Sidebar Sidebar
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

wiz329 said:
Yeah, you're right. But I suppose it effectively gets "transformed" along the way, if you think about the whole path from CPU to display. PCIe lanes run from the CPU to the GPU, where they effectively "dead end", and then displayport exits the GPU and then is presumably multiplexed with raw PCIe lanes into "Thunderbolt."
Click to expand...

I might be digging myself in deeper, but somehow I doubt it would multiplex raw PCIe3 lanes with displayport since I believe TB carries PCIe2 signals multiplexed with displayport. It might be something like:

CPU
|
| PCIe3 x8 or x16
|
v
Graphics card entry
| . . . . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . . . . |
v . . . . . . . . . v
GPU . . . . . PCIe3 to PCIe2 bridge
| . . . . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . . . . |
v . . . . . . . . . v
Thunderbolt bridge
|
| end of graphics card. T-Bolt out
|
v


Edit: please excuse the dots. Only put them in to keep the spacing/formatting.
 
Last edited:
narbalek said:
...
4) no obvious security slot for a kensington lock or similar. Granted this is more a deterrent for an opportunistic burglar than an absolute can't steal it setup, but unlike a toaster, a computer is an expensive item to buy or replace.
Click to expand...
It's there, just un-obvious Apple style :)

Looking at the 'rear' of the unit, top left is a lock-sign next to something that appears to be a covered kensington lock entry hole.
 
VanZan said:
It's there, just un-obvious Apple style :)

Looking at the 'rear' of the unit, top left is a lock-sign next to something that appears to be a covered kensington lock entry hole.
Click to expand...

I think thats already been determined to be the lock to keep the case on rather than a security slot.
 
MattDSLR said:
I have 4 drives in both my macs and I hate external drives as they are much slower
Click to expand...

Not the case any more. Particularly compared to the internal SATA II ports you're using right now. You can take all those drives and put them on external USB3, that's a faster connection than what you're using now. And cheap.

OrangeUglad said:
I am baffled myself.

NEW Thunderbolt = 10Gbs

OLD sata = 6Gbs
Click to expand...

Actually the SATA in the current mac pro is 3Gbs. And to complete the comparison, USB3 is 5Gbps although they say usable data rate is 4. And TB2 is 20Gbps plus supposedly the dual channels can both be used in the same direction at the same time, unlike TB1 which limited them to only separate up/down. It's all a bit confusing, I don't think we'll know the true maximum speeds of TB2 until it is shipping and people benchmark it. Or does someone have an early version of TB2 already?
 
saba01 said:
If you want "cheap" go Dell
Click to expand...

Wow really? You opened up an entire world for me, let me name my first born after you! Nay let me call a small moon after you! You are so brilliant that it's painfully obvious your intelligence is far superior to us mere mortals here... forgive me oh great master for even considering saying something so obvious... I shall go to Mount Doom and sacrifice my self to you...

Pft... get real... if you are so sensitive to comments on Apple, I bet you lay in your bed awake for hours thinking about this very post...

Sweet dream little prince... :rolleyes:

Enjoy childhood while you can, out in the real world you'll be eaten alive...
 
narbalek said:
I think thats already been determined to be the lock to keep the case on rather than a security slot.
Click to expand...

Yes, and sadly, there's no way to lock the case either . . . from what I can see anyway.

So in an enterprise / medium size post facility there's no way to keep traffic from opening your case and adding/removing something they shouldn't. Sure, the only thing upgradeable on the new Mac Pro is the RAM, but I'd still prefer NO ONE to be inside my machines.

VanZan said:
Oooops, you are of course right, found this:
http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/mac_pro_2013-580x386.jpg

BTW in the mean time I noticed it is also missing on the new TimeCapsule.
Click to expand...

Another sad loss. I hope it's just hidden really well on the Mac Pro. It's bad enough you can't lock the . . . . "tower" in a closet and feed the cables to your edit suite, but now we can't even secure what's looking to be a $4000+ workstation machine?

Nonsense.

saba01 said:
If you want "cheap" go Dell
Click to expand...

Dell workstations aren't cheap. The consumer stuff, sure. They are definitely cheap when looking at the bottom of the barrel Core i3 stuff. But the Precision line up for both laptops and desktops cost some serious $$$$ . . . . they are well worth the money though, and put the new Mac Pro to shame for the price you pay FOR THE DELL.
 
Last edited:
milo said:
Actually the SATA in the current mac pro is 3Gbs. And to complete the comparison, USB3 is 5Gbps although they say usable data rate is 4. And TB2 is 20Gbps plus supposedly the dual channels can both be used in the same direction at the same time, unlike TB1 which limited them to only separate up/down. It's all a bit confusing, I don't think we'll know the true maximum speeds of TB2 until it is shipping and people benchmark it. Or does someone have an early version of TB2 already?
Click to expand...

There is essentially 1 bi-directional 20 Gb/s channel as I understand TB 2.0, one in each direction. The "upgrade" from TB 1 to TB 2 doesn't involve any increase in total bandwidth. Instead of 4 x 10 Gb/s channels (2 up, 2 down), you now have 2 x 20 Gb/s channels (1 up, 1 down), which allows for greater flexibility. I agree, its all a bit murky and confusing.

----------
narbalek said:
I might be digging myself in deeper, but somehow I doubt it would multiplex raw PCIe3 lanes with displayport since I believe TB carries PCIe2 signals multiplexed with displayport. It might be something like:

CPU
|
| PCIe3 x8 or x16
|
v
Graphics card entry
| . . . . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . . . . |
v . . . . . . . . . v
GPU . . . . . PCIe3 to PCIe2 bridge
| . . . . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . . . . |
v . . . . . . . . . v
Thunderbolt bridge
|
| end of graphics card. T-Bolt out
|
v


Edit: please excuse the dots. Only put them in to keep the spacing/formatting.
Click to expand...

You're right, it doesn't mix raw PCIe 3.0 with DP. I assume the raw 3.0 lanes lead into the Redwood Ridge controller with DP from the GPU, and the resulting output is Thunderbolt, with the two muxed together.

I'm just not sure the PCIe for the data ever goes through the GPU.
 
Mhmmm there are missing:
- two additional USB ports
- min. one more mSATA slot
- no changeable GPU, WTF

I'm excited to hear/read if the cooling realing works on a long productive day with it.
 
Jasoco said:
It's the G4 Cube evolved. Except this time they don't need to sacrifice performance for size and appearance. The original Cube failed because it was underpowered, but 13 years of technological advancements have finally made this stuff possible again.

Can't wait to see benchmark comparisons when it comes out.
Click to expand...

No, the original cube failed because it was overpriced relative to its performance and expandability. At up to 500 MHz, it was on par with the other G4s Apple had to offer, but at $1799 starting for the base model, it was more expensive than the low-end 450 MHz G4 Tower.

----------
Digital Skunk said:
Dell workstations aren't cheap. . . . they are well worth the money though, and put the new Mac Pro to shame for the price you pay.
Click to expand...

And you know this how, given there's as of yet no pricing for the new MP?
 
OMG! This thing is only 10" high and 6" in diameter? That's crazy! When I first heard about the new mac pro being a cylinder my knee jerk reaction was that this was silly, putting design over function. But I've completely changed my mind now that I've seen the Apple presentation. I love the idea of a single fan pulling air out the TOP, with a unified thermal core. And it's so small, it could easily sit on a desktop.

My older Mac Pro is so big it pretty much has to sit on the floor. I have the last of the FB-DIMM Pro's, expandable to 32GB (or was it 64?--whatever--more than I will need--I have 10GB in it now and that's more than enough still). And I LOVE the design of my model and how quiet it is. And it's still plenty capable for what we need it for. But this is the first time that I like the current Pro better than mine. Or, I should say, the first time that I suspect I will like the new Pro better than mine.

Awesome! I love it!
 
Clive At Five said:
I've been waiting silently to see what they've been teasing at for so long now. I thought for sure that with Steve gone, they'd finally release a modest, modular "xMac" after all these years.

Instead, they release a MacMini Pro.

For years, I've been hoping for a simple desktop from Apple that would grow with my needs. I've never needed a workstation, but occasionally I like to replace my graphics card, or throw in an extra hard drive. I've needed a Mac Pro Lite. Apple consistently refused to deliver.

I've tried hackintoshes for the past 8 years, but they're always too much work to maintain, and too unstable. Eventually I just gave up.

And I didn't end up settling for an iMac, a Mac Pro, or a Mac Mini.

After DECADES of being an Apple fanboy - believing in the company when no one else did (much to the ridicule of all my friends) - Apple has made a Windows user out of me.

I would've never believed it to be possible.

Hate on me all you want. You are no longer my people.

-Clive
Click to expand...

It's really too bad that Apple did away with-- well, basically the Power Mac tower.
 
milo said:
So you're assuming it's overpriced based on numbers you pulled out of your ass. Thanks for clearing that up.
Click to expand...

I agree that the price could . . . . could go down. But I'd rather use logic and current pricing trends for the universal components in the new Mac Pro to deduce the price rather than go on some flight of fancy hunch that it's going to be cheaper.

Now, I know that we can all just wait to see what Apple is going to price it at then start clamoring on about a machine that 90% on this forum won't buy, but sadly those that are actually in the market for it need to give some estimates to the purse holders.

e.g. I can't tell my superiors to hold on to $6000 for 3 new Mac Pros. That's stupid, and only an idiot consumer would assume the price is going to be lower for a "workstation" with decent specs. Anyone with a half decent sense of tech costs can see that the machine is going to be upwards of $2500 easy.

So I tell my boss to allot $12,000 for three Mac Pros, and if the price is cheaper it'll be all the better.

In other words, everyone needs to stop being a prick to those that speculate on price of the machine. For many industries, it's a very smart move.

AidenShaw said:
Quad-core with a single GPU and 128 GB SSD could be below that.
Click to expand...

We would only hope. It'd be nice to finally get a Macintosh headless tower that costs $1799 again. It would of course suck that we'd be paying $1799 for machine that might only perform marginally better than an entry level iMac.

I do see Apple following it's current path of limiting the amount of CTO options for it's all-in-one / compressed systems. This new Mac Pro may just be the desktop equivalent of the Macbook Air in terms of customization. We may just be able to choose between a few 12 core Xeon options and more RAM and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
Digital Skunk said:
I agree that the price could . . . . could go down. But I'd rather use logic and current pricing trends for the universal components in the new Mac Pro to deduce the price rather than go on some flight of fancy hunch that it's going to be cheaper.
Click to expand...

I agree that the price could go up, and it could go down, and that there's lots of speculation that can be done based on the limited information we do have.

My post was in response to declaring the box "overpriced" when the price and configurations haven't been announced yet. Maybe it will be, maybe not. Your post doesn't really have much to do with what you responded to, seems like you missed the point or didn't follow what came earlier in the thread. It may be cheaper or more expensive depending on how many cores and which GPU the base model starts with, but even if it only ships with top components and is expensive, that's not the same as "overpriced".

Digital Skunk said:
We may just be able to choose between a few 12 core Xeon options
Click to expand...

Since it is announced as "up to 12 cores", there should be options with fewer available, although we don't know how many and if that means 8, 6, or 4.
 
milo said:
I agree that the price could go up, and it could go down, and that there's lots of speculation that can be done based on the limited information we do have.

My post was in response to declaring the box "overpriced" when the price and configurations haven't been announced yet. Maybe it will be, maybe not. Your post doesn't really have much to do with what you responded to, seems like you missed the point or didn't follow what came earlier in the thread. It may be cheaper or more expensive depending on how many cores and which GPU the base model starts with, but even if it only ships with top components and is expensive, that's not the same as "overpriced".
Click to expand...

My post does have a lot to do with what I responded to, but I do see what you mean. I agree, calling it overpriced is just declaring an opinion, it is indeed a subjective term. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are far more expensive options in the world of workstations.

Since it is announced as "up to 12 cores", there should be options with fewer available, although we don't know how many and if that means 8, 6, or 4.
Click to expand...

I would really hate to see a Mac Pro @ $2500 with only 4 cores. Even at $1799 a 4 core xeon with limited expansion is a bit of an enigma.

Even with the CPU BTO options I really don't see much in terms of building a custom rig. As Aiden said, a single chip, 128GB SDD, and single GPU (unlikely) would bring the cost down, but how much of a machine are you getting at that point.
 
we have no idea what is "standard"

whooleytoo said:
I thought dual GPUs were standard. I doubt if a single-GPU configuration will be available even as a BTO option.
Click to expand...

It would be trivial to simply not install the second GPU board.

We have no idea what will be standard, whether there will be Good-Better-Best configs, or anything else.

Note that a quad core, single lower-end GPU would also get by with a smaller, cheaper power supply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back