Could agree more. I built a PC because Apple don't make a desktop I want. If (When) they ditch the cMBP they won't make a laptop I want either - I want a matt screen and a physical ethernet port (not a ******** dongle!). I really need a new phone, but if there is no decent roadmap for desktop and laptops then I'll be buying an S4 and a thinkpad when it's time to replace my laptop. Utter morons.
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
Could agree more. I built a PC because Apple don't make a desktop I want. If (When) they ditch the cMBP they won't make a laptop I want either - I want a matt screen and a physical ethernet port (not a ******** dongle!). I really need a new phone, but if there is no decent roadmap for desktop and laptops then I'll be buying an S4 and a thinkpad when it's time to replace my laptop. Utter morons.
So true and so sad. Apple needs to do something to stop this trend. I am concerned that the company is simply becoming the iDevice company and tolerates computers at all simply because they are an accessory to the iDevices.
Umbongo
macrumors 601
Someone wanting i7 processors is ignorant as there are Xeons with the same specifications and price as all the desktop i7s. Yet with a Xeon you get additional features, including ECC memory support which on the LGA 2011 platform means four times the memory capacity available. The current Mac Pro is not expensive because it uses Xeons instead of i7s, nor ECC memory instead of non-ECC. There are no advantages in Apple using an i7.
I disagree. Apple don't make a core i7 tower, that is the point of the i7 comments for me anyway. Perhaps have two machines, a Mac Pro that's Xeon based and a core i7 'Mac'. I fully understand what Xeon is and what type of workloads some people require. I don't need Xeon and I don't need application certification, so I don't want the high starting price associated with workstations. I do need better flexibility than is currently on offer hence the need for a core i7 model. I don't expect it to cost £700, but I don't expect a £3000 starting price either. Does that make sense?
What current SSD can do over 600, and would be limited by SATA III? Multiple SSD obviously can be faster, but a raid can be built with drives on separate SATA busses.
At some point SSD will be faster than III can handle but the next generation of SATA is being worked on now and may be out before the end of this year.
So what advantage is there to i7? If the equivalent xeons are the same price and have advantages but no disadvantages, why would anyone use i7 instead of xeon?
Plus if xeon and related components are no more expensive, that means that not only is the base MP ridiculously overpriced, it's ridiculously overpriced for no real reason.
Umbongo
macrumors 601
So an i7 3.7GHz 4-core, GTX 750, 128GB SSD, 8GB RAM, with room for 2 graphics cards for £1,499 would be something you'd be interested in?
----------
Branding. Consumers don't need the Xeon features and ECC so Intel want them to buy i7s. They don't want i7s sold in servers however so they make them the same price. It may make some difference on a $1,000 system with 5% margin, but on a $2,000+ box, especially for Apple who have custom boards anyway, there would be no significant difference. Also keep in mind that the i7s are the top of the line where the Xeons that have similar specifications are the low end of the Xeon line.
Last edited:
The old Mac Pro was highly modular. The CPU tray held most of the system and theoretically could be swapped out for an updated version with better CPUs and memory.
The hard disk caddies were very useful for upgrades and setting up RAID arrays.
Unfortunately Apple never chose to sell upgrade CPU trays so this modularity was wasted.
I think the point is a line of equipment/machine made & intended to be used in a professional context can be used in a non-professional context (by prosumer). But not the reverse - In very general terms, it's unsuitable to use prosumer equipment for professional uses.
Basically Apple doesn't want to make a line to the tech-enthusiast that wants to take apart machines. So by hi-jacking a pro line and watering down to be optimized for tech-enthusiasts causes frustration for users that use in a professional context.
The poster is pointing out that these threads often "gets flooded" with posts that propose making a pro-line of equipment work only for prosumers. The "// Bitch mode off" is merely acknowledging that it's a complaint/whine.
.
Topper
macrumors 65816
Like me. Just get the components up-to-date and I'm as happy as a pig in manure.
Professional use is a bit ambiguous, think of the millions of random machines round the world running businesses - You simply buy a suitable machine that does whatever you need, editing camcorder footage is no more 'pro' than someone running an ecommerce empire from excel 🙂
My personal opinion is that any (intel...) machine that requires ecc and more than a single socket probably shouldn't be sitting on a desk with a single power supply and a warranty service that involves wrestling a box into a high street shop 🙂
it is really about selling to a different group of folks. Core i7 49xx folks want "k" models which support overclocking. It is more about control than than steady, long term, reliable ( 24/7 uptime) performance.
Overclockers tend to move on to the next "shiny" object in year or two anyway. It is an entirely different group of folks those who want stuff that just works no problems no matter what the workload is.
Often also Intel will drop VT-d Vt-x on these overclock skewed 'k' products. Anything like VMWare /Parallels/etc will run substantially slower ( if at all if using newest features ).
In simple terms if a tweaker and primarily looking for a machine to "trick out" with a higher than 4 core count then would pick a Core i7 x9xx k model. More likely if primarily interested in just maximal overclocking then would drop down to the mainstream desktop/laptop oriented implementations as they move to new process tech faster than the higher core count stuff does.
Does Apple jump out of bed each morning eager to get deeper penetration into the tweaker market? Frack no. It makes about zero sense from a "I sell easy to use, it just works" tools and systems" perspective.
There have been larger marginal differences in ECC versus non ECC RAM in the past. Alot of the hype about mainstream desktop versus workstation/server implementations was more true 3-5 years ago. Now not so much.
There is also core infrastructure in the rest of the system that leads to overall systems increase. Always amusing about how the Mac Pro case can't cost more than $100 because this superficially similar one costs $100.
The core infrastructure for the top end Mac Pro is the same exact one used for the entry level one. If go to HP/Dell/Lenovo their chopped down Core i7 has chopped down components to. That often promotes the Apple's to Oranges comparisons.
However, it is "overpriced" beyond that for a reason. Continuity with the upper end and with the iMac boundary. I suspect someone was also using the juiced profit margins to put up a misdirection argument about why the unit volume numbers didn't meet growth targets ( growth sucks but look at this money. Which doesn't really mean jack squat when money is flowing into the company stockpile like a flash flood from elsewhere. )
If it works and fills the requirements then it is suitable. Marketing labels are just that. Likewise demands that it has to be some super duper swiss army knife of infinite configuration is hype too. There are few if any situations that actually demand that. It is generally a "nice to have" , not a fundamental requirement.
You can't be a pro photographer unless the price of your camera is "this high" is not really about being a pro or not. Neither is can't be pro if your camera doesn't work at the South Pole in the middle of winter after being outside for 2 hours. Same thing in computer space (e.g, if it doesn't have a redundant power supply can't be pro ). Business requirements and skills are far more relevant metrics than price tag (being a large barrier to entry) and exclusiveness.
Exactly. The amount of whining, moaning and groaning, sprinkled with charts and data outlining Intel's Xeon release schedule is just overwhelming. Whether here or on the MacRumors Mac Pro Forum people seem to really enjoy talking about a subject about which almost zero real information is available.
I'm a Mac Pro fan and user but I'll be glad when next week gets here regardless of whether to big, pro box is discontinued or not. If there is a new model that's great, if not let's get over it and move on.
Might finally consider upgrading to a pro machine if it really is different in a positive way! 🙄
WhiteIphone5
macrumors 65816
This is everyone at Apple who read your comment.
Attachments
Lone Deranger
macrumors 68000
Hello, just a quick question, for what professional application would someone need more than 2 video cards ?
Let me explain, if the new macpro only has 2 pcie slots for the GPUs, I think it would be enough.
Personnaly I do mostly audio work, but sometimes also video and photography. I don't really see the absolute need for pcie slots in my case. A few audio manufacturers already offer TB interfaces and I'm sure a lot more are on the way. Avid has already released a TB native audio interface, and I heard they're working on a TB hdx interface. And for video, new cameras are also relying on TB. If the new macpro has TB 2.0, it will be capable to stream 4k video data if I'm not mistaken, so why the need for pcie expandability ?
And for storage, I think TB is also just fine. If you need a LOT of drive storage, even 4 or 6 internal drive bays still won't be enough. Most if not all of the professionals I know that are using mac pros, have a lot of external drives through firewire or fibrechannel in addition of their internal drives.
I think a smaller mac pro with fast CPUs, enough RAM slots to fit the same expandability as the old one, 2 GPU-dedicated pcie slots with a config of 1 or 2 video cards, one or maybe two SSD/fusion drive internal bays, and at least 4 TB 2.0 ports would work for me and probably for a lot of pros. And it would probably fit in a 1U rack enclosure or a very small tower (maybe a cube) about twice the height of a mac mini. Besides RAM expandability and the possibility to update the video card, I'm not sure that more internal flexibility is absolutely necessary.
Let me explain, if the new macpro only has 2 pcie slots for the GPUs, I think it would be enough.
Personnaly I do mostly audio work, but sometimes also video and photography. I don't really see the absolute need for pcie slots in my case. A few audio manufacturers already offer TB interfaces and I'm sure a lot more are on the way. Avid has already released a TB native audio interface, and I heard they're working on a TB hdx interface. And for video, new cameras are also relying on TB. If the new macpro has TB 2.0, it will be capable to stream 4k video data if I'm not mistaken, so why the need for pcie expandability ?
And for storage, I think TB is also just fine. If you need a LOT of drive storage, even 4 or 6 internal drive bays still won't be enough. Most if not all of the professionals I know that are using mac pros, have a lot of external drives through firewire or fibrechannel in addition of their internal drives.
I think a smaller mac pro with fast CPUs, enough RAM slots to fit the same expandability as the old one, 2 GPU-dedicated pcie slots with a config of 1 or 2 video cards, one or maybe two SSD/fusion drive internal bays, and at least 4 TB 2.0 ports would work for me and probably for a lot of pros. And it would probably fit in a 1U rack enclosure or a very small tower (maybe a cube) about twice the height of a mac mini. Besides RAM expandability and the possibility to update the video card, I'm not sure that more internal flexibility is absolutely necessary.
Agreed... that's what I mean by 'professional context' --- how it's used, not just who uses it. In the professional context the results of reliability & support etc has much more significant weight than using it in a non professional context. This is usually because there's a significant financial consequence if something went wrong (due to using consumer parts). Likewise for support, etc... Large companies do not like a whole mess of different kinds of machines to support. They often approve of a few lines of machines and contractually make sure that they are supported by the vendor. (eg. You can get IBM server parts from 1999 and have them delivered to you in 48 hours). IBM makes sure that they still have them in stock.
So when Apple (or any other company) makes a line of professional grade workstations, it's designed to suit these enterprise (or 'higher') requirements. The shops that don't have such special requirements will still have to pay for the engineering of the machines (and the more expensive parts). Unlike Dell, Apple basically makes one line of MacPro, so they have to satisfy the 'higher end' customers demands (the 'lower end', for lack of better words, can still use it). ... I'm speaking in very general terms, since there's many different situations.
For Apple to make a tower with consumer parts, is almost like making another line of tower machines geared towards a prosumer market; OR changing the existing pro line is similar to hi-jacking this line and making it work for the prosumer market and not optimized for use in the professional context.
Last edited:
Apple made some really good moves in 2006. A smooth transition to Intel processors, which was good for their power consumption and performance. Then they invented the best trackpad in the industry. Then they released the best smartphone in the industry. Then the tablet.
Now what are they doing? If they are doing what all of these "rumors" are suggesting, they are going to lose it again. There is absolutely no reason to omit an optical drive on a dual processor workstation. Nor FW800.
I bought a Mac Pro because it is really the only machine left in Apple's lineup that is a nice true workstation. If it's days are numbered, I guess I will just be using their phones.
I must say the Mac Pro is my favorite computer of all that I have owned since 1985. I love it. I just hope they don't screw it up.
Don't they already have a product for you called a MacBook Pro with Retina Display and a Thunderbolt Display? No hard disk. No optical drive. No Ethernet and all of that other wasteful stuff [/sarcasm]
Well, it's all about where the money is. I think there are a lot of "Pro" users out there but not enough to meet demands and possibly not worth large production runs which Apple is focusing on. Comparing to the general market the Pro users are probably less then 5%.
There's just not a whole lot of power needed anymore to run pro apps. Photoshop, Music Software and Adobe Premiere run fine on a 27inch. People are doing live concerts now with MacBook Pro's and I know people editing films and doing AfterEffects with a 27" iMac.
However, I understand about wanting more juice to handle multiple threads, video and 300 audio tracks. It sucks, yes, but people in this group are starting to become more specialized.
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
modular, but only slightly
It would be interesting to have a smaller Apple Pro - shave off those painfully sharp handles (so that it fits in a rack), move to 2.5" disks (solid state and/or spinning). Go for a thinner form factor - 2U - and offer a set of rackmount brackets as an option. For desk use - offer tower and pizza box stands.
The modular part wouldn't be a "lego Apple" with lots of different modules.
Offer 1 module - a matching 1U disk expansion cabinet with 2.5" or 3.5" slots and a T-Bolt connection to an on-board hardware RAID controller. Front panel disks in hot-plug slots, internal disks have simple connections, but do require powering off to add/replace.
Or, at the risk of confusing the fans with too many choices - also offer a 2U disk cabinet for lots of storage.
Of course, the disk cabinets would elegantly attach to the CPU/GPU cabinet for a seamless form. There should also be tower/pizza box stands to hold the mated CPU/disk.
It would be interesting to have a smaller Apple Pro - shave off those painfully sharp handles (so that it fits in a rack), move to 2.5" disks (solid state and/or spinning). Go for a thinner form factor - 2U - and offer a set of rackmount brackets as an option. For desk use - offer tower and pizza box stands.
The modular part wouldn't be a "lego Apple" with lots of different modules.
Offer 1 module - a matching 1U disk expansion cabinet with 2.5" or 3.5" slots and a T-Bolt connection to an on-board hardware RAID controller. Front panel disks in hot-plug slots, internal disks have simple connections, but do require powering off to add/replace.
Or, at the risk of confusing the fans with too many choices - also offer a 2U disk cabinet for lots of storage.
Of course, the disk cabinets would elegantly attach to the CPU/GPU cabinet for a seamless form. There should also be tower/pizza box stands to hold the mated CPU/disk.
Congrats, you are one of those 1%...
How often your office do burn CDs every week? (or month)?
Is Burning CDs a common practice when you doing your work? or only an optional Data Delivery operation (and actually optional for some customers)...
So you really dont use a DVD until your work is done (so your workflow dont includes cd/dvd), not as 10yr ago when very common to swap CDs 10+ times every day, rigth now CD/DVDs still popular for data delivery (specially by mail given that most couriers consider CD/DVD as std mail not merchandise,not same for Pendrives considered merchandise).
Most Content producers dont use the workstations (and spend its premium staff time on that) for data delivery operation (burn cd, create presentations) rather another station as an iMac is dedicated to such task, operated by secondary staff, internal data workflow use to be done thru the LAN and sometimes using Pendrives or External removable haard drives.