Apple Continues to Work on All-New Mac Pro With Upgradeable Design

[fairuz]

"high-throughput system in a modular, upgradeable design,"

I know people are thinking tower, but with the rise of eGPUs I'm thinking Apple may go completely modular. As in the CPU is in one box, the GPU is in another, storage is in another, all connected by TB3 (4?) EDIT (central PCI bus). Think of a MacMini type enclosure but each component is a separate box and swappable/upgradable.

EDIT: credit to user Velocityg4 for the picture of Razers Project Christine:

View attachment 742152

Eh, I don't see the point. A Cheese Grater Mac Pro and a regular PC are already modular, but on the inside, so it merely takes longer to swap things. How frequently is the average user swapping GPUs across machines that they want them to be external? For the few who need that, they can still use eGPUs.

I've already had the choice between external and internal storage for a long time, and I've avoided external unless I plan to switch it between machines because it just costs more and adds more wires.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

I hope so, but I doubt it's going to happen. As someone else said, they seem married to AMD. Even their External Graphics Development Kit uses an RX580.

nVidia will be an option (though not the default) for the Mac Pro. Earlier this year when announced a brand new Titan Xp video card using the Pascal architecture -- they released macOS drivers for these cards. It would not make business sense unless they were given assurance from Apple that they would be useable by new hardware (and not hardware that was vintage or obsoleted already by Apple). An interesting side note is the recently released update for Logic Pro by Apple supports up to 36 cores (which is suspiciously just double the 18 core maximum in the iMac Pro) -- which makes me suspicious they will bring back the dual-processor option.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

I want to be able to plug my old mac into my new mac, and have OSX ask me if I want to use it as a second display or not, but regardless, use the hardware to create a Beowulf cluster on the spot.

2, 3, 4, 20 Macs, all sharing processing power to run every task in the office as a supercomputer.

That would be huge.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

I want to be able to plug my old mac into my new mac, and have OSX ask me if I want to use it as a second display or not, but regardless, use the hardware to create a Beowulf cluster on the spot.

2, 3, 4, 20 Macs, all sharing processing power to run every task in the office as a supercomputer.

That would be huge.

If they updated macOS to auto-Beowolf so you could add more hardware (CPU/GPU/TPU/Memory) processing units - withinternal highspeed networking between units -- I would be ecstatic. I think I seriously harmed my old Mac Pro 2008 by running it for 6 months 7/24 at around 750% CPU usage last year.... it has been a little flaky recently.

 

[xnu]

If price of the iMac Pro is the biggest concern... next years iMac based on the i7-8700k, i7-8700, and i5-8600K will have pretty substantial performance at much more consumer friendly price.

Its not the price of the iMac, part for part it is a great value. For many people its a great machine, no doubt. Apple seems to apply mobile computer design constraints to desktop computers. Its the lack of upgradability, graphics and the requirement to purchase a new monitor every 3 years that some don't need, both consumer and pro. I am starting to think Apple designs its computers with only a spreadsheet, I am looking at you Tim Cook.

For example; The difference in speed between a Nvidia GTX1080 vs 1080Ti is 30%, one year upgrade in the PC world. Purchasing an iMac today gives you at best a RX580 which is approximately 80% slower than lasts years GTX 1080. Worse than that, there is no way to ever upgrade, e v e r. Good luck with that. (I just did some quick research to make my point, my numbers may be off a bit.)

Sure an iMac Pro may bring us up to GTX 1080 or 1080Ti, but not the Titan. And again no way to upgrade. And we can only use one card!?!? Even the MacPro 2013 had two. A eGPU is fine if you have a laptop, but not for desktop... its just silly. Not everyone needs powerful graphics cards, some people do.

Is this a fair example, NO. Am I just trying to point out the largest increase in performance in desktops computers in the last 5 years has been in graphics, which Apple has not participated? YES. There is a place in the consumer market for the iMac, but I hope Apple realizes it needs both a consumer tower (i7-8700k, i7-8700, and i5-8600K, Ryzen) and Pro tower (Xenon, Threadripper) tower. That is why I will say again, its not in Apples DNA, they probably should just let another company do it. Apple needs to stay at least within a year to 18 months of PCs to have a viable offering in the market, they have not been accomplishing that in the last 5 years. The Mac desktop market share is not a big part of Apple, but it does have a Halo effect because that is what content creators for the platform use. Now that they have designed custom silicon for their mother board they can easily license that to another company to competently produce computers.

I have been through all the transitions and arguments since 1987, I have seen so much of this before. Macs are regarded as toys again, something Steve Jobs solved over a decade ago by transitioning to Intel and open standards, but they are not taking advantage of any of that. Make the best PC first. Maybe its because they are so distracted by moving into a new campus, perhaps they just don't feel they need to compete because OS X is superior. But the Mac is dangerously close to completely losing the Pro user. The iMac Pro, while a great development, reinforces that Apple has missed the mark again. Some will love the iMac Pro, but it does not fill the huge gaps in Apples computer offerings.

Still Salty.

 

[flat five]

I want to be able to plug my old mac into my new mac, and have OSX ask me if I want to use it as a second display or not, but regardless, use the hardware to create a Beowulf cluster on the spot.

2, 3, 4, 20 Macs, all sharing processing power to run every task in the office as a supercomputer.

That would be huge.

you can already do that and have been able to for quite some time.. (previously via wired connections but for the past few years, it works wirelessly as well.)

it's more of a matter of what software are you using or wanting to utilize this ability.


----
as example, doing it with Thunderbolt connection:

https://support.apple.com/kb/PH25217?locale=en_US&viewlocale=en_US

 

[SeminalSage]

Eh, I don't see the point. A Cheese Grater Mac Pro and a regular PC are already modular, but on the inside, so it merely takes longer to swap things. How frequently is the average user swapping GPUs across machines that they want them to be external? For the few who need that, they can still use eGPUs.

I've already had the choice between external and internal storage for a long time, and I've avoided external unless I plan to switch it between machines because it just costs more and adds more wires.

The point is that Apple can make a modular upgradable design while maintain full control over the design and enclosures. The fan boys will say it’s to ensure everything just works, then haters will say it’s to maximize profits, and while both are probably true, I see it as better then what is available now.

 

[Martius]

Oh, they mean that Mac Pro that should have arrived two years ago.

 

[danielwsmithee]

Exactly, I am not an iMac fan (especially since monitors are the second most likely failure point after hard drives) -- but the baseline iMac Pro is about $1,300USD more than a similarly configured iMac (normal) with the additional 4 cores, a better graphics cards -- it is not a huge step up. The iMac Pro is a workstation class machine (most home users don't "need" it - and what it brings to the table so they don't really put a price on things like ECC memory and AVX-512 etc. It is not meant for your average Joe -- most of which already have more machine than they ever use.

Monitors are really the second most common failure? I’d love to see some data on that. I see many more video card, power supply and SSD failures in that order.

A lot of these boards are just people complaining about wanting a Farrari for the price of a Honda.

I really don’t get the desire for upgrade ability anyways. Typically CPUs, motherboards and sockets loose compatibility within 3 years as does RAM. So you can add more RAM, add more storage, which you can do pretty easily on a standard iMac. The only real limitation in my mind is the video card. Most really demanding Pros are ready to upgrade the entire system every 3-4 years. The only market seams to truelly be fit that much from upgradeability is cost conscious gamers who are better off with a windows PC anyways.

 

[briloronmacrumo]

At the risk of duplicating another poster's comment, the words "upgradeable design" are a hopeful sign for me. Seeing "modular" in past blurbs didn't impress because a machine can be sealed and still be characterized as "modular".

 

[danielwsmithee]

Is this a fair example, NO. Am I just trying to point out the largest increase in performance in desktops computers in the last 5 years has been in graphics, which Apple has not participated? YES. There is a place in the consumer market for the iMac, but I hope Apple realizes it needs both a consumer tower (i7-8700k, i7-8700, and i5-8600K, Ryzen) and Pro tower (Xenon, Threadripper) tower. That is why I will say again, its not in Apples DNA, they probably should just let another company do it. Apple needs to stay at least within a year to 18 months of PCs to have a viable offering in the market, they have not been accomplishing that in the last 5 years. The Mac desktop market share is not a big part of Apple, but it does have a Halo effect because that is what content creators for the platform use. Now that they have designed custom silicon for their mother board they can easily license that to another company to competently produce computers.

I have been through all the transitions and arguments since 1987, I have seen so much of this before. Macs are regarded as toys again, something Steve Jobs solved over a decade ago by transitioning to Intel and open standards, but they are not taking advantage of any of that. Make the best PC first. Maybe its because they are so distracted by moving into a new campus, perhaps they just don't feel they need to compete because OS X is superior. But the Mac is dangerously close to completely losing the Pro user. The iMac Pro, while a great development, reinforces that Apple has missed the mark again. Some will love the iMac Pro, but it does not fill the huge gaps in Apples computer offerings.

Still Salty.

i agree that the GPU is where Apple’s design decisions have had the biggest impact. I do find it ironic that you describe the iMac as a toy.

A Pro Towers market segment is professional creators and developers. They earn money with their Computers and Apple has committed to support their needs with both an iMac Pro and a Mac Pro.

A Consumer Tower primarily benefits those that want the best graphics in a cheaper tower. The primary use case for this is games. So it sounds like you are calling Macs toys because they are not ideal to play video games on.

 

[Bob Sanders]

It is beginning to look like my next computer will have to be a PC. For the price of an entry level imac pro I can build a thread ripper machine with change left over. This sucks because compared to MacOs I HATE WINDOWS! So I'm left with choosing the lesser of two evils. I can use an operating system I hate, or play silly hackintosh games. Neither of these choices is good, especially playing hackintosh games.

Why wait? Just go ahead and buy that PC now. It's always safe to make big decisions based solely on message board fearmongering about a product we have no real information on.

Last spring, Apple very clearly stated that they made mistakes with regard to the Mac Pro line and are working to correct those mistakes. I see no reason to not take them at their word until the product is released. If they screw up again, then call them on it, but the allowable time to complain about the trashcan MP has ended.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Monitors are really the second most common failure? I’d love to see some data on that. I see many more video card, power supply and SSD failures in that order.

A lot of these boards are just people complaining about wanting a Farrari for the price of a Honda.

I really don’t get the desire for upgrade ability anyways. Typically CPUs, motherboards and sockets loose compatibility within 3 years as does RAM. So you can add more RAM, add more storage, which you can do pretty easily on a standard iMac. The only real limitation in my mind is the video card. Most really demanding Pros are ready to upgrade the entire system every 3-4 years. The only market seams to truelly be fit that much from upgradeability is cost conscious gamers who are better off with a windows PC anyways.

Over the last 10 years - I have personally had 6 or 7 monitors die, probably 15 hard drives (thanks Seagate), one SSD, and one CPU or motherboard (did not figure out - not worth it), and NO power supplies.

Farther back I seem remember one customer had a pile of all macs that were out of service because of either the monitor or the monitor arm (pre Mac OS X)

 

[Martyimac]

Over the last 10 years - I have personally had 6 or 7 monitors die, probably 15 hard drives (thanks Seagate), one SSD, and one CPU or motherboard (did not figure out - not worth it), and NO power supplies.

My numbers are different but pretty much echoes what I saw in the years I built my own. Only big difference is I didn't have SSD's to worry about. But I have recently had one SSD die on me. So far, after roughly 27 years of building my own, 2 lost monitors, NO power supplies and a few spinners, oh, and one graphics card.

 

[danielwsmithee]

Over the last 10 years - I have personally had 6 or 7 monitors die, probably 15 hard drives (thanks Seagate), one SSD, and one CPU or motherboard (did not figure out - not worth it), and NO power supplies.

Farther back I seem remember one customer had a pile of all macs that were out of service because of either the monitor or the monitor arm (pre Mac OS X)

That is interesting. It would be interesting to get numbers on component failure rates for people that build their own PCs versus, manufactured PCs, vs All-in-ones like the iMac.

I would guess there are differences. My guess RAM, Motherboard, and CPU failure rates are higher for those that build there due improper diligence about ESD.

I would think that Power Supply and Video Card failure rates would be highest on all-in-ones because of their custom cooling solutions in limited space.

I wouldn't expect there to be much of a difference for the LCD panel though, that is likely most correlated to the quality of the panel that is being used. I haven't heard of very many people complaining about failed LCDs in modern iMacs. A ton of video card failures though.

The nice thing about an iMac though is it is so popular that used parts are very easy and cheap to get. It is really not that hard to work on once you know what you are doing. I've taken mine apart like 4 times due to HD failures (except for the 1 optical drive failure when my toddler put a coin in the slot). Ever since I upgraded both bays to SSD I haven't had to take it apart again.

 

[xnu]

A Consumer Tower primarily benefits those that want the best graphics in a cheaper tower. The primary use case for this is games. So it sounds like you are calling Macs toys because they are not ideal to play video games on.

I know gaming is a touchy subject, I would not recommend gaming on a Mac for more reasons than graphics. If you want to game get a Windows computer. I shouldn't have called it a "consumer tower," I was just referring to level of processor which most refer to i7s and Ryzens as consumer chips. Many professionals use i7s for their work, not all software benefits from multi-core Xenons. I think I was just lazy in my description.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

I know gaming is a touchy subject, I would not recommend gaming on a Mac for more reasons than graphics. If you want to game get a Windows computer. I shouldn't have called it a "consumer tower," I was just referring to level of processor which most refer to i7s and Ryzens as consumer chips. Many professionals use i7s for their work, not all software benefits from multi-core Xenons. I think I was just lazy in my description.

I understood what you meant, and I suspect many did. Consumer grade - as per the CPU (i.e. non-ECC memory, non-Xeon processor). [it adds significant cost to put in Xeon processors with the same power as a consumer grade one and the ECC memory to go with it]. There are many tasks that you really don't require workstation grade CPU and memory, but you could use more graphics power etc. (like developers current using eGPUs on their laptop). A consumer grade i7-8700K with non-ECC memory would be very a very powerful consumer grade computer. When I got my last Mac Pro - I primarily chose the Mac Pro because I could support 4 monitors attached to it (on two graphics cards -- which have been upgraded since the original purchase). I would be quite fine with the same CPU performance on a new machine (a quad-core in a Mac Mini would be higher performance for most tasks) - which can now handle up to 4 monitors. I however would like to be able to dabble with VR (I don't game) so basically a downgraded Mac Pro 2013 to consumer parts and top of the line video card in the iMac line would suffice -- but a consumer grade cheesegrater would also do very nicely ( would be able to put a SAS controller in it -- or anything really). There are many people like me that are just averse to all-in-one computers and will never buy any all-in-one that does not serve a purpose (i.e. laptop).

The issue is what volume would they sell, would it be sufficient. It is fine having aspirational pro computers that sell in low volume, but not really a consumer grade machine. It might be an interesting experiment - a one off to guage the market and see if Apple is leaving significant sales on the table.

I however don't want them to cheap out on the manufacturing process for the motherboard or case -- it is not worth it to have the same quality as is typical in the PC market.

 

[PickUrPoison]

There’s nothing to indicate Apple would consider a Mac Pro with consumer-type parts. Those whose idea of a Mac Pro is an i7-7700K/8700K (or even 78xxX or 79xxX), a 250W video card and non-ECC memory should look elsewhere.

It’s a perfectly valid build, and would suit a certain subset of users’ requirements, but it’s not a Mac Apple seems to have any interest in bringing to market.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

There’s nothing to indicate Apple would consider a Mac Pro with consumer-type parts. Those whose idea of a Mac Pro is an i7-7700K/8700K (or even 78xxX or 79xxX), a 250W video card and non-ECC memory should look elsewhere.

It’s a perfectly valid build, and would suit a certain subset of users’ requirements, but it’s not a Mac Apple seems to have any interest in bringing to market.

I was not saying a Mac Pro with consumer parts. Some call it a Mac Mini Pro, others call it simply the Mac (nothing).

For a long time it has seemed that Apple has not been interested in bringing anything more than laptops and consumer grade iMacs to the market (no Mac Pro, no Mac Mini). There is however a tremendous gap in the lineup when it comes to headless computers (from 2 core 4 year old Mac Mini -- "nothing between" 3 year old Mac Pro). Up until the latest push into VR when they finally gave a slightly more performant GPU, Apple had no reason to have higher power GPUs in "consumer machines" (inclusive of iMacs). There are quite a number of purpose built Mac Minis used in datacenters for specific purposes where you don't need anything that powerful, and the having a headed computer is just annoying. Of course a number of these Mac Minis could easily be replaced with virtual instances if Apple had any interest in licensing stuff for that purpose. Basically -- other than the laptop and the iMac -- Apple has more or less given the appearance that the Mac lineup days are numbered. I personally will wait until next year up until WWDC to decide what I start do. Right now I am leaning towards splitting/replacing my Mac Pro with an intel 8700K linux machine (for my enterprise server development platform) and for the rest ... a new Macbook (replacing my current Macbook - just with more memory). I originally came to use the Macs in 2007 (laptop) -- primarily because they were UNIX machines, bought the Mac Pro in 2008, then 3 Mac Minis in 2009 (for specific tasks I wanted isolated on small boxes)... But I have become very uneasy with the hardware side of things.

 

[danielwsmithee]

There’s nothing to indicate Apple would consider a Mac Pro with consumer-type parts. Those whose idea of a Mac Pro is an i7-7700K/8700K (or even 78xxX or 79xxX), a 250W video card and non-ECC memory should look elsewhere.

It’s a perfectly valid build, and would suit a certain subset of users’ requirements, but it’s not a Mac Apple seems to have any interest in bringing to market.

Very well said. The interesting thing about such a system is you could buy a used 2012 Mac Pro throw the latest NVIDIA card in and have a system that has about the same performance and upgrade ability as such a system. Places like macsales will even sell it with a warranty.

 

[Naimfan]

Having lived with a 2016 15" MBP, all I can say is god help the Mac Pro.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Very well said. The interesting thing about such a system is you could buy a used 2012 Mac Pro throw the latest NVIDIA card in and have a system that has about the same performance and upgrade ability as such a system. Places like macsales will even sell it with a warranty.

And it may very will be on the last revision of the OS that it will support. It is the reason I would not consider the Mac Pro now - it has been out since 2013... I could see buying it then having it not supported in 2 years time

 

[Cyrax]

When it was introduced the Mac Pro, they bragged how the thermal cooling worked.

To be fair to Apple, the trash can is very good at what it does. It just so happens, though, that a few years on people don't need what it does.

I do think they ignored pro users for a while and are now trying to win them back.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

It is interesting to note that when I purchased my Mac Pro in 2008 - I think I paid somewhere around $2,500 for two processor 8-core machine.

 

[Abazigal]

To be fair to Apple, the trash can is very good at what it does. It just so happens, though, that a few years on people don't need what it does.

I do think they ignored pro users for a while and are now trying to win them back.

I think they also mentioned something about workflows moving towards single, more powerful graphics cards than dual-graphic cards. In short, Apple bet everything on the wrong horse, and lost horribly when the industry didn't go the way they envisioned.