Exactly. This.
Again, all you complainers, what the hell is wrong with you? Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. This guy above does.
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 Offers Sneak Peek of Completely Redesigned Mac Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. This.
Again, all you complainers, what the hell is wrong with you? Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. This guy above does.
External is much slower, and has serious reliability issues.
USB was standard on PCs long before the Imac was created.
We're just not getting enough Kool-Aid.
Yes, that guy has a good supply of Kool-Aid. 90% of his claims are ludicrous, and the other 90% are bogus. Maybe 30% are true for his situation, but possibly not for yours or mine.
(For example: "7. The RAM and Storage (SSD) speeds are off the charts!! 60GB/s & 1.2GB/s holy cow!!!"
That's simply what the available Intel chipsets provide to every vendor - nothing special for Apple. And 1.2 GB/s seems pretty crappy when you can put a 1.5GB/s to 6.0GB/s card in most any other workstation.)
They can be hooked together - look up XGrid for relevant details.
I'm just debating whether a (hyper)cubic network or a fat tree is the most efficient architecture with six Thunderbolt ports per machine.
You are absolutely right. All those TB connectors will make external upgrades a breeze. I think people around here are just upset because the new MP is a radical departure from the previous models. They'll just sit back and watch people like you and me create a futuristic setup.
BTW - Chatted with Corning this week. Their optical TB cables come out early Q3. Good for me so I can have the new setup in my machine room when the time comes...just in case this new model isn't whisper quiet.
----------
Sadly Xgrid has been killed.
Great post. Good point about the CORE. That's what I was trying to say in an earlier post but you've said it better.
And I agree on the pricing argument too.
This Mac Pro is exactly what is needed to go into the future.
Easy there tiger. I'm not a fan of the new design. There's no need to be so upset that I don't like it. You can have your opinion, and I can have mine. I'm not stopping you from liking it.
I will however, take issue with a couple of the points you've raised. First, I believe you are vastly overestimating the cost of including internal drive bays. It does not drastically increase the cooling necessary, or require additional heat sinks. Those are primarily for the CPU and GPU. The only additional costs of including them are the extra case size. Take a look at case prices, they're not going to break the bank, even for nice ones with good build quality.
Additionally, the vast majority of pros will use more than the included flash storage. So if the odds are that it's going to be used anyways the vast majority of the time, why treat it as such an optional feature? I'd much prefer to have everything included in the same box than have to trail cords all over. On a side note, this also decreases efficiency. You'll have to power it separately using a separate power supply. So ... how exactly is including internal drive sleds limiting?
Secondly, including an optical drive doesn't really increase the cost by that much to you. But hey, since its largely an outdated standard, I'll concede that its omission in the new Mac Pro is not terribly important.
Thirdly you mention that
Do I really need to reply to this? Can you not imagine a scenario in which both legacy and current hardware would both be valuable? First, I'm not sure what you're referring to as "legacy hardware", aside from an optical drive (which, blu ray isn't exactly legacy yet anyways). PCIe is not legacy hardware. And just because certain standards are still used that you might refer to as "legacy" doesn't mean a professional doesn't want the newest processors and up to date graphics cards. Take, for example, a video professional who does a significant amount of video editing, and gives the work to clients (or perhaps samples), on blu ray discs. He could, without a doubt, use the latest and greatest processors for rendering work (hence the need to upgrade). However, having the "legacy" technology is still a must, as blu ray is still used for many HD projects, rather than having to purchase a hard drive, when the customer requires a physical copy.
Thirdly, you mention that
I am glad you find the new Mac Pro suitable for your needs. However, you can't exactly connect ANYTHING to it, via Thunderbolt. For many applications (external storage for example), the 20Gb/s it provides should be more than enough. However, a 8x slot provides nearly 4x the bandwidth, and the x16 slot provides even more. External GPUs will suffer severe penalties, especially for compute work. Why would you want an exernal GPU you ask? Well, probably if your workflow uses CUDA, and you need nVidia GPUs.
Additionally, once you start adding all these boxes together, the footprint starts to increase.
Suppose, you already own a Mac Pro with 4 internal drives (plus a SSD boot drive in the second optical drive slot, a blu ray drive, a 128 GB of memory (8 x 16 GB), and an OWC Accelsior (basically a PCIe SSD). Well, you could put the blu ray in an external enclosure, as well as the 4 x 3.5" drives. And you'll probably have to find an external PCIe enclosure to put your Accelsior in. (Oh, and, you'll only have 4 memory slots in your new Mac Pro, so its actually a down grade in that respect.) See my point, now I've got at least 3 extra boxes, each requiring their own power supply on my desk, with 6 extra cords. Suddenly, it doesn't seem like such a reduction in footprint afterall. Additionally, I've now had to buy ~$1,000 of "adaptors" to make it all work.
This is my main problem with the new Mac Pro. Sure, its a great machine, and a fantastic piece of engineering. But they just made it smaller than it needed to be. For example, it is now only available in a single socket configuration, presumably due to size limitations. That means you are now limited to 4 memory slots, and 12 cores (exactly what we had before). If Apple hadn't been so obsessively concerned with reducing the footprint, they could have included a dual socket option for those that would benefit from it. And if most folks are going to use internal storage anyways, why externalize it?
If all you want it a fast, powerful machine with not much internal storage, and you don't need more than 12 cores, this machine is great for you! But maybe Apple should have made 2 offerings then. A Mac Mini Pro (or something like that), and a more capable platform for those that would benefit from it.
As you say, the future for some may indeed be this new Mac Pro, for those who don't mind connecting all their essentials with boxes and cords, or for those who don't need them in the first place. However, for those who need more than 4 slots of RAM, dual socket configurations, and the convenience of internal storage (or rack mounting capabilities), the future for them just might be HP or Dell workstations. In fact I suspect many of them have already switched before this announcement to Avid or Adobe.
Last edited:
I suppose you complained when the power mac G3 replaced ADB and other serial ports with USB. Where would we be now if Apple had never made that change?
You're not supposed to buy adapters. You're supposed to move on from your old tech and buy new tech. Or.. if you don't like, or can't afford the technology of the future, then yes, don't buy it, and stick with the old tech.
This new Mac Pro hasn't made your existing one useless. Your existing one, with all it's old tech that you want to stick with, still works doesn't it? So what's the problem?
Sheesh.
Perhaps you should take a look at my reply to this post.
----------
It's great to push technology forward. However, buying 16TB worth of SSD storage is not cost effect at this point, especially if its mostly for storage that you don't necessarily access frequently. Innovation is great, but don't imply that everyone just needs to get over it and drop $15k on solid state storage when mechanical hard drives will do just fine for a fraction of the cost at current prices.
You seem much too keen on telling people what they're "supposed" to do and buy and think. Easy.
There is no room (they expect you to expand everything EXTERNAL so welcome to the Mac Mini Pro).
So? Why is that a problem? It's much more modular now, giving us a LOT more options.
You don't know that yet.
In short, this is not a Mac Pro. It's a POS that looks like a trash can from a Casino. Expansion is dead. They include 6 Thunderbolt ports (which no one uses), only 4 USB ports (not even certain they are USB3, although one would assume so). Heck, my Mac Mini has 4 USB ports....
They include zero Firewire ports (so much for Pro Audio without an adapter).
They include zero eSata ports (still no professional in "Pro" I guess; they forget people out there use and need these things whether they think they're the future, past or just crap it doesn't matter; they are used by Pros and Apple doesn't include them)
WTF? Try paying attention. They ARE usb3.
And no one uses TB? Umm... yeah. ok. So you don't need a new Mac Pro then. Stick with your old Mac Pro with it's SATA and FireWire, etc. What have you lost?
TB is the way of the future, and yes, some of us do use it and are very happy that finally there exists an external connection option with decent performance (compared with FW800 for example). If you can't appreciate the benefits of TB over FW, SATA, and eSATA, then the current/old Mac Pro tower should be more than enough for your needs, or even a Mac Mini will do you. You don't need this new Mac Pro, nor do you deserve it.
Thank god. What's wrong with an external enclosure that is not limited to just four bays. And if I want to RAID them in the old Mac Pro I have to spend an extra $1000 on a RAID card. No, an external TB enclosure for maximum flexibility makes a lot more sense to me. Again, if you don't 'get' that, then stick with your old tech and be happy with it.
And what's wrong with making new TB devices? If you don't like TB, then stick with your old tech and don't get the new MP, and stop your whining. But some of us want to move into the future and TB is the future.
Even if you want all storage to go external, TB just doesn't match the speeds of PCIe though. Here's a post from someone on reduser:
"Well... So much for being able to have large external fast I/O... I know my dated two generations old PCI-E 2.0 x8 raid controller gives me about 2000 MB/sec reads and 1100 MB/sec writes on a 84 TB raid6 volume (30x3TB drives). Newer controllers are closer to around 3000 megabytes/sec read and write. No way you will ever get anything near to that on thunderbolt."
Thunderbolt 2 is limited to 20Gbps. That's not even CLOSE to a PCI 16x slot.
I know it appears to use a custom connector so at best, we would be dependent on Apple to provide an upgraded GPU card and frankly, that's not Apple's style. They always want to push you to buy a whole new machine instead.
That wasn't easy to see in the initial information since the news article said nothing and Apple's own site says nothing. Looking elsewhere, I did see USB3 mentioned, finally.
No one is a relative term, meaning very very few as a percentile. I don't know anyone that uses it, personally. My own Mac Mini server's port is used with a simple HDMI adapter only.
So why is your "way of the future" so darn slow compared to a modern PCI bus plane? THAT is the single biggest problem with this thing. Yes, you can get an external RAID enclosure with TB, but TB2 isn't going to replace PCIx16 any time soon, let alone when PCI moves on to even faster speeds. Thunderbolt will always be playing catchup. That's not the future of a truly "Pro" machine in my mind. Put simply, Apple should also provide a conventional box for those that NEED it.
I don't know WTF makes you think that your opinion is worth more than mine or anyone else's that you can start talking about whining.
Now that I have seen the new Pro, I can see how it fits into Apple's design philosophy. Like the iMacs, the internal expandibilty is being pushed out of the case via TB2. So that was not a big surprise to me. I think apple is going back to the basics of what the Mac Pro was meant to be: just power, pure power. This thing is going to be crazy fast, and expensive.
As a self admitted prosumer, when I put my current Mac Pro out to pasture in a few years, I may end up with another IMac, or a Mini. The Mac Pro may be out of my price range when you start adding attachment for storage.
As a self admitted prosumer, when I put my current Mac Pro out to pasture in a few years, I may end up with another IMac, or a Mini. The Mac Pro may be out of my price range when you start adding attachment for storage.
No compromises performance at any cost? So only having 12 cores available, and 4 slots of RAM is no compromises? As opposed to other workstations (and what the Mac Pro used to offer) that offer dual socket configurations with up to what will be 24 cores/48 threads and 8 slots/128GB RAM? Sure sounds like a compromise to me.
+1!
----------
what are the odds that at its core there is tibanna gas?
jokes aside, why expandability must be inside?
Now we have a core machine so anyone who needs any special equipment just plugs it.. And the total volume of them both is still smaller than a legacy tower...
I don't know, it is very futuristic, its quite like an iphone actually.
A brain which does most things but not everything:
-need to test your blood? Plug your equipment
-need more battery? Plug your whatever..
-need more graphic peformance? Plug it...
Ok maybe the last one does not exist... Yet..
But can you say iphone is not expandable?
I dont think the innovation is the crazy atomic darth vader turbine look, neither the 24 cores with twin gpus. I think it is the idea of the "core unit".
That's what he meant about his *ss :d
i see it more like a brain and those 6 tb ports are nerves to ears, eyes, arms, legs.
Legacy tower = amoeba ==> it has to have everything inside
technology/evolution was not advanced enough for a tower/unicellular guy
macpro ==> primate brain
technology/evolution is advanced enough and it seems to find no reason to put everything inside.
+1
Got a question. Can you upgrade the graphics cards in the new Pro? I can find plenty of info on what it's using, but nothing about being able to swap it out for something better later on.
Assume no.
Even if those boards housing the GPUs are standard for that model, i.e, Apple can easily configure two FirePro W5000, W7000 or W9000 GPUs when it is built and replace a faulty GPU by changing out a board, then the most you are going to get is being able to upgrade to an Apple GPU option from the generation your machine was built in. Which will probably only be available as a service part and be priced so that you are better off selling your system and buying a new one.
They look to contain part of the chipset which means their upgradability dies with each new release. Even if all the chipset is on the CPU logicboard Apple will make it so these can't be upgraded with a new model's GPUs. Users being able to upgrade the GPU on their Mac Pro has meant so many Mac Pros have lasted for 5-7 years and made used purchases viable. Not in Apple's interest at all.
So assuming you can't, then what Apple has made here is a small, sleek, disposable production machine that has to be replaced entirely every 2-3 years when you want to upgrade to the latest and greatest.
I can't deny that the new Pro is an excellent piece of engineering. I mean the thing is practically a techno-sex lap dance in a cylinder. The problem is that they're marketing it to a demographic where the function of a machine far outweighs its form. Anyone who needs the amount of power this thing provides doesn't care if it can sit on their desk looking all shiny and nice, humming along barely louder than a whisper. It could look like a beat up fridge from 1974, and the only thing they'll care about is if it's capable of doing its job, and doing it well. If you're not able to upgrade even the graphics card in the thing, which is pretty much expected, then that means they have to $3000+ every three years for an entirely new machine, instead keeping it around for twice that, and only having to spend a single $800-$1000 GPU upgrade to get a nice boost.
If I were a professional wanting to get the most bang for my buck, this wouldn't be it.
...though if you can upgrade the GPUs, then that's a slightly different story. The only downside to it would be lack of internal drive bays, but Thunderbolt does help to take a little bit of the sting out of that.
I can't deny that the new Pro is an excellent piece of engineering. I mean the thing is practically a techno-sex lap dance in a cylinder. The problem is that they're marketing it to a demographic where the function of a machine far outweighs its form. Anyone who needs the amount of power this thing provides doesn't care if it can sit on their desk looking all shiny and nice, humming along barely louder than a whisper. It could look like a beat up fridge from 1974, and the only thing they'll care about is if it's capable of doing its job, and doing it well. If you're not able to upgrade even the graphics card in the thing, which is pretty much expected, then that means they have to $3000+ every three years for an entirely new machine, instead keeping it around for twice that, and only having to spend a single $800-$1000 GPU upgrade to get a nice boost.
If I were a professional wanting to get the most bang for my buck, this wouldn't be it.
...though if you can upgrade the GPUs, then that's a slightly different story. The only downside to it would be lack of internal drive bays, but Thunderbolt does help to take a little bit of the sting out of that.
This is such a broad generalization it's assuredly false.
For many who endeavor in the creative arts, they'd appreciate a machine that can match their workflow without a hiccup, seamlessly marry their preferred software's capabilities with efficient and extremely powerful hardware that does not get in the way of their creative process by whooshing, banging, clanging or growling.
Dude, you're so missing the point.
The point of the new Mac Pro is to move into the future, not keep doing what we've already been doing. I for one don't want FW, USB2, optical drives, eSATA or any of that other crap you mentioned. That's all legacy technology. This is the same argument everyone had when the rMBP removed FW, Ethernet, etc. in favor of TB and fast wifi, and it's the same argument everyone had when the original iMac removed all the old serial ports and floppy drives and replaced them with USB and CD.
The way of the future is TB+USB3. I LOVE the fact that we only have to worry about potentially two types of connectors now: USB3 for cheap stuff, and TB for really pro stuff. Those two handle EVERYTHING. And that's very sweet.
If you want to hold onto all your old legacy technology, no problem: hold on to your old Mac Pro as well. If you want to move into the future then embrace the future and let the old stuff go. If we all thought like you then we'd still be all using parallel ports, serial ports and floppy drives from the 1990's.
Depends on what you're doing, honestly. For some people, an iMac is perfectly fine. I'm one of those people, actually. I don't need a vast amount of processing power or data throughput to do what I do. I goof around in PS, make stuff in Modo, Zbrush, and the like, and play some games. That puts me on the upper end of the consumer sector. The Mac Pro isn't for me.
But people who need a Mac Pro? They need as much power as they can get, and the flexibility to upgrade to more easily if they need it. Right now the GPUs in the new Pro are fine. But what about 2 years from now? 3? 5? It used to be you could just swap out your old cards and carry on from there. Now, you have to upgrade the whole machine. It's an unnecessary pain in the ass that's only there because Apple wanted to make a machine as small and sleek as possible.
It's a nice machine, but it's not as good as it could be...or should be.
Then you can get a TB enclosure for your HDDs, and that plus the new MP will still take up less space on your desk or floor than the old MP did, and then everyone is catered to.
You get your large elaborate system, and I get my small screaming headless machine without having to have the 3 empty HDD bays and the optical drive that I don't want to have to make space for, OR pay for.
Really, what's so hard about understanding that?
If you REALLY want everything in one box, then strip out all the internals in your old MP, put the new MP, and your TB enclosure inside it, and you're all set. Sounds to me like there's a market for third party enclosures for the new MP.
But honestly, why does it matter? Why do you have to have everything in one box? Why force that large and completely unnecessary box on me just because you want everything in one box, when if you can settle for two boxes we can both be happy?
Umm... other than PCIe x16, used for high end GPUs only, what internal option is faster than TB2?
And what are these reliability issues of which you speak? Sure, if you're tripping over the cables or in some other way pulling them in and out then yes, but plug them in and leave them alone...? What reliability issues?
Umm, no it wasn't. Everyone kicked up a fuss when the iMac came out because there was not enough USB stuff on the market to go with this new and rare connection. That was the issue.
Of course that changed very quickly after the iMac was introduced. I suspect the same thing will happen here. Every man and his dog will be making TB gear within the next year and the prices will come down dramatically, just as they have with every other new standard.
Consider that Apple has presented the future of the Mac Pro to the world some 6 months or more before they'll actually release it. I think it's a safe bet that by the time they do release it, many developers and hardware manufacturers will have come out with new gear to go with it. Everyone will want to get in first.
OK, well idiotic comments like that don't deserve any kind of sensible response so I'll stop with you here.
I think you have got your figures completely wrong.
OCZ for example do a V.expensive PCIe SSD flash and that's 1GB/s... no idea where you are getting this mythical 6gb from?
----------
Love it! That's the best way to shut up the idiotic dinosaurs that are just not getting it.
You know you could probably set up all the internals too - the 4 internals drive ports to a Thunderbolt and hook up all the externals connectors and even some sort of board where the PCIE is.
Hell they can even keep the superdrive!
Sound like a job for OWC to me - they did all the great SSD enclosures!