Thunderbolt may have a very high bit rate, but it still requires protocol translation. So it's never quite as fast as SATA3 (6Gb/s), even though Thunderbolt is supposed to have a higher bit rate (10Gb/s). The protocol translation introduces a bit of latency, and it uses unnecessary power. I'm not saying TB is bad, just that it's not the same as direct PCI or SATA access.
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 Planning 'Something Really Different' for New Mac Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thunderbolt may have a very high bit rate, but it still requires protocol translation. So it's never quite as fast as SATA3 (6Gb/s), even though Thunderbolt is supposed to have a higher bit rate (10Gb/s). The protocol translation introduces a bit of latency, and it uses unnecessary power. I'm not saying TB is bad, just that it's not the same as direct PCI or SATA access.
Actually the optical drive is probably still in the works. That might not fit in with rumors but it is easy for Apple to do and doesn't impact the machine significantly. However I think Firewire would be out of the question on any new machine. Legacy ports can be supported by external devices. The fact is Firewire is no longer a Pro port going forward, it is a legacy device. Since there are already TB devices covering this I don't think Apple has a big need here to support legacy ports.
It's got to be the following otherwise it simply isn't a Mac Pro:
1. Dual Socket Option so Xeons and 90+W CPUs (3.33Ghz 6-core is 130W).
2. 4 PCI-E slots
3. 4/8 SP/DP memory slots (if not more - I would say 6 except it is quad channel memory...)
Thunderbolt doesn't cut it in a pro environment for GPUs or CPUs so there goes the modular option.
Whatever they do with this machine it WILL have Xeon processors and it WILL have full length PCI-E slots, and 4 (if not more) of them.
They might change the design around, add loads of GPU options or whatever, but I recon the internals will be the Xeon equivalents of the Core i7-49xx and X79...
1. Dual Socket Option so Xeons and 90+W CPUs (3.33Ghz 6-core is 130W).
2. 4 PCI-E slots
3. 4/8 SP/DP memory slots (if not more - I would say 6 except it is quad channel memory...)
Thunderbolt doesn't cut it in a pro environment for GPUs or CPUs so there goes the modular option.
Whatever they do with this machine it WILL have Xeon processors and it WILL have full length PCI-E slots, and 4 (if not more) of them.
They might change the design around, add loads of GPU options or whatever, but I recon the internals will be the Xeon equivalents of the Core i7-49xx and X79...
THIS is what all the data centers are for
The new Mac Pro will just be a dumb terminal and you will pay for a configuration in the cloud and it will stream to your "Pro" box. Unlimited storage, memory, etc.
Eek indeed.
Maybe if Apple were to pay me the $150/month that I'd have to fork over to my local ISP for an adequately fast bandwidth connection, I might consider...no, not even if they paid me that *and* gave me 10TB worth of free iCloud storage: I don't want to go backwards in capability.
I do too, but as others have mentioned, the Mac Pro forum's technical details on TB is that it doesn't look sufficiently high performance to support doing it right. Of course, there is that new WiFi protocol that's emerging, which might be a consideration (and wouldn't add wires) ...I'll have to remember to mention it.
For me, my 2012 MP utilization doesn't have much to do with my profession, but instead supports my hobby interest of photography/videography. As such, I utilize quite a bit of RAM (24GB), a decent amount of CPU (an i7 would suffice), and gobs of data storage...and the faster, the better. Including a PCIe SSD, I added ~$1400 in 3rd party storage hardware upgrades.
-hh
re: serious question
I've owned 2 different Mac Pro towers over the years (the 2006 and the 2008 model). Still using the 2008 one daily as my primary home computer, and resold the 2006 not that long ago.
I currently work in I.T. as a support analyst, but I also ran a business on the side doing on-site computer service and consulting work.
I don't know that I ever "needed" a Mac Pro vs. a nicely configured iMac, but with all the use I've gotten out of them -- they've certainly been great investments.
One reason I really like mine over an iMac is that I run a matched pair of 27" monitors. If I had to add a second display to the side of an iMac, the two screens wouldn't line up identically, side-by-side, and probably would have some color calibration issues as you drug windows from one to the other.
I've also upgraded the video card in both of them at least once or twice ... which would have otherwise driven me to buy a whole new machine if I had gone the iMac route.
I've owned 2 different Mac Pro towers over the years (the 2006 and the 2008 model). Still using the 2008 one daily as my primary home computer, and resold the 2006 not that long ago.
I currently work in I.T. as a support analyst, but I also ran a business on the side doing on-site computer service and consulting work.
I don't know that I ever "needed" a Mac Pro vs. a nicely configured iMac, but with all the use I've gotten out of them -- they've certainly been great investments.
One reason I really like mine over an iMac is that I run a matched pair of 27" monitors. If I had to add a second display to the side of an iMac, the two screens wouldn't line up identically, side-by-side, and probably would have some color calibration issues as you drug windows from one to the other.
I've also upgraded the video card in both of them at least once or twice ... which would have otherwise driven me to buy a whole new machine if I had gone the iMac route.
I like quality design as much as anyone, but if it means substituting it for performance then I'll choose to get my work done more efficiently. After all, it's not like I'm showcasing my computer for public display.
I think that the 'pro' needs to broaden it's market as well.
Perhaps we'll see a new device that will replace the Mac Pro but WITHOUT the Pro designation (and then everyone who feels they are a Pro will stop thinking that the computer is somehow exclusively theirs and that nobody else has any business wanting one). Maybe they'll resurrect the PowerMac brand name and expand it's audience to power gamers too.
Whatever happens, It'll be fun to watch it all unfold!
My *guess* is that it'll still be priced around $2500 entry (assuming roughly the same features and workstation grade CPU)... $1500 would undercut the iMac, as well, it would be in a range of more of a tech-enthusiast device .... IMHO only!
.
Actually the 10-20% lost could be a lot worst. Once Apple does heterogenous computing, that is start support full GPU access to main memory the performance differential could become even greater. Realistically you could loose 75% of your potential performance. That just includes gains from heterogeneous computing, it doesn't count other architecture changes possible.
To put it plainly the use of a GPU over TB is highly questionable.
I thought that Tim Cooks greatest achievement at apple was how he streamlined their supply chains.
The modular suggestions here sounds like a logistic nightmare for Apple, that alone speaks against such a solution (but I might me wrong of course)
The modular suggestions here sounds like a logistic nightmare for Apple, that alone speaks against such a solution (but I might me wrong of course)
The market might be small. But its importance is huge.
Hardware for creatives is in Apples DNA. I know two (high-end 3D) companies where Apples lack of dedication to the Pro line resulted in a switch to Win/PC for rendering and modelling a little more than a year ago. Which recently resulted in both offices switching completely to PC. Not a single Mac in sight. These are creative people they've used Mac for 15+ years. They were the evangelists. They were the core supporters when Apple was close to bankruptcy.
Yes. Each GPU will be in it's own box. cables will connect then to the main box and to the monitor and there will be a power cord for each of them. Same with disk drives. Each it it's own box with its own power cord.
Basically a "rats nest" of thunderbolt and power cables and dozens of little plug-in power supplies.
I'm a big fan of the XMac concept and promote it regularly. However I'm not too certain that this is where they are going. Mainly because I see the XMac as slotting in between the Mini and the Pro in Apple desktop line up. It would be great for those of us that need a XMac but probably would put some "pros" off.
Interestingly it has been rumored that Jobs was involved in the project right up until the last. IT is too bad we can't see inside Apple to see how the machine has morphed after his passing. Further it would be interesting to see who is the lead designer.
if its modular they will likely charge more for it. they would be able to charge 4-600 per piece and by the time you get all the pieces its 5 grand.
I will lol for real if it turns out to be a super slimline tower. people will cry about expansion so much. then they will sell 10 billion of them anyway. just like years ago when everyone suggested the theoretical ipad would be a flop.
I will lol for real if it turns out to be a super slimline tower. people will cry about expansion so much. then they will sell 10 billion of them anyway. just like years ago when everyone suggested the theoretical ipad would be a flop.
CNET reported two days ago that Mac Pro will not be expandable internally. All expansions will be done via TB.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...ro-said-to-ditch-expansions-arrive-this-fall/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...ro-said-to-ditch-expansions-arrive-this-fall/
I don't need an iMac cheers, or a Mac Pro for that matter. My Mac Pro is still cutting the mustard for my needs.
Just voicing my opinion (baseless it may be) is that I think all this hullabaloo about external enclosures, cables etc will lead to an expensive product relative to a more conventional machine.
But I am sure the Mac elitists will fork out any money for any Mac Pro even if its garbage compared to the competition.
Post Production
We use mostly FCP 7 here still, but need to make the jump away to, probably adobe products, in the next year or so. FCP X isn't an option for us, sadly.
Used to be you HAD to use a Mac Pro for editing on a Mac because so many important components needed for a good edit bay were PCI only, plus you really did need that extra power for editing. Thunderbolt has changed that a bit, meaning you can now get away with a high end iMac which has enough power to run an 1080P edit fairly smoothly. (Although the imac screens are so nice, it's hard to find another second monitor that doesn't look dumb or like crap sitting next to it.)
For our After Effects Bays, you really need the extra power a Mac Pro can bring. We always use the new computers as graphic station, and flitter the slightly older machines down to edit bays.
Been stuck for a few years now with out upgrading our work computers. As a Post Production Supervisor and sometimes editor / Assist Editor, I have a top of the line new imac sitting on my desk, and honestly it's a lot faster than all of the 2008-2010 mac pros we are using as edit bays. If the new Mac Pro doesn't work for us, we'll run our edit bays on high end iMacs, and our graphic bays well end up running *shiver* windows machines to get the extra power we need.
You've demonstrated that you haven't the foggiest idea what pro users need to get their jobs done.
Something different would be using a Mac Mini enclosure for the new Mac Pro. Different doesn't always mean better.
Your mentioning of XGrid is interesting here because i see it as one way to solve the little box but big computing needs problem. The trick here is integrating Infiniband or another supercomputing networking technology. This gives you a strong but affordable computing node that can be linked to support rather impressive computing power simply.
The interesting part here was or is the fact that Intel was working on a XEON chip with Infiniband built in. All record of that effort has disappeared from Intels web site though. Also Apple has been very quite about XGrid and its disappearance. Makes you wonder if they are up to something.