Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac Pro Rising

ManuelGomes said:
Jack, that's a PC, not a Mac Pro. You know Apple won't go that route ever.
Click to expand...

Hey, a man can dream!

But stop for a moment and consider a hypothetical: That Apple did not use xeons in their "workstation" machine, and went to i7s. People already criticize the iMac for having a mobile gpu and other "laptop level" innards. I doubt Apple would flinch at putting in an i7 instead of a Xeon.

Going to more conventional, non workstation parts on their "pro" machine sounds exactly what a supply line oriented Tim Cook would do! And it would alleviate the problem of waiting for Xeon updates. Or at least I hope. I'm probably sick for holding onto that hope, but man... What if?

I really need to stop torturing myself.

Workstations typically use Xeons (or equivalent), not desktop CPUs. There's a reason Xeons are late to the party, additional testing and validation is required. For Pro apps, not games of course.
Click to expand...

Pro apps run just fine on i7s. And i7 core count is climbing, and they are so dang over clockable now!

Bubba Satori said:
Too much bang for the buck.
Another vote for never gonna happen.
Especially when folks could put it together at Newegg with premium bits
for thousands less than Apple would charge. Definately a non-starter.
That will always be a prime hackintosh build.
Click to expand...

I bet you would be right. I'd pay a premium (within reason) for Apple to package it, though. 🙂

thats all folks said:
those CPUs just recently became available so that machine couldn't have existed until now anyways. 6 core was avaiable previously but only supported up to 64GB RAM. not enough for a real workstation replacement.
Click to expand...

Isn't the current Mac Pro limited to 64GB? If that's the case, then the nmp is not enough for a real workstation, right?

I can go configure an x99 i7 tower on avadirect.com right now with max ram of 128gb, though. 8 ram slots! Now imagine configuring a Mac Pro tower with those specs. It would be sweet.

AidenShaw said:
Why would anyone want a pro machine without ECC RAM?

There are many cases where ECC VRAM is not required (video, machine learning, ...), but no ECC RAM is still a non-starter.
Click to expand...

Let's not be overly dramatic. If Apple introduced an i7 Mac Pro tower configurable from 6-10 cores, with up to 128gb of DDR4 ram, do you think the people in this thread pining for a Mac tower would reject it over ecc ram? I highly doubt it. Many of these people have already switched to iMacs or PCs. Work still gets done with basic ram. We aren't waiting here for an apple update to run a bank or stock market back end machine on the nmp.
 
Jack Burton said:
Hey, a man can dream!

But stop for a moment and consider a hypothetical: That Apple did not use xeons in their "workstation" machine, and went to i7s. People already criticize the iMac for having a mobile gpu and other "laptop level" innards. I doubt Apple would flinch at putting in an i7 instead of a Xeon.

Going to more conventional, non workstation parts on their "pro" machine sounds exactly what a supply line oriented Tim Cook would do! And it would alleviate the problem of waiting for Xeon updates. Or at least I hope. I'm probably sick for holding onto that hope, but man... What if?

I really need to stop torturing myself.



Pro apps run just fine on i7s. And i7 core count is climbing, and they are so dang over clockable now!



I bet you would be right. I'd pay a premium (within reason) for Apple to package it, though. 🙂



Isn't the current Mac Pro limited to 64GB? If that's the case, then the nmp is not enough for a real workstation, right?

I can go configure an x99 i7 tower on avadirect.com right now with max ram of 128gb, though. 8 ram slots! Now imagine configuring a Mac Pro tower with those specs. It would be sweet.



Let's not be overly dramatic. If Apple introduced an i7 Mac Pro tower configurable from 6-10 cores, with up to 128gb of DDR4 ram, do you think the people in this thread pining for a Mac tower would reject it over ecc ram? I highly doubt it. Many of these people have already switched to iMacs or PCs. Work still gets done with basic ram. We aren't waiting here for an apple update to run a bank or stock market back end machine on the nmp.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're just chilling as you commenting each comments, huh? lol.
 
lowendlinux said:
I'm not sure Macs are pressed into duties that require ECC though.
Click to expand...

The Power Mac line never had ECC memory. It was only at the Mac Pro rollover that ECC was added.

Might be smart just to make the default RAM non ECC, possibly have an i7 option, but keep the Xeon options. I don't think the i7s and Xeon E5s are board compatible though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: filmak
Jack Burton said:
Isn't the current Mac Pro limited to 64GB? If that's the case, then the nmp is not enough for a real workstation, right?

I can go configure an x99 i7 tower on avadirect.com right now with max ram of 128gb, though. 8 ram slots! Now imagine configuring a Mac Pro tower with those specs. It would be sweet.
Click to expand...

yes, the 64GB limit is a real limit. one that keeps the nMP out of consideration for some situations that the cMP would potentially be better at with 96GB RAM. fortunately for Apple, they lost (or never got) most of that market to Windows.

you can get that i7 now, but those chips just came out. so even if Apple does use them at some point going forward, they unfortunately aren't really part of the current discussion of what did apple do 3 years ago (with the mini trash can design) and why have they still not done anything new? And no matter what Apple might do, history would leave us still having to expect only 4 RAM slots instead of the hoped for (and needed) 8. As to ECC RAM, is it necessary? a difficult question to answer. but as you add ever more RAM and push ever more data through it, some protection against errors seems ever more a good idea.
[doublepost=1470810561][/doublepost]
AidenShaw said:
Funny you should say that, because Apple says that the MP6,1 supports only 64 GiB of RAM! 😱

Configurable to 32GB (four 8GB) or 64GB (four 16GB)
Click to expand...
I wish it was funny. it's easy to put 128GB in a Windows workstation. high end graphics/CG/compositing can make use of it. yet another reason Apple is losing out on those sales.
 
Has Intel's pricing model changed? Because Xeons used to be about the same price as their consumer i7 equivalents.

So unless Intel has jacked up Xeon prices, I don't really understand why people clamor for i7's in future MacPros.
 
zephonic said:
Has Intel's pricing model changed? Because Xeons used to be about the same price as their consumer i7 equivalents.

So unless Intel has jacked up Xeon prices, I don't really understand why people clamor for i7's in future MacPros.
Click to expand...

No, Xeons have always been relatively more expensive.

People are clamoring for a choice for some i7 Mac Pro configs for those who have no need for Xeons,
not to replace the Xeon models. Of course some would reply that having a choice of two different
cpu's would be too confusing and that Apple should choose for them. 🙄
 
Last edited:
Everybody who thinks that a Core-i* CPU and its equivalent southbridge are just as good as a Xeon CPU should perhaps take the time and read this article:

http://danluu.com/cpu-bugs/

While the article does not explicitly mention whether Xeons undergo a tougher verification process, comparing the number of know bugs in the E5 v4 and the 6th generation Core-i seems to favor the Xeons. Part of the rock solid stability of the cMP can be attributed to the fact that Xeons are more mature than their Core-i counterparts.

If this is worth the additional costs? Up to now Apple made this decision for you. When you wish for Core-i processors in a MacPro, please consider that you might not only get higher speed for less money, but less stability, too. So choose wisely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: poematik13 and linuxcooldude
Mago, I know that. I was just saying that Xeons exist for something, and that is for long-running, mission critical and special applications, which is not the case of i7, at least they're not validated for such cases.
I know that the underlying hardware is pretty much the same.
But if you want a workstation, then Xeon is the way to go, not i7. Even price is not a factor here, so why bother?
And ECC RAM is a must, VRAM is another thing but would be nice too.

Jack, of course you can dream. But the fact is OC'ing is not Apple's ballpark. This machine is meant to be reliable - of course now some will point out the problems with the GPUs.
But dream on man, I'm with you. 🙂
I'd buy a PC if I had such needs though.

64GB on the nMP is the limit approved by Apple, you can put in 128GB if you want, OWC has it. If the usual suspect will come down saying that it's not approved by Apple, first think that most people here do it all the time on their cMP installing all sorts of different hardware not sanctioned by Apple, and that is exactly the argument regarding the nMP not being upgradeable.
 
pat500000 said:
Sounds like you're just chilling as you commenting each comments, huh? lol.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I enjoy the discussion and try not to take it seriously. I compare it to thinking about winning the lottery. I know it's likely not going to happen but it's fun to talk about. 🙂

And some of the people on these forums know insane details about apis and hardware. I usually learn something just by browsing the thread! As long as it stays civil I think everyone at least learns something even if Apple never gives us a decent pro again.

tomvos said:
Everybody who thinks that a Core-i* CPU and its equivalent southbridge are just as good as a Xeon CPU should perhaps take the time and read this article:

http://danluu.com/cpu-bugs/

While the article does not explicitly mention whether Xeons undergo a tougher verification process, comparing the number of know bugs in the E5 v4 and the 6th generation Core-i seems to favor the Xeons. Part of the rock solid stability of the cMP can be attributed to the fact that Xeons are more mature than their Core-i counterparts.

If this is worth the additional costs? Up to now Apple made this decision for you. When you wish for Core-i processors in a MacPro, please consider that you might not only get higher speed for less money, but less stability, too. So choose wisely.
Click to expand...

I think many people would describe their macs and mac OS in general as very stable, and most macs aren't running xeons. I'd describe macs as stable enough for most work, wouldn't you? I used to have Xeon based macs and pcs. They have been cycled out for i7's and I haven't experienced any significant introduction in instability. But my software has also matured. Well, except for some adobe apps. A couple of them are definitely worse. 😉

Again, though, I'm not doing mission critical work like running the backend for a financial institution, running a web server for an e-commerce giant, or controlling satellites. I'm sure those people have needs that I don't!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pat500000
I believe they need to keep the structure lean and simple. Having too many models and each model having many different options would not be efficient for Apple. Because every one wants or needs different stuff.
They will end up, either in computers or iDevices, with only a couple of choices, the regular model (Mac/MacBook/iPhone/iPad) and a professional model (Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPhone Pro/iPad Pro).
And given all sorts of choices the logistics are a nightmare for Apple. I know, others do it. But others are not Apple. They didn't get this far for being wrong, like it or not.

But as you said Jack, just discussing all this is great and one learns a lot. There are here some really enlightened guys. On the other hand, there are also those that you know exactly when they'll reply and how they'll do it, what they'll say.
But hey, it comes with the territory... 🙂
[doublepost=1470844269][/doublepost]Off topic but food for thought:
http://wccftech.com/august-earths-resources-year/

This urge for better, faster and newer with shorter cycles doesn't help here either...
 
  • Like
Reactions: filmak
Jack Burton said:
Yeah, I enjoy the discussion and try not to take it seriously. I compare it to thinking about winning the lottery. I know it's likely not going to happen but it's fun to talk about. 🙂

And some of the people on these forums know insane details about apis and hardware. I usually learn something just by browsing the thread! As long as it stays civil I think everyone at least learns something even if Apple never gives us a decent pro again.



I think many people would describe their macs and mac OS in general as very stable, and most macs aren't running xeons. I'd describe macs as stable enough for most work, wouldn't you? I used to have Xeon based macs and pcs. They have been cycled out for i7's and I haven't experienced any significant introduction in instability. But my software has also matured. Well, except for some adobe apps. A couple of them are definitely worse. 😉

Again, though, I'm not doing mission critical work like running the backend for a financial institution, running a web server for an e-commerce giant, or controlling satellites. I'm sure those people have needs that I don't!
Click to expand...
Good! Having fun discussing
 
Below a quote from the interview The Washington Post had with Tim Cook:

"
Maps was a mistake. Today we have a product we’re proud of. [But] we had the self-honesty to admit this wasn’t our finest hour and the courage to choose another way of doing it. That’s important. It’s the only way an organization learns. The classic big-company mistake is to not admit their mistake. They double down on them. Their pride or ego is so large that they can’t say we did something wrong. And I think the faster you do that, the better — change gears to something else. If you’re honest, people will give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you have your head stuck in the sand and you just keep doing it, I think you lose your employees and your customers as well.
"

So, what does this say - if anything - about the chances of Apple revisiting the "old" classic Mac Pro? I guess it all depends on whether or not the think of the new Mac Pro (trash can) as a succes or a mistake.

Willem
 
  • Like
Reactions: ITguy2016 and jwdawso
whgmkeller said:
Below a quote from the interview The Washington Post had with Tim Cook:

"
Maps was a mistake. Today we have a product we’re proud of. [But] we had the self-honesty to admit this wasn’t our finest hour and the courage to choose another way of doing it. That’s important. It’s the only way an organization learns. The classic big-company mistake is to not admit their mistake. They double down on them. Their pride or ego is so large that they can’t say we did something wrong. And I think the faster you do that, the better — change gears to something else. If you’re honest, people will give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you have your head stuck in the sand and you just keep doing it, I think you lose your employees and your customers as well.
"

So, what does this say - if anything - about the chances of Apple revisiting the "old" classic Mac Pro? I guess it all depends on whether or not the think of the new Mac Pro (trash can) as a succes or a mistake.

Willem
Click to expand...

I think they consider it such a niche market that its not big enough to even label it as a mistake or success. The nMP and the old was there to make a minor market happy. If they are not happy, they would not even know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aldaris
iMcLovin said:
I think they consider it such a niche market that its not big enough to even label it as a mistake or success. The nMP and the old was there to make a minor market happy. If they are not happy, they would not even know.
Click to expand...

This. Look at what they did to the dedicated FCP crowd. If that market wasn't big enough to make apple listen, the market now is really falling on deaf ears. What was a niche market is now a micro niche.
 
zephonic said:
Not the first-gen, though. Nehalem Xeons were identically priced to their i7 counterparts at the time.
Click to expand...

Intel seems to have unaligned their Core and Xeon product lines, they were near-identical in the past. Looks like i7-5xxx and Xeon E5v3 only have two identical processors:

i7-5930K and Xeon E5-1650v3 (both at $583)
i7-5960X ($999) and Xeon E5-1680v3 ($1080)


I don't feel like digging it all up, but I'm pretty sure every SandyBridge i7 had an identical Xeon equivalent at the same price. Not too sure about IvyBridge, but I believe it was the same.
 
whgmkeller said:
Below a quote from the interview The Washington Post had with Tim Cook:

"
Maps was a mistake. Today we have a product we’re proud of. [But] we had the self-honesty to admit this wasn’t our finest hour and the courage to choose another way of doing it. That’s important. It’s the only way an organization learns. The classic big-company mistake is to not admit their mistake. They double down on them. Their pride or ego is so large that they can’t say we did something wrong. And I think the faster you do that, the better — change gears to something else. If you’re honest, people will give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you have your head stuck in the sand and you just keep doing it, I think you lose your employees and your customers as well.
"

So, what does this say - if anything - about the chances of Apple revisiting the "old" classic Mac Pro? I guess it all depends on whether or not the think of the new Mac Pro (trash can) as a succes or a mistake.

Willem
Click to expand...
Basing on that quote..it appears they are in trial-and-error mode.
 
kaby Lake looks good and is already being used for the PCs to come in the autumn, probably the lower powered ones only.
Too bad it might not make it to the rMBP.
[doublepost=1471459399][/doublepost]
17928-15898-20160816-idf16-usb-slide-003-l.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back