Apple 'Questioning' the Future of its Mac Pro Line?

[vitzr]

For those who don't follow the specs, PCIe 3.0 is about double the speed per lane of PCIe 2.0, which is about double the speed of the PCIe 1.0 lanes in T-Bolt.

Thunderbolt 1.0 as Apple has implemented it will be the "Apple Desktop Bus" of the early 21st century. A nice technology - but basically irrelevant.

Kudos for the excellent & very concise explanation!

While I was already up to date with a full understanding of Light Peak / Thunderbolt, I'm far too verbose to explain it as well as you did, without going on and on.

The moment I read your post I admired your accuracy & brevity

 

[thekev]

LOL ! Good one.

And the "prior art" can be most any episode of "Lost in Space" or "Star Wars" or "Star Trek", or most any other sci-fi movie or TV show from the last 50 years.

Hehe... it's my joke sig. Siri does actually remind me of the talking magic 8 ball.

For those who don't follow the specs, PCIe 3.0 is about double the speed per lane of PCIe 2.0, which is about double the speed of the PCIe 1.0 lanes in T-Bolt.

Thunderbolt 1.0 as Apple has implemented it will be the "Apple Desktop Bus" of the early 21st century. A nice technology - but basically irrelevant.

Someone recently posted a rumour that next years Windows systems with T-Bolt won't be using the mini-DisplayPort connector. I haven't been able to find anything proving or disproving that rumour - but if true that will make all those non-existent mDP T-Bolt peripherals stillborn.

There was a potential connector shown with a second plug to enable 10W of power. I'll be more into thunderbolt when it has a full range of peripherals, and yeah mini displayport wasn't exactly designed to become thunderbolt.

 

[Mac2012]

So wrong....

1. T-Bolt is 10 Gbps (4 lanes at 2.5 Gbps each)
2. If you have an Imac with dual T-Bolt ports, you get 20 Gbps (8 lanes at 2.5 Gbps each)
3. T-Bolt adds significant latency - so a PCIe x4 port in a T-Bolt cabinet does not match a PCIe x4 internal slot in performance
4. A Mac Pro has a PCIe 2.0 x16 internal slot (80 Gbps - far faster than T-Bolt, and without the added latency of T-Bolt) (Actually, it has two x16 slots, but we can assume that one will almost always be used for a graphics card.)
5. A Mac Pro has two PCIe 2.0 x4 slots (20 Gbps each, without the T-Bolt latency)

T-Bolt is effectively "last generation" PCIe with added latency.




LOL ! Good one.

And the "prior art" can be most any episode of "Lost in Space" or "Star Wars" or "Star Trek", or most any other sci-fi movie or TV show from the last 50 years.

So when it goes true optical whats up? It's the new era of buss speed... get over it. the initial speeds are enough and the latency isn't as bad as a PCIE expansion chassis so...

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

"The initial speeds are enough and the latency isn't as bad as a PCIE expansion chassis so..." -Mac2012

"640k ought to be enough for anybody." -Bill Gates

 

[chirpie]

How many people really upgrade their insides these days? It's more productive to buy a new machines. It use to be cost effective to upgrade but when you want the ummph, just get a new machine for the new chips, bus speeds, etc that you can't get with a max pro.

I've swapped my hard drives out 3 times, the graphics card once, and the wireless card once since getting my tower. (All upgrades, no failures if it matters.) The Mac Pro is the least painful machine to upgrade in all of computers. No hyperbole.

The iMacs from 2009 vs my 2009 tower are long in the dust. I only need to swap out a mid tier iMac once and I've paid for the tower. No doubt changes to the current line up are in need to fix the disparity, but if Apple put even a little effort into the the update, things would be back to how they've always been...an upgradeable high end machine for those who need it.

 

[vitzr]

if Apple put even a little effort into the the update, things would be back to how they've always been...an upgradeable high end machine for those who need it.

Very well said.

As a professional who's enjoyed years of fast and _very reliable_ service from my Mac Pro's, I do agree. It seems like an easy way for Apple to keep us satisfied while remaining within the Apple camp.

 

[xgman]

I've swapped my hard drives out 3 times, the graphics card once, and the wireless card once since getting my tower. (All upgrades, no failures if it matters.) The Mac Pro is the least painful machine to upgrade in all of computers. No hyperbole.

I'm in and out more than 10 times at least for a variety of reasons. As it is I have 2 ssd's and 4 sata drives mounted not to mention my 2nd USB 3 card.

 

[iRCL]

Yet the downside is the way they've morphed into an iToyz company. As a result, the overwhelming majority of today's buyers have no concern for anyone but themselves.

Exacerbated by Steve Jobs extreme narcissism built on a foundation of great arrogance, millions who feel entitled were drawn into his web. As a result they don't respect or care for the significance of the professionals who create vast quantities of content on the Mac Pro.

Why should consumers care about other people's interests? If anyone is showing arrogance it would be someone thinking they deserve respect because they are a professional. If you are a professional creating vast quantities of content, then your reward is the payment you receive for those services...

 

[thekev]

So when it goes true optical whats up? It's the new era of buss speed... get over it. the initial speeds are enough and the latency isn't as bad as a PCIE expansion chassis so...

True optical next year won't mean much for speeds yet according to Intel. It's more about cable length. The other thing being that the thunderbolt connector we see currently may not move forward at all. PCIe for anyone that uses it actually provides a much simpler solution with greater bandwidth potential, or did you also not know that TB operates off the PCI bus?

Apple always talks about simplicity. Now instead we get average integrated displays as opposed to being able to replace them separately and make choices, yet things which were always internalized for simplicity are being pushed outside of the box. Do you see the problem with this logic? They engineer designs that are simple for basic consumer use, yet more complex and annoying if used to their full potential.

"The initial speeds are enough and the latency isn't as bad as a PCIE expansion chassis so..." -Mac2012

"640k ought to be enough for anybody." -Bill Gates

I always liked that quote.

 

[AidenShaw]

So when it goes true optical whats up?

When it does, it won't be T-Bolt 1.0 and probably none of your systems or peripherals will work with it.

It's the new era of buss speed... get over it.

The new era? It's currently half the speed of current PCIe per lane, and when Ivy Bridge ships it will be a quarter of the speed per lane.

the initial speeds are enough and the latency isn't as bad as a PCIE expansion chassis so...

In other words, T-Bolt sucks but it only sucks a little - not a lot.
_____________

Please go back and reread the post that I replied to

Originally Posted by Mac2012
Your totally wrong dude about the TB bandwidth. It's equally as powerful and fast as PCIE!!!!

It's nowhere close to as fast as internal PCIe today, and in a few months will fall behind by another order of magnitude.

It is fast enough to be useful, of course.

I would love to have 4 T-Bolt ports on my mini-tower - and to have some 4-bay or 8-bay RAID chassis on it, with a real prosumer RAID controllers inside like the 3ware SAS9260CV-8i with 512 MiB non-volatile read/write cache with support for RAID Levels 0, 1, 5, 6, 10, 50 and 60. (Yes I know the 9260 would be starved for bandwidth on T-Bolt - but I'm looking for TB, not MB/sec.)

----------

True optical next year won't mean much for speeds yet according to Intel.

The rumoured optical for T-Bolt 1.0 is not "true optical". The cable has a copper mDP connector on each end, with an active copper<->optical transducer in each end, with fiber in the middle.

Since the optical is connecting to the same mDP ports (unless rumours of a new connector are true - in which case it won't work on Apples), it obviously won't be faster. It may even add a bit of additional latency, since there has to be an optical<->electrical conversion in both plugs. In addition, if you use optical to get longer cable lengths you'll definitely be cranking up the latency (a 10m fiber will add about 30 nsec latency - see Grace Hopper nanosecond).

 

[Trypno]

I would like to eventually be able to buy a Mac Pro for the house, and then I could have my laptop for on the go, and my iPhone for when I can't reach my laptop. I would LOVE to keep the usb ports, and hard drive slots, and other expandable space that a Tower provides. I don't trust Cloud technology, because I don't trust storing my data to some internet server somewhere. Servers crash, and servers get hacked. Granted so do computers, but I'd rather know MY data was on MY computer when it happens. I wouldn't want to have my computer running perfectly well, only to boot it up and find I can't do anything with it because I had everything stored on the cloud, and the cloud server went down.
I like being able to store my data on my internal and external hard drives, I like having the ports that allow me to do that, and only a tower allows for the most ports. I want to get a Mac Pro some day and turn it into a machine of doom so to speak, eliminating this product eliminates all those customer's in waiting who've been wanting one for ages, with plans of one day getting it.

 

[Bucko]

Big Mistake! The issue have I been noticing is Apple isn't marketing or advertising the MAC Pro. It's all about the iPad, iPhone. Market it for audio, film / film editing users, rendering, the amount of space/speed one can have, etc.

 

[Liquinn]

Big Mistake! The issue have I been noticing is Apple isn't marketing or advertising the MAC Pro. It's all about the iPad, iPhone. Market it for audio, film / film editing users, rendering, the amount of space/speed one can have, etc.

I do agree with this. As much as it sucks for me I have to admit it...

I haven't saw any Macbook Pro adverts as well... but I can't see Apple getting rid of the Mac Pro and the Macbook Pro... but we'll see. I'm in the market for the latter as well.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Big Mistake! The issue have I been noticing is Apple isn't marketing or advertising the MAC Pro. It's all about the iPad, iPhone. Market it for audio, film / film editing users, rendering, the amount of space/speed one can have, etc.

But when you see it on the Price Is Right among two other prizes, it's always the most expensive one (he who knowith this receivith a free Mac Pro every time). It's always right around $3500 with monitor and cheap-o printer ($3200 of which is the Mac Pro). This is NOT the case with any other brand computer in the same game (they're always $600-1200).

Those are definitely Pro prices, but do you get Pro features in 2011? Given it's not even up-to-date for this year (and yet the price never drops $1), one really has to wonder if they even WANT to sell the Mac Pro at this point. I mean how hard is it really to just update the CPU, HD and Ram (and perhaps the video card) each year so it's not a complete screw-over on that price that won't drop?

Other companies update their offerings 2-4 times a year. Oh wait. Apple does that too...just not for the Mac Pro.

 

[Rocketman]

Mac Pro. It's always right around $3500 with monitor and cheap-o printer ($3200 of which is the Mac Pro). This is NOT the case with any other brand computer in the same game (they're always $600-1200).

True. The $600 Mac-Mini is nearly the same speed as a slightly older $1800 MacPro, and lower price than the $1000 PC, and you reuse your existing monitor and keyboard.

The folks receiving a free $3200 MacPro are using about 5% of its capacity or less. Need a $5600 MacPro? It is overused and then you need another one or ten because you are making bank on it.

Hence $pro.

Just Rocketman

 

[iPadPublisher]

The folks receiving a free $3200 MacPro are using about 5% of its capacity or less. Need a $5600 MacPro? It is overused and then you need another one or ten because you are making bank on it.

Hence $pro.

True that. My machine is an ATM... so paying for the next one is no problem.

 

[joaoferro37]

I do not see any reason why Apple should drop its Mac Pro unless there are Thunderbolt video cards and RAID cards available.

 

[nanofrog]

I do not see any reason why Apple should drop its Mac Pro unless there are Thunderbolt video cards and RAID cards available.

Keep in mind, that any card that utilizes more than 4x PCIe 2.0 lanes will be faster than TB (current TB chips are connected to the system via 4x PCIe 2.0 lanes).

 

[AidenShaw]

Keep in mind, that any card that utilizes more than 4x PCIe 2.0 lanes will be faster than TB (current TB chips are connected to the system via 4x PCIe 2.0 lanes).

And, of course, you need OS support for the cards.

Which leads to the odd situation where MacBooks are that booted into Windows are being used to demo new T-Bolt peripherals - since no Apple or Apple OSX software supports the new T-Bolt devices.

 

[nanofrog]

And, of course, you need OS support for the cards.

Which leads to the odd situation where MacBooks are that booted into Windows are being used to demo new T-Bolt peripherals - since no Apple or Apple OSX software supports the new T-Bolt devices.

The first demo was running under OS X though (workstation, not a laptop), so if it's not currently included, they can add those drivers whenever they wish (don't have access to an Apple laptop of any kind).

 

[AidenShaw]

The first demo was running under OS X though (workstation, not a laptop), so if it's not currently included, they can add those drivers whenever they wish (don't have access to an Apple laptop of any kind).

I should have said "sometimes", and not left it open to be interpreted as "always".

I was referring to this and similar cases:

The external chassis features a Thunderbolt interface and an internal PCIe slot. Despite running on a MacBook Pro there is currently no OS X support for the solution, but it does work under Windows. Presumably if there's OS X support for the GPU inside the enclosure it would work under OS X as well.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1306517/

 

[nanofrog]

I should have said "sometimes", and not left it open to be interpreted as "always".

I was referring to this and similar cases:

Not a big deal in this case, as they actually have developed the drivers (this is quite a shock, given their typical MO... stall, stall, stall and and maybe release something if they feel like it).

 

[AidenShaw]

Not a big deal in this case, as they actually have developed the drivers (this is quite a shock, given their typical MO... stall, stall, stall and and maybe release something if they feel like it).

Thanks for the update.

Is "they" Apple, or the 3rd party?

 

[nanofrog]

Is "they" Apple, or the 3rd party?

Apple. They worked the software side of TB's development, while Intel and others worked on the hardware (most of the other development companies were involved in the optical portion that has yet to surface).

 

[Alex2002]

Don't dare

Well, that's a shame. Although I would never require a beast such as Mac Pro, I see them a lot at universities for rendering and stuff. Would be a shame to see them disappear from that image.

I was afraid this would happen since the iPad launched. Apple is persueing iOS, not the Mac.

It would have to be downsized and made more affordable (no 30 lb worth of aluminum- plastic works for Dell and HP desktops) but the platform, a tough, strong brute of a processor, is a must for Logic, Final Cut, and scientific users. They are a bargain, too, because they last.

My Mac pro dates to 2006, and it's quad core processors and high end video card are still performing quite nicely in 2012, while ALL of my family's many Apple laptops but one have gone belly up, with faulty motherboards. I got my money's worth and then some, while theirs fell in their prime..

It would be a shame if it were cut, leaving a big gap in consumer needs. Let's hope cooler heads prevail, and a more affordable performance platform be offered in its place. One can only hope,

Al