2T but when the software is up to the task in 25 years, hopefully the required "kilo-core" processor will be affordable.

The poster was right today most consumers do NOT need even a MP to do the kinds of thinks that use a computer for. But later they might do different things with their computer. For example my computer will have a wireless camera speaker and microphone in every room and I will be able to do a hands free phone call and the sound will follow me around the house. I might ask my computer "Did you see where I put my car keys?" then the computer's voice says "on the table, under your backpack." Then As I leave I tell it "And if Jim calls tell him Yes I'll see him at 4:00 but if he wants to change the time or something forward him to my cell phone."

The above app might be "standard" for most people in 25 years and a good reason to justify those 1,000 core processors.

Apple's mission has never changed. Their goal is to make the best personal computers out there. If you read the Steve Jobs book, he was always against them being able to get in the computer and futz with it. He restricted the number of card slots on the Apple 2. He put special screws on the Macintosh to deter anyone from going in there. Ditto with products today. The problem they always had was making the "best" computers (or best experience perhaps) was always more expensive. So who ended up affording them? Professionals. Mainly in the print production market because Apple invented the whole eps font concept and wysiwyg, etc. So the professional print world jumped on. And after that, pro video and graphics naturally followed suit. This was never what Steve wanted. He wanted to sell awesome computers to the masses. All this "Pro" stuff didn't happen on his watch. The minute he got back he started to turn that around. The market was going mobile and he took it there. Sure he kept up with the loyal pro market as long as he had to. But he knew there wasn't any money there by comparison.

 

[Intarweb]

I'm sure it will be completely affordable.

 

[topmounter]

Somehow I just can't get excited about the inevitable advancement of commodity storage anymore.

 

[Navdakilla]

Gonna cost an arm and a leg

 

[SpyderBite]

I love the question mark at the end of the headline. To me that whispers "we aren't putting too much faith in to this rumor either".

 

[foodog]

except for the CPU's

Not true. I've upgraded the CPU's in Mac Pros.... not easy but doable

----------

So where can I buy a 2TB SSD in a 3.5" form factor? Apple steps in when the third parties don't step up.



Nobody says these drives will be mandatory. You'll likely be able to afford it. As for the mythical cheap minitower (i.e. Mac mini pro) not going to happen.

Apple tried it and it failed... it was called the Cube

 

[MacsRgr8]

Usually I'm pretty positive, but a new Mac Pro..? Seeing is believing.

YES, I TOO AM HOPING!!

 

[HelveticaRoman]

Jeez. If you apply the Law of Apple pricing, then that SSD alone will probably be about $2,500 - $3,000!

...and around 2.5 million in Australia and the UK ;-)

 

[champ01]

Excuse me for observing, but you don't sound like the market segment that Apple is targeting their Mac Pros to.

Why do you make that assumption? I run a business selling studio equipment.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I didn't mean that consumers need 2TB SSD, but the poster It was replying to seemed to think that there's no need for 2TB storage whatsoever for most people.

Ah... I see.

Yeah I guess if you needed 2TB of fast operational data... a 2TB SSD would fill the bill.

But you shouldn't use SSDs for long-term storage... which was in my mind after you mentioned HD movies and huge photos.

That sort of stuff is better left on a spinning drive and/or NAS... in my opinion.

 

[Wicked1]

I think this will be a waste because only like maybe 20% of the people can afford what this thing will cost. I mean it is nearly $2000 for a 1TB drive so you will have to sell the kids, the house, the car in order to afford this. I just do not see where it will be worth it unless the price is $1000 or under but that is my opinion only.