Apple Planning 'Something Really Different' for New Mac Pro

[powers74]

All good news, but I think we can realistically say that this will be the last upgrade before it's killed off.

Where have I heard that before?

That doesn't seem realistic at all! If they have spent resources making "something really different" it makes no sense to kill it off after its one and only appearance.

Exactly.

It's just going to be a LOT different.

My prediction: It will be basically modular in some way, build as you need type thing, I'm thinking like a big, stackable Mac Mini. Probably will work with any monitor or plugged up to another Mac. And within five years most professional workstations aimed at the creative markets will be a version of the new Mac Pro line, much like tons of laptops are copies of the MBAir now.

Either that, or they'll just toss the optical and ad a couple more drive bays.

 

[Rocketman]

That being the case it would be really helpful for Apple to give hardware vendors a long and strong heads-up, on interface and cabling and transceiver protocols, so hardware to use this magical box arrives the same time as the magical box itself, so we do not have a magical doorstop.

Rocketman

 

[LillDrutten]

It may be a crafty way to kill Mac Pro. Release something 'really different' that no one wants to buy, then kill it saying "oh, there's no demand for it".

Seems that they are killing it, intentional or not i don't know. And im afraid the rumors are true. I have not seen anything good from this company since Jobs died. Sort of make me thing apple was really a one-man-show. But it looks like as was lousy to hire right people.

----------

Where have I heard that before?




Exactly.

It's just going to be a LOT different.

My prediction: It will be basically modular in some way, build as you need type thing, I'm thinking like a big, stackable Mac Mini. Probably will work with any monitor or plugged up to another Mac. And within five years most professional workstations aimed at the creative markets will be a version of the new Mac Pro line, much like tons of laptops are copies of the MBAir now.

Either that, or they'll just toss the optical and ad a couple more drive bays.

That would be something. You start with one module. More cpu demands stack up more modules. Only need more memory, put in a memory module. Sorry,wont append. It will require a leap from Intel. QPI does not travel well. But a modular system with QPI bus as interconnect would be spectacular.

 

[Halopend]

I don't have anything to base it on. However I have a feeling that we won't be getting a new Mac Pro at WWDC.

It sounds like it will heavily rely on thunderbolt, and with thunderbolt 2 coming out later this year you might be right. They will DEFINITELY announce it at WWDC to stop the pros from jumping ship though.

 

[simonmet]

Instead of trying to second guess Apple, this is what I'd like and why. I know that the design will be locked in by now but it'll be fun (or painful) to see how many of my wishes made it in.

1. Better cooling tech and design to permit quieter (even effectively silent) operation. It's a given that asymmetrical fans are coming but can they do more to make it quieter still? Maybe a return to liquid-assisted cooling as well? Any vendor can make a powerful box but can they make one that's attractive and whisper quiet and remains so even after years of constant use? Pretty much only Apple can or bothers to do this. I remember the silent fan-less G4 cube with many fond memories.

2. Support powerful graphics options with enough power supplied to the PCI slots! Graphics computing is a young but growing segment with many potential applications. Minimum support for two high performance cards or one dual GPU card like the AMD 7990 (or equivalent Pro card) and potentially more by sacrificing storage or an optical bay. The current Mac Pro power supply to the PCI slots can't even support one 7970 by default.

3. Increase memory capacity and the number of slots. The current single-socket Mac Pro has only four slots which isn't enough. The single-socket option (if it remains) should have at least 6 slots and the dual socket should move to 12.

4. Consider ditching one or two 3.5" bays for 2.5" to save some space but retain at least four. Likewise consider ditching one of both optical drive bays. I'd prefer Apple to retain one but it seems unlikely that they will.

5. Give us a few easter eggs like the über cool touch sensitive power button from the G4 Cube. Whatever happened to that? It was so awesome! Did I mention how cool the G4 cube was?

6. Of course give us the latest generation of super fast Xeons and I/O technology.

7. Increase flexibility with a potentially internal modular design. For example, consider the option of replacing hard drives with an extra CPU socket or PCI slots for internal modules.

8. Make it a thing of beauty and a design statement!

 

[eltaurus]

wow.. i love the idea of modular System But apple should allow more third party devices support .. All Graphic Cards ..

I will order 2-3 Fully loaded systems

 

[Umbongo]

Personally I wouldn't mind dropping ECC RAM in favour of something else though; ECC RAM is slower and way more expensive, and I can't help but feel that a good hardware memory controller with a good sized chunk of cache memory to function as a buffer should be able to solve the same problem in some other way without the huge cost. Not that expensive memory is such a big deal in the Mac Pro market, but it can really bloat the cost of the machine, and for Macs that aren't actually running 24/7 it doesn't seem an especially important thing to have.

Just not selling it with ECC memory or not using Xeons? The price difference per GB is less than $1.5 at retail. Non-ECC 32GB(4x8GB) for $230 vs $260 for ECC. Apple using non-ECC wouldn't change the price to customers and you can use non-ECC with Xeons if you want to save money when you upgrade your memory. Xeons themselves are no more expensive and allow for four times the memory capacity for those that need it. As well as the error correction and reporting features. The speed difference is 2% at most, less with many DIMMs.

 

[G51989]

I certainly hope this "something really different" refers to a Mac Pro chassis that is fully configurable and upgradable, with the ability to replace and upgrade each main component, instead of having to buy a whole Mac every other year.

The current Mac Pro chassis is already all that.

----------

Will they find a way to combine business-level computing with iOS style simplicity?

People who use Mac Pros aren't intetetested in something as simple as iOS, they need powerful hardware abs high end software.

Not angry birds

 

[Wild-Bill]

I have a feeling that this upcoming Mac Pro update will cause an unprecedented upswing in Hackint0sh systems being built.

If the rumors are true, as reported by Lou Borella, Apple got it wrong....SOOOO wrong.

And for those of you out there with Apollo audio interfaces now thinking "Damn, now I have to buy a $500.00 TB interface for my Apollo", I think you'll be out of luck, because from the information that's out there, it isn't a "true" TB interface, and still relies on FW800. A "Mac Pro" without FW800 I think would render the Apollo unusable.

 

[reel2reel]

it will be the fastest Pro machine Apple ever produced with SSD,Thunderbolt best graphic card and the thinnest lightest design yet i'm definitely sure come this fall all the "Pro" users of this board will bitch and moan about not being able to change or expand blah blah

let's hope Apple include a few stickers from 1996 to shut them up.

What's the point of "fastest" if you can't do anything with it beyond rendering? What's the point of the "fastest Pro machine Apple ever produced" if I can't do colour-grading on a broadcast monitor? Oh, but it will look cool, so just live with it, right?

I don't care what the hell it looks like if I can't use it. I guess you have to do something beyond web surfing to understand what's really at stake.

 

[avkills]

As I said, CD/DVD is legacy, NO REAL PRO USES THAT FROM YEARS ON ANY WORKFLOW, ITS NOT PRODUCTIVE, AND IS NOT REQUIRED BY ANY SERIOUS WORK.

Apple cant compromise the Mac Design just to still suporting an dated technology that really is used as much 1 or 2 times a year by real pros.

For those really worried about, can buy external units for 20-120 $ better targeted to their workflow and that dont need to be attached when not in use (or about 364 days a yr on 99% of REAL PRO USERS).

Only old fashioned domestic user worried about to burn music CDs for they old car stereos are worried about the CD/DVD fate..

Workflow is one thing; end product is another. Many clients still want DVDs for whatever reason; and actually BluRay authoring is something that still "has" to be done.

I don't care if we have to get an external drive to get the job done; but you are clearly yapping and yelling about stuff you don't really know about, so calm down.

-mark

 

[Umbongo]

What's the point of "fastest" if you can't do anything with it beyond rendering? What's the point of the "fastest Pro machine Apple ever produced" if I can't do colour-grading on a broadcast monitor? Oh, but it will look cool, so just live with it, right?

I don't care what the hell it looks like if I can't use it. I guess you have to do something beyond web surfing to understand what's really at stake.

From reading nearly every Mac Pro thread over the years most people who comment, especially in the news section, do not see very far past their own needs.

 

[HyperZboy]

Yes the 2 stories do NOT corroborate each other in the least.

I was expecting something slightly smaller, but something without DVD burner and no internal expansion to do CGI video editing? That's insanely disappointing. I hope that rumor is wrong.

The other thing that needs to be addressed with the Mac Pro is the poor WIFI antenna system. My PowerMac G5 can pick up 5-6 different WIFI signals.

My Mac Pro? NONE, well unless I literally put it outside the door! LOL

 

[skim1999]

This is a desktop tower not a laptop.

Thank you for clearing that up for me! #

 

[milo]

The biggest downside to a modular approach is that current ports aren't nearly fast enough to match having things like SSD drives, memory, extra CPU, or gpu going through a bus like thunderbolt. Thunderbolt 2.0 and having lots of discrete thunderbolt ports would help, but still not as fast as PCI slots.

So hypothetically, what if Apple created a new (proprietary of course) method of connection, say if they could figure a way to take all the bandwidth that would be going to the PCI slots and somehow send it all directly to one or more expansion "modules", whether that's another box that goes on top Lego style, or connects via some wacky cable. It would be like connecting all the PCI slots directly to the PCI slots of a second mac. Or to put it another way, just changing the form factor of a PCI slot into an external connection that goes to a cable (which, even if it were possible, seems like it would be huge like the old SCSI cables).

Of course this is totally a crazy pie in the sky idea and I doubt they'd be able to pull it off, but would it even be theoretically possible? And if it was, it seems like it would be plenty fast for things like a box full of drives, but would it be enough for a second CPU? So if you had a base unit with a six core CPU, and a second module with another six core, could it be as fast as a single mac with two 6 cores? My gut reaction is that at least for things like CPU or memory it would be a compromise, but for at least some other things it would probably be plenty fast. It aslo seems like it would not be well suited to adding more than just one additional module.

Not that I think this would happen or that I'd want to see it happen (even if they could pull it off, it would probably be even more expensive than the current Pro), just putting it out there for the sake of conversation. My guess is probably just lots of TB expansion, and maybe Apple will offer one or more external TB options. There's some potential if they got it right, but I can't say I'm optimistic at this point.

 

[-hh]

Apple better not waste space on an optical drive!

You can always add an external burner if you need one. (who should be using USB sticks at this point in all cases anyways..)

First off, some perspective: the HANDLES on the Mac Pro case "waste more space" than the optical bays do.

Second, USB sticks sure are great ... that is, until the day that your local IT Staff says "SECURITY RISK" and bans them. I've been running ~3 years with USB Ports explicitly disabled for all storage devices for this very reason. The reality is that we have since fallen back to using stuff burned onto Optical media for getting the job done.

If you don't need one an optical drive, you CAN'T just make the device smaller by removing it.

It becomes wasted space!

Removing both of the Optical bays on a Mac Pro will change the boxes height by ... zero. The reason why is because the opticals aren't full depth, and there's other hardware in the top rear corner .. IIRC, the PSU. Assuming that you juggle around the existing componets to 're-square' the package to be able to cut its height, the removal of the two opticals results in a shrink of 1⅝″ ... versus the MP's 20.1" height, that's only an 8% change.

In any case, if one doesn't need Opticals, its easy to repurpose the space to install two more hard drives/SSDs on the existing two SATA interfaces. probably the "hardest" part is figuring out what's the correct 3rd party aftermarket mounting bracket to buy ... but that's only if you're fussy enough to not want the drives rattling around loose and don't want to use duct tape.


-hh

 

[HyperZboy]

It doesn't have to have Blu Ray authoring but now that Steve Jobs and the World of Hurt is gone, you would think Apple would jump back in the game and be competitive instead of giving up the business to Microsoft. Having to use external Blu Ray or graphics cards to me would be insane for a pro desktop machine.

I suspect these stories are false leaks to allow for shock and awe purposes and don't believe either of them.

I can't imagine that the later rumor would impress ANY professional customers.

And I should know, my last Mac Pro was bought from an LA CGI design studio. They only sold it because of the last processor update. It's totally tricked out. I wish I could figure out which movies they deleted before shipping. Does anyone know of a program that can find deleted files?

 

[milo]

Here's a pretty simple comparison just to put things into context.

TB is currently 10 Gb/second.
SATA III is 6 Gb/second.
Quite a few SSD are already over 5 Gb/sec, and that number will likely keep rising.

The current mac pro can have six internal drives (if you use the optical bays), currently SATA II. The new haswell motherboards can have six or more SATA III busses, so Apple potentially could do a MP update using that tech.

If Apple wanted to offer the equivalent using TB, that would mean if there were one or two internal drives, they'd have to include four or five external TB busses. Once TB2 ships, you could put two or three SSD on each bus, but that's not shipping until next year. And that's just what you'd need for the storage capability, if monitors and other things are also running via TB, you need more of those busses or are stuck sharing the bandwidth.


USB3 is way cheaper than TB, and seems like it's not too bad for what it is, but there are already SSDs that are too fast for USB3.

SATA is fast enough for any SSD available right now, but from what I can tell, eSATA only goes up to II and not III. If there was eSATA III, that could be an option for external SSD at full speeds.

Bottom line is, for a high end user who needs tons of fast storage space, there's no external solution that even comes close to internal SATA. And even if there are enough TB ports to handle the external storage, it's SO much more expensive to get TB enclosures than just using internal drives.

 

[cohen777]

things that it needs

The new Mac Pro should not be an advanced iMac or mini. It needs to have internal expandability. It should have pcie slots, dual GPU slots, bays for 3.5 hard drives, and YES, an optical drive. We don't live in the future, we live in the present. In the present, people use the Mac Pro to produce optical media. It would nice if DVD Studio Pro was made to include Blu-Ray authoring, by the way. Oh, having a Haswell CPU would be great!

 

[GermanyChris]

Here's a pretty simple comparison just to put things into context.

TB is currently 10 Gb/second.
SATA III is 6 Gb/second.
Quite a few SSD are already over 5 Gb/sec, and that number will likely keep rising.

The current mac pro can have six internal drives (if you use the optical bays), currently SATA II. The new haswell motherboards can have six or more SATA III busses, so Apple potentially could do a MP update using that tech.

If Apple wanted to offer the equivalent using TB, that would mean if there were one or two internal drives, they'd have to include four or five external TB busses. Once TB2 ships, you could put two or three SSD on each bus, but that's not shipping until next year. And that's just what you'd need for the storage capability, if monitors and other things are also running via TB, you need more of those busses or are stuck sharing the bandwidth.


USB3 is way cheaper than TB, and seems like it's not too bad for what it is, but there are already SSDs that are too fast for USB3.

SATA is fast enough for any SSD available right now, but from what I can tell, eSATA only goes up to II and not III. If there was eSATA III, that could be an option for external SSD at full speeds.

Bottom line is, for a high end user who needs tons of fast storage space, there's no external solution that even comes close to internal SATA. And even if there are enough TB ports to handle the external storage, it's SO much more expensive to get TB enclosures than just using internal drives.

An updated Mac Pro will not have Haswell if they announce and ship before fall it'll have Sandy, if it ships in the fall it'll be Ivy

 

[amack]

Some of you lot a completely wacko! I'm so glad you don't work at Apple, some of the ideas floating around this thread make it sound like you're spending too much time sniffing glue.

Now go and do some work on your Mac Pro, and less of this modular nonsense.

 

[akatsuki]

Mac mini with four thunderbolt ports and cloud computing option using OpenCL - pay for massive power when you need it.

 

[milo]

An updated Mac Pro will not have Haswell if they announce and ship before fall it'll have Sandy, if it ships in the fall it'll be Ivy

True, but intel's motherboards for the upcoming ivy bridge E5 should include multiple SATA III ports, right?

 

[Manderby]

Like a tower where you can swap out components at will with a simple plug. No need for taking a side off or using anti-static wrist-straps, as the bus is all Thunderbolt.

"Hey Bill, can I borrow your GPU for a while, I need to do some GPU-accelerated rendering".

"Sure, I'll unplug it and just use the integrated graphics in the base unit for a while, give me two seconds to switch the monitor into the base unit, then you can take it".

That sure sounds like a good thing for little groups of 1 to 3 computer freaks who like to juggle around with their devices (I do that at home sometimes).

But in a production-oriented office, you don't do that. You just buy an additional GPU. Plugging devices in and out between workstations is a no-go. One Computer per device and per person plus spares. That's how it is handeled. Otherwise, you are wasting working-hours, and that's costly. And besides: Such devices are more costly as well not to mention the maintenance to keep them all up-to-date and running with all machines. So in the end: Spend 2'000$ more in buying a stand-alone tower for every person. It's painless.

 

[LillDrutten]

Here's a pretty simple comparison just to put things into context.

TB is currently 10 Gb/second.
SATA III is 6 Gb/second.
Quite a few SSD are already over 5 Gb/sec, and that number will likely keep rising.

The current mac pro can have six internal drives (if you use the optical bays), currently SATA II. The new haswell motherboards can have six or more SATA III busses, so Apple potentially could do a MP update using that tech.

If Apple wanted to offer the equivalent using TB, that would mean if there were one or two internal drives, they'd have to include four or five external TB busses. Once TB2 ships, you could put two or three SSD on each bus, but that's not shipping until next year. And that's just what you'd need for the storage capability, if monitors and other things are also running via TB, you need more of those busses or are stuck sharing the bandwidth.


USB3 is way cheaper than TB, and seems like it's not too bad for what it is, but there are already SSDs that are too fast for USB3.

SATA is fast enough for any SSD available right now, but from what I can tell, eSATA only goes up to II and not III. If there was eSATA III, that could be an option for external SSD at full speeds.

Bottom line is, for a high end user who needs tons of fast storage space, there's no external solution that even comes close to internal SATA. And even if there are enough TB ports to handle the external storage, it's SO much more expensive to get TB enclosures than just using internal drives.

That is not a problem. You only need some twenty TB ports to get the IO apacity you need. TB is 4 x 2.5 Gb/s pcie 2.0 port. A Pro machine should have pcie3.0 with 16 ports cards. pci3 is 8Gb/s per port. TB is nice. But it is for external things like printers, scanners, backup, sound and video devices. Not for more heavy things as disk io.