I’d take an iPhone 12 mini for $400 but that’s not going to happen either. Your spec cuts what, maybe $20-30 in BOM cost?
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 Working on Redesigned Mac Pro With Smaller Form Factor and Apple Silicon Chip
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Dont worry, those that "needs" Mac Pro for their work will be Happy, and many are likely rushing to buy their last x86 Mac Pro. May be waiting for one more x86 Mac Pro update before they make the jump.
These things easily last 5 - 6 years.
Check it as a film production tool. That would drop the price down to $100 or so.
Look up media bag policy.
I looked that up (you replied before I had added in the reference for other other letters). "W" means Workstation and it is used in PCs as well. Though as far as the Skylake series is concerned by Apple's it might as well be stand for "Wonked"
The Xeon M suffix parts are the ones that max out at 2TB RAM, compared to the non-M version which maxes out at 1TB. Intel has more Xeon offerings than the two W-series used in the iMac Pro and Mac Pro, which are targeted at workstations.
For Xeon here are the suffix meanings:
- No letter = Normal Memory Support (1.0 TB)
- M = Medium Memory Support (2.0 TB)
- L = Large Memory Support (4.5 TB)
- Y = Speed Select Models
- N = Networking/NFV Specialized
- V = Virtual Machine Density Value Optimized
- T = Long Life Cycle / Thermal
- S = Search Optimized
No, they are using the M suffix parts, that’s how they can support 1.5TB in the 24/28-core machines.
There’s a reason those are $6k/7k upgrades, though most around here probably just assume Apple’s being greedy 🤷♂️
Last edited:
Has anyone with a margin of knowledge in CPU architecture actually stopped to analyse what’s technically possible from one of Apple’s ARM CPU’s?
Assuming a new Mac Pro would have vastly advantageous thermal flexibility, let’s ignore the heat aspect for a moment.
How far can the Axx chips be pushed? A larger die will allow more cores. But does the architecture scale in the same way say, an Intel CPU does? What about clock speed and voltages? How high a frequency can each core reach before errors start leaking into the pipeline? What about all the underlying interconnects? Bus? Memory etc.
Can we extrapolate data based on the A14 in the new iPhones and iPad Air from the benchmarks vs the power consumption of the CPU and cross reference the performance improvements one would yield from an increase in power consumption?
if Apple can make a CPU(s) of equal or greater performance than the XEON with somewhat lower thermal and TDP requirements, then that’s a huge win, and would allow for the smaller footprint. This isn’t factoring in what they do with the GPU aspect. I can’t see Apple releasing a dGPU MPX module designed by them just yet. But they are known to surprise like with the afterburner card. So who knows. Maybe they can make a dGPU that uses up half the space and power?
Assuming a new Mac Pro would have vastly advantageous thermal flexibility, let’s ignore the heat aspect for a moment.
How far can the Axx chips be pushed? A larger die will allow more cores. But does the architecture scale in the same way say, an Intel CPU does? What about clock speed and voltages? How high a frequency can each core reach before errors start leaking into the pipeline? What about all the underlying interconnects? Bus? Memory etc.
Can we extrapolate data based on the A14 in the new iPhones and iPad Air from the benchmarks vs the power consumption of the CPU and cross reference the performance improvements one would yield from an increase in power consumption?
if Apple can make a CPU(s) of equal or greater performance than the XEON with somewhat lower thermal and TDP requirements, then that’s a huge win, and would allow for the smaller footprint. This isn’t factoring in what they do with the GPU aspect. I can’t see Apple releasing a dGPU MPX module designed by them just yet. But they are known to surprise like with the afterburner card. So who knows. Maybe they can make a dGPU that uses up half the space and power?
One could imagine a broader lineup:
Mac Pro mini
Mac Pro Air
Mac Pro
Mac Pro max
Apple is supposed to be big and powerful (and courageous ?) enough to create a market but their focus is elsewhere, probably just in looks and money.
MacBook+Mac Mini+iMac+MacPro is not a line of products that can cover all needs and it certainly doesn't work for me, and, believe it or not, however weak/naive/sheepish the user and customer base is in this era, it won't work for Apple as well. They'd better undermine and limit macOS even more so that future users won't have any choice but using iPhones and consuming media.
I think you missed out on the Mac Pro Air Max, in cooperation with Nike+.One could imagine a broader lineup:
Mac Pro mini
Mac Pro Air
Mac Pro
Mac Pro max
Wow. Debbie Downer. Probably with AS, the Afterburner is no longer needed. Most of the volume for the CPU side of the interior would be gone. A redesign could move much of the airflow to where the PCIe slots are now, which is more or less half the entire volume of the existing MacPro.
WTF is it with folks who go from "Now" to "beleaguered" at the first sign of *ANY* change whatsoever?
Was it the size of this thing that people didn't like? I was under the impression that it was the price.
You might have missed the point of my post.That ROFLOL you are hearing over all the spit takes is all the laptop users.
We already know the ArMacs will be targeting laptops. That where their performance will be optimal and most improved, no doubt, over the Intel counterparts (where performance per watt is concerned). What we don't know is how this strategy will scale up to compete with a full workstation (what this post is actually about). That is, what will an unconstrained ArMac look like? That's an unanswered question which is why it's more interesting to me. For instance, if the performance ceiling is around where the MacBook Pro equivalent will be, then certain professional creative applications won't be able to be performative enough to remain on the platform.
Also, while Intel deserves the flak for their lack of innovation in the cpu side, Nvidia in particular is very aggressive with their gpu improvements. I would be very surprised to see Apple not offer full discrete GPUs in this enclosure, as they would be competing with a very large amount of configurations, price points, and TDP if they went just their own silicon for both CPU and GPU for everything from a MacBook Air all the way up to a MacBook Pro.
The people just aren't impressed with it and it's not exaggerated to say the hardware performance is almost obsolete out of the box.
Then, Apple attempt to overcharged the display with an outlandish price that costs 5x more which increase from $999 to $5000 and couldn't even include a monitor stand.
If you are a buy-one-new-computer-every-ten-years kind of guy, sure. But if you are a business that needs to regularly buy new computers (eg, you upgrade a third of your computers every two years or your business is growing and needs additional computers somewhat regularly), Apple's erratic product policy at the top end is going to seriously disrupt your purchasing options. And let's face it, very few individuals buy a $10'000+ computer, let alone a $50'000 one. Thus the higher-end configurations are targeted at businesses that can convert performance into income.
And that is before considering the availability and performance of software. Already the lack of regular upgrades to the 2013 Mac Pro disrupted your ability to profit from regular performance upgrades through hardware. This was compounded by the inability to upgrade internal components in it (TB2 had its limits, including in regard to external graphic card performance). Then look at things like the the afterburner card for the 2019 Mac Pro, software needs to be rewritten to really make use of it, which at least for quite a while only was true for Apple applications. Meaning, even before considering the Intel-to-ARM transition, significant changes in the availability of hardware components from CPU features Intel has been adding over graphic cards to dedicated hardware like the Afterburner card can significantly affect what performance you get and/or which software do you need to use to get the best performance out your hardware. Businesses don't like frequent changes in those aspects.
Last edited:
I wouldn't feel bad for them, the type of pros who buy the top-spec Mac Pros are the type that charge a production company a few hundred bucks a day for it's use, on top of their daily rate (you know how much editors make in Hollywood?). Or, a production company who profits off it's use themselves with completed-and-aired shows purchased by a network. That's then purchased by you. It's a tool that'll pay for itself many times over. And they're also the types that will wait until a new technology is fully developed and adopted before transitioning, so they'll be years off.
If anyone purchased a 50K Mac Pro who isn't directly profiting off it is either crazy rich, in which case 50K isn't a concern, or are just simply crazy (in which case 50K isn't a concern for them either, nothing is).
I think their focus is on the iPad. Apple has never made products to cover ALL needs. They only need to cover the needs of enough of the computer buying market that makes it profitable for them. BUT, in focusing on the shifting requirements of that profitable chunk of people, they cut out a lot of folks that that used to be in that demographic. Apple sold a record number of laptop macs this year and not a single one can have their RAM or Storage upgraded. 15 years ago, that would have been insane, now, it’s what Apple’s target market finds acceptable.
Folks outgrew the Apple II, folks are outgrowing the Mac, and in the future, folks will be outgrowing whatever the iPad becomes.
See my post just above yours, what if a business needs another one of those $50'000 machines but Apple doesn't sell something similar anymore? Then they are screwed.
Apple ditched mac pro line once again, after 2013 fiasco. Two reasons
a) Price is 3x comparing to 2006-2012 models
b) Why spend up to €50.000 for machines with intel processors?
a) Price is 3x comparing to 2006-2012 models
b) Why spend up to €50.000 for machines with intel processors?
Last edited:
Nope, it's the top-secret' Mini-Mac-Pro-Lite. But I'm not the only one that's growing tired of how Apple has changed into the likes of Samsung, Motorola, and the rest.
Last edited: