Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'zactly - But I do agree they could do a Mac pro mini version that is about $2K with 1 GPU and 4 core i7 or whatever.

But it's a new form factor and will only be high end.

But hell the current mac mini late 2012 (12674 on geek bench) beats a 2008 mac pro 8 3.0 on CPU (11950)

Most of the time people don't even know what they want this power for!?

the current mac pro would have been 8th most powerful supercomputer in 2003... That is insane... even a iPhone 5s beats the #1 supercomputer of about 1997...

And you just hit the nail on the head of the current computing market. There has been a diminishing returns on end user computer performance perception vs. software vs. hardware for the past decade.

Very few users of the current multi-core, gigahertz speed CPUs are actually using them for high end applications. In most cases, the CPU speed is taken up by operating system processes. The OS does things that are effectively invisible to the end user experience. Most of it goes to handling larger volumes of memory, storage and screen resolution.

As I type this on my MBPr, most of the CPU goes to the aliasing of the typeface font so it looks "soft" on the screen. There are also dozens of background tasks processing for networking, power efficiency and memory management. To a typical user, this is invisible as long as they can download their YouTube cat videos.

A good chief operating systems architect makes sure that all the OS services doesn't take nearly 100% of the CPU to freeze the device for the end user. Nothing upsets a user more than upgrading their machine to have it freeze on you to run more OS features than the CPU can handle.

This came to a head in Redmond land where their "pile it on" mindset with their OS tanked with the release of Windows Vista. Windows 7 was the first OS release where optimization and performance had priority over adding on new features. Then came the Windows 8 fiasco. From what I hear, Windows 9 is another "clean up" release just like Windows 7.

For the power users running rendering engines, developer IDEs, sound editors and interactive 3D graphics for games we are the ones picking up the Mac Pro and can afford domestic manufacturing costs.
 
Over the last few months, I've noticed that a lot of people in threads about the Mac Pro don't really understand the concept of thermal constraints, or why some people need workstation-grade hardware vs consumer chips.

If you have to point out that some random Mac Mini/MBP/iMac configuration bests the nMP in one or two benchmarks, you don't really understand the system or need one in any way.

Same if you need to find a reason to discredit the machine in its entirety, or those people who buy them.

Also, the absolute childishness of a limited number of people in these threads astounds me. Like calling the machine a "shuttlecock".
 
I want to make sure I got this straight: Intel is coming out with new chips based on a new microarchitecture, but there is no word of new Mac Pros from Apple, right? Because the way this article is written it makes it sound like the Pro will automatically get an upgraded processor, and you just had a 3 year wait for an update.
 
Why can't they make a desktop tower for normal people? ****, solder in the parts and weld the box shut if you have to, but don't make me buy a new friggin 27" display every time I want to get a new computer.

I have a feeling there's a reason Apple has been silent on Mac Mini. I wouldn't be surprised if we get something new in that space beyond just a spec bump. Apple easily could have released a spec bumped Mac mini by now.

Yeah, the Mac Mini (with max configuration) almost fills that space now, the major deficiency being its lack of dedicated graphics. That would be very cool if Apple brings up the Mini's performance to mirror the iMac line.

I think they should go a step further and design it to dock directly together with a new line of thunderbolt displays, so as to avoid cables. That way the system can be modular, sleek-looking, and take up minimal space. Best of both worlds.

You are being blatantly rude and disrespectful and should be banned from these boards for that behavior, flat out.

It is the way you do it.

You have to understand, the internet is filled almost entirely with 13 year olds. I wouldn't sweat them.
 
Last edited:
Why would it cost less than $2,000? An i7 costs the same as a Xeon - they are in the same price bands.
Top i7 may cost sane as baseline Xeon, but also chipset it's cheaper for non Xeon architecture since no need for ECC ram, just look at Intel pc market with Z99, add a 20% premium and sure you may configure a 4 core i7 with 16gb ran and a couple of good AMG gpu plus 256gb ssd for less than 1600
 
Why don't they let people have Skt 1150 processors such as i7 4770k etc

The 4770 is pretty much equivalent to the xeon 1620 v2, and about the same price for the chip.

Whether a machine with a 1620 ($299 CPU) should start at $2999 is another story.

Mac Pro is wayyyyyy more important than the iPhone

Regardless of what any of us may consider "important", there's no disputing the fact that one makes the company orders of magnitude more money than the other.

I think Apple will release a PCIe Flash based Mini which is a much smaller form factor than the current Mac Mini. I can see Apple slimming down the size of the device, making it thinner, sleeker, and reducing the form factor, while making it more powerful and efficient at the same time.

Flash seems likely but I'd much rather see them build one with all desktop parts and give it more performance instead of worrying so much about size. The power won't be there if they use mobile parts and it drives up the cost as well. If they'd release mini with the same chips available in the highest end iMac, that would quiet down many of the people asking for xMac. Hell, I'd love to see both iMac and mini get six core i7 sooner rather than later. But even in the iMac, Apple is more worried about size and looks than performance.

Tthis lousy article implies that Apple's PR is more important.

That's just speculation on the part of this article. Intel hasn't even made a full announcement of the new line of chips, it's just leaks. You can't really fault apple for not announcing something that Intel themselves haven't announced. And don't forget, these new chips are a new socket and use a new ram standard. Even on the PC side, new machines will be offered when they are available but it will probably take some time for the transition to happen.
 
Don't know why but your post had me wondering if the new Intel chips supply anymore PCI Express lanes on these variants. The idea of course is to populate the other GPU card with an SSD slot. This to allow two SSD blades in the machine.

This is my big complaint about this machine. I totally don't need dual GPU but it's annoying they don't have an option for two internal pci-E SSD.

There is void in big-box ultra-expandable xeon pro computer that can accept PCI cards and Internal 3.5" form-factor HDs, that was left by the discontinuation of the former "tank" Mac Pro form factor. Now to have that size form factor Macintosh, with Thunderbolt ports, and the internal exapandability, and the latest Xeon processors, your ONLY option is to Hackintosh.

So...there is a viable Hackintosh need/community...

Viable? What is that supposed to mean? Sure, there always have been and always will be people who want options that Apple doesn't make available. With the old machine, there were people who needed more than three open PCI slots, or more cores, or whatever. But there's a difference between users with needs existing, and there being enough of those users to have it make financial sense to offer the product they want.

The lineup is also missing a 12 core.

On the leaked list of 2600 v3 chips I see four 12 core options (as well as some 10, 14, 16, 18 core units that I assume Apple probably won't offer).

Otherwise, i7 is much cheaper

That hasn't been true for years. The E5-16xx series is equivalent to the various i7 in that range and is about the same price.

...you can put together a power Hackintosh for a quarter of the $9599 you would spend for a Mac Pro.

12 core mac pro starts at $6499. Building a hackintosh for a quarter of that would be $1625. Probably can't even buy a twelve core CPU for that.

Previous Gen Mac Pro had an core i7 base model...

Nope, MP has never had i7, always xeon going back to 2006.
 
Why does it NEED to be as thick as before?

To have room to cool faster processors. I doubt they could keep a six core cool enough in the current iMac design, if they had a bit more space it would be easier. More ram slots would be nice as well. I forget, does iMac take compact ram or full sized desktop ram?

If its that much of an overkill for them, probably more so for a Mac Pro in general.

Audio. Lots of CPU power, not much GPU needed at all.

Isn't that the Mac Mini?

It would be if the mini had the same specs (CPU, ram, GPU). If they'd just make a mini that was as powerful as the top iMac, most people wouldn't be begging for an xMac or talking about hackintosh.
 
Why can't they make a desktop tower for normal people? ****, solder in the parts and weld the box shut if you have to, but don't make me buy a new friggin 27" display every time I want to get a new computer.

Because people do not want to be forced to buy a new display every time they want to buy a new computer?

This issue's somewhat mitigated by the high (for the industry) residual resale value of the iMac you're done with, no?

That "hole" you are describing is the headless, expandable, user-upgradable mid-level desktop machine. I know exactly what you are talking about. Something along the lines of a Power Macintosh 7000 series machine.

...and 20+ similar posts.... ...however....

In other words, a dying paradigm that consumers have little interest in.

What computer nerds need to understand (and I'm one of them) is that nerd needs != consumer needs.

But, but, but.......

Your generalising everybody. Im a consumer and i have a BIG interest in that. Also the whole Hackintosh community (which isn't small) also obviously has a big interest.

Yes, it is VERY small

Keep in mind I'm talking about consumers, whom from working in retail, clearly have no ****ing clue about technology and will never need something like a hackintosh.

The long-running persistence of forum posters calling for the MMRM (Mythical Mid-Range Mac) over the last X years (quite a few now) in the face of Apple's utterly ignoring the ever-repeated calls is endearing by now. And a forum tradition.

However, Apple at least monitors Mac site forums in general, and if they weren't taking heed a decade ago when PC's were at the heart of their business and a still healthily growing market, they almost certainly won't do so now, even though the machine would clearly be modestly "successful," i.e., in generating an ongoing flow of sales over a period of years. And one which wouldn't even cannibalize most of its sales from existing Mac models.

Some reasons can be illustrated by looking at the new Mac Pro...

The Pro is Apple's "Aspirational Mac," i.e., a path for power and pro users that says not only is Mac OS the clear leader, you won't outgrow the hardware either, so there's virtually no ceiling to where a Mac users can go.

So even with low unit sales for an Apple product, it's strategic, iconic and in their interest whatever its marginal effect on either their top or bottom lines in any given quarter or year.

As for whether it's profitable, certainly Apple makes somewhere around its historic margins on each Pro sold from a bill of lading perspective. However the math on the development/building/marketing/support costs - R&D, setting up the production lines, etc., etc. - might (and I say might 'cos I dunno), the whole project is likely still underwater and likely to be there for a while yet.

Which makes it likely Apple's only "successful" product in that situation, but still well worth what the company's put into it in terms of its "halo effect."

No truly analogous set of realities applies to bringing out a MMRM. And certainly not a Mac-oriented personal computer platform gaming rig. The latter is totally a dead-in-the-water idea.

Apple could certainly "afford" to build a mid-range headless Mac with relatively low dev costs (almost trivial likely), but stocking an additional sizable SKU all across its distribution channels and high relative support costs (if it were truly an "open the case and start adding your own mods") doesn't really fit their volume/growing segment business philosophy and model.

And - as long as they tolerate the Hackintosh community (certainly "large" in its own eyes, but hardly likely in the millions) for true hobbyists - and they do tolerate it, as they benefit from having true hobbyists involved in the platform - having this "pressure-relief outlet" saves them the bother. Even if they're also leaving a potential hundred thousand or two units/quarter on the table.

Meanwhile, Apple probably also follows HackyT community with some interest for anything useful that comes out of it which might be applied to future Mac and Mac OS development.

So hang in there homies. You're proof that hope springs eternal. Just don't get yer hopes up....
 
Last edited:
I know this will sound stupid to most but, what if Apple released a "gaming edition" of the Mac Pro with nvidia gpu's? I would wager their sales would sky rocket!

I know this will likely start a flame war. But (A) These are workstation graphics cards. Anyone that has ever had Nvidia Quadro cards knows they aren't really very great at gaming, 3D content-creation.... they rock. Gaming? Not so much. And (B) Radeon's are better overall gaming cards than Nvidia. I'm not going to post the bajillion reviews/comparisons, etc. that exist. I figure The Google is working for most people.

The Mac Pro is a workstation, not a gaming box. That's why it has workstation graphics cards.
 
How about a top end Mac mini with a Helios 2 ( http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Thunderbolt/PCIe_Chassis/Mercury_Helios_2 ) pop your gaming video card in that? Use the extra port for PCIe SSD http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/PCIe/OWC/Mercury_Accelsior/RAID
Thats sub 2K and you'll be playing Ninja Turtles or Call of Duty or whatever you kids play these days. Seems like people are having a lor of success with that set up.

Or you can get both a ps4 or xbox for under 1K. I feel like a lot of people complain about "gaming rigs" for mac. I don't understand why exactly.
 
It's a tool to do work - if you don't make money with it then you probably don't need it. If you game and must use a mac you'd be spending a lot on it even if you got a PC.

This needs in in bold, underlined, and at 96 point font at the beginning of every Mac Pro thread.
 
Mac Pro prices

I've been looking to get a mac pro for awhile. I noticed that there are some price drops on the Mac Pro 6-core basic model. Priced at $3999.00, it's $3749.00 at B&H ($250 off); and at Best Buy it's $3879.00 ($120 off).

It's just the idea that it's even off anything makes me think some new ones might be around the corner.
 
I do every day. I have 4 mac minis as a 3d render farm. Sitting there churning way pretty much 24/7 - they are in a garage so do keep cool. But do agree they are no good at actually running a 3D app. Crappy Graphics really. The CPU can sit there at 100% all day long.

Point is 95% of people won't even outrun a mac mini for most work. I know a pro photographer that uses mini happily day to day. Mainly so he can use a Matt monitor.
I've got 3 of the little suckers with 16GB of RAM and SSDs and just opening a 3D program gets their little fans sounding like 737s ready for takeoff. The video is clearly the weak link, and My MacPros are a much better solution, even the old 8-core.

I do agree that most people are fine with a mini, but whenever I suggest them to people with appropriate needs they usually turn their noses up at them. There seems to be no shortage of people buying nMPs to check their mail on.

As for your photographer friend, Monitor choice is important, and I salute him/her, iMac screens are not suitable for high-end photography. The Holy Grail is the Mid-range Headless Mac, but Apple will never give it to us, so Minis will have to do unless you feel like buying "The Tube".
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.