Possible Upcoming Mac Pro Reference Discovered in OS X El Capitan

[prowlmedia]

So what? Just think, I could go out and buy 4TB drives and plug each one into it’s own connector on the out side of the Mac, that’s 36TB.
Then I could use both ODD bays for another 8TB and all four internal bays for another 16TB. That’s before any dasiy chaining, just think of the possibilites if they’d updated the original form factor with TB.
What’s your point?

My point is WHY do you have to have it internal at all? There is very little need. It's more accessible, you can expand much more. I have an SSD raid on TB2 for Current projects - and offload to a Spinner Raid when it's complete. And I use the internal 1TB for Scratch and Caching.

I also get to take my SSD cluster and Whole computer in a backpack to studios/jobs and wherever I need to go. So long as there is a screen to borrow I am good to go. Can't do that with a Dell Workstation.

I know it's not for everyone...but there ya go!

 

[haravikk]

I'm eager for an update, Thunderbolt 3 is a must, and a switch to DDR4. But I think what I most want to see is a second SSD slot; being able to setup a mirrored internal volume for the startup disk is a bit of a downer. Granted SSDs have pretty good longevity now, but when you have video professionals with big external volumes with redundancy, it seems weird not to have the OS backed up by the same kind of protections.

Of course, AppleRAID isn't the best for this (it doesn't seem to load-balance RAID-1 sets very well, if at all) but my ideal setup would be to partition each of the two disks, mirroring one pair for the startup disk, and use the remaining pair as cache devices for an external ZFS volume (using OpenZFS, since it remains the only real option atm).

With a pair of 2.2Gb/sec (or faster) SSDs backing it as a cache, an external volume ought to be pretty responsive.

 

[deconstruct60]

Maybe I should hold out buying a new Mac Pro else Apple block the next OS X from existing Mac as they they did with my G5 quad core and Mac Pro 1,1.
I'm concerned they will eol the existing units again.

Apple's Vintage/Obsolete/End-of-Life policy has been very stable for years ( pretty sure this is over 10 if not 15 years old in structure).

Vintage and Obsolete.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624

All Mac hardware sold has a EOL policy tagged on it before you even buy it. There is no notion of "eternal life" attached to them at all by Apple.

 

[AirdanMR]

Apple's Vintage/Obsolete/End-of-Life policy has been very stable for years ( pretty sure this is over 10 if not 15 years old in structure).

Vintage and Obsolete.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624

All Mac hardware sold has a EOL policy tagged on it before you even buy it. There is no notion of "eternal life" attached to them at all by Apple.

Noob question here: Does it mean that if you device goes on that EOL list you can't update it to new OS versions anymore?

 

[milo]

It's about freaking time.

 

[deconstruct60]

Noob question here: Does it mean that if you device goes on that EOL list you can't update it to new OS versions anymore?

Pragmatically, Yes. Not just Apple but most software/hardware vendors stop writing new software updates to hardware that has been classified as Obsolete by its maker. They may do it earlier, but in terms of providing software support it makes about zero business sense to keep up with hardware that has been retired. The costs to support software in the context tends to go up over time while the number of users is dramatically going down. Most businesses have fixed amount of money to allocate to support. No money to pay for it leads to no support for businesses that have a desire to remain profitable.

"Can't" as in there are no technically possible hacks to keep it going? No. Those can be available for a while; just not from Apple. Eventually at some point though it highly likely that folks who hack around on the hardware "for free" will drift away also. Not worth throwing away their "free" ( nothing is really free) time on an ever shrinking user base.

 

[virtualSIM]

Hold a "Pro" event in November releasing the Mac Pro and new Skylake MBP's pleaseeeee Apple! That'd be very exciting

And the 5K Thunderbolt Display!

 

[milo]

My point is WHY do you have to have it internal at all?

While you don't need it, an external TB drive (or even TB enclosure) is still vastly more expensive than an internal SSD. Plus, TB ports for external drives are sharing the same busses as monitors not to mention that total TB bandwidth is still much lower than total PCIe bandwidth was in the old machines.

Who knows how long it will be until TB bandwidth finally catches up to the PCIe bandwidth of a 2009 mac pro? Probably not this upcoming refresh and maybe another two years before the next one? You can put a USB3 or TB or SATA III card in if someone makes one. Hell, in theory you could use a PCIe card to add TB3 or USB4 to an old mac if there's a card for it. No way to add TB3 by connecting it to a TB2 port.

Four ram slots is shameful.
Putting in fast PCIe internal SSD is awesome but there's no excuse for not having two of them inside there. Yeah I know the dual GPU eats up lanes but I'd much rather use those for SSD than for that second GPU.
And let's not forget that these machines went from dual CPU to single. 12 core is great but if they kept a dual CPU option we'd be seeing 16 and 24 core machines.

 

[Mums]

The design is not bad... it's a space saver and a conversation piece too. The design really does make sense over something that's going to be bulky and take up 3-4x's the space when not needed.

It may be shaped like a trash can, but it is nonetheless a beautiful design. I agree that it saves space, and it's as quiet and unobtrusive as a mouse. And it's a powerhouse when it's maxed out.

 

[LordVic]

Now you are being facetious.... claiming that because it daisy chains it is anything equivalent to an internal bus.

That would be like saying because USB 2.0 has "bus" in it's name that it would replace all PCIe.

Can you connect up a PCIe bus to Firewire and add in cards if you want, can you connect a SAS controller to it? Can you connect up display adapters to it? It is both significantly higher latency and a smidgen of the throughput.

Yes. You can.

Thunderbolt is an almost direct passthrough for PCI-E to external devices. Many of those devices you listed are available for use under thunderbolt.

For Example PCI-E expansion Chassi: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...t0LLYJnWLA7r4EaAiBc8P8HAQ&is=REG&Q=&A=details

Firewire Expansion: http://www.amazon.ca/Apple-Thunderb...46568717&sr=8-1&keywords=thunderbolt+firewire

Thudnerbolt SAS: http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc...xnxIvY82g3h_DynD9OAk0FbYQ0VOUqR1WYaApb98P8HAQ

The only one you're not goign to see commercially is the Display Adapters, and this is because Intel, who owns the rights and licenses for Thunderbolt refuses to license the technology to GPU expansion pods. HOwever, it has been done through hacks.: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7987/running-an-nvidia-gtx-780-ti-over-thunderbolt-2

 

[LordVic]

My point is WHY do you have to have it internal at all? There is very little need. It's more accessible, you can expand much more. I have an SSD raid on TB2 for Current projects - and offload to a Spinner Raid when it's complete. And I use the internal 1TB for Scratch and Caching.

I also get to take my SSD cluster and Whole computer in a backpack to studios/jobs and wherever I need to go. So long as there is a screen to borrow I am good to go. Can't do that with a Dell Workstation.

I know it's not for everyone...but there ya go!

There's pros and cons to having thingw internal vs external. One shouldn't assume that one side is better than the other, but investigate what their usage cases are.

The problem is, with the new Mac Pro design, you have no choice. It has to be external.

So, say you're a user, maybe not the most advanced user, but you only have need for 2-3 hard drives of various sorts, What is going to be easier / cleaner to setup, maintain and keep clutter free? 2-3 drives inside your computer chassis? or one or two drive arrays sitting on your desk connected by cables to both the thunderbolt port and power on the wall.

Nobody is saying, Having the Thudnerbolt ports as an expansion option is bad. Its fantastic. I think more people just think that the "form over function" for something claiming to be "pro" and aimed at workstation use is not the place to impose artificial expansion limitations on by going for some ridiculously proprietary (Albeit cool) device..

 

[Ebenezum]

Noob question here: Does it mean that if you device goes on that EOL list you can't update it to new OS versions anymore?

Not in all cases. At this moment some 2007 iMac and Macbook Pro models that are obsolete are still supported by El Capitan. While its possible Apple will drop support for them in next OS X version to my knowledge there is no technological reasons for doing so.

 

[JackANSI]

Bluetooth on USB would be odd. Typically Bluetooth is provisioned from the same internal module at Wifi. Broadcom often. In most Mac set-ups that is connected with a 1x PCI-e v2 link.

There are quite a few Macs with the bluetooth connected via USB...

 

[H2SO4]

My point is WHY do you have to have it internal at all? There is very little need. It's more accessible, you can expand much more. I have an SSD raid on TB2 for Current projects - and offload to a Spinner Raid when it's complete. And I use the internal 1TB for Scratch and Caching.

I also get to take my SSD cluster and Whole computer in a backpack to studios/jobs and wherever I need to go. So long as there is a screen to borrow I am good to go. Can't do that with a Dell Workstation.

I know it's not for everyone...but there ya go!

Each to their own as you say but personally, I’d rather have both.

 

[puckhead193]

i'm still holding out for a refresh of the G5

I think my current MP is getting old

 

[4God]

And the 5K Thunderbolt Display!

Now that's what I'm talkin' about! Come on 5K Display!

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Yes. You can.

Thunderbolt is an almost direct passthrough for PCI-E to external devices. Many of those devices you listed are available for use under thunderbolt.

For Example PCI-E expansion Chassi: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...t0LLYJnWLA7r4EaAiBc8P8HAQ&is=REG&Q=&A=details

Firewire Expansion: http://www.amazon.ca/Apple-Thunderb...46568717&sr=8-1&keywords=thunderbolt+firewire

Thudnerbolt SAS: http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc...xnxIvY82g3h_DynD9OAk0FbYQ0VOUqR1WYaApb98P8HAQ

The only one you're not goign to see commercially is the Display Adapters, and this is because Intel, who owns the rights and licenses for Thunderbolt refuses to license the technology to GPU expansion pods. HOwever, it has been done through hacks.: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7987/running-an-nvidia-gtx-780-ti-over-thunderbolt-2

It was claimed that it could be done on Firewire - which I said was facisious..... you are reinforcing my view that the new Mac Pro is more expandable than what people claim is the gold standard in expandability - the old Mac Pro.

 

[LordVic]

It was claimed that it could be done on Firewire - which I said was facisious..... you are reinforcing my view that the new Mac Pro is more expandable than what people claim is the gold standard in expandability - the old Mac Pro.

Yes; once again: the NEW mac Pro is more expansive than the OLD mac pro due to the external ports that were available at the time (USB2) being far insufficient for true external expansion of high throughput devices. This had absolutely nothing to do with the form factor, but the technology present at the time.

Nobody is arguing against this. the OLD 2009 Mac Pro was 5 years old when the new one was released.

However, when they redesigned the 2013 Mac Pro, they could have kept the same form factor, and still added thunderbolt. This would give you both the INTERNAL expansion and EXTERNAL expansion.

but by going to the 'can' format with no expansion available internal, the new 2013 Mac Pro ONLY has external expansion and no internal expansion.

a 2013 Mac Pro with both internal and external expansion options would have been far more expandable than the current iteration.

this really isn't a hard concept to understand.

 

[Max(IT)]

Likewise, I'm more than happy with the design and thinking behind the cooling.
My only reasons for not buying onw is Apple's choice of components.

They could spec very different components and sell a TON of these.
The ultimate gaming computer even. Two Titan X's perhaps and dump with silly CPU's 99.9% of people don't want/need.

DO that and they could take over the high end gaming world.

Or course they wont

If you really think a Mac Pro like a gaming machine, that's the reason you didn't buy one: it isn't.

 

[sudo1996]

I want one without the pricey pro graphics. I just want it for the Xeon. Why isn't this an option? Not every pro user is a 3D graphics designer.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Yes; once again: the NEW mac Pro is more expansive than the OLD mac pro due to the external ports that were available at the time (USB2) being far insufficient for true external expansion of high throughput devices. This had absolutely nothing to do with the form factor, but the technology present at the time.

Nobody is arguing against this. the OLD 2009 Mac Pro was 5 years old when the new one was released.

However, when they redesigned the 2013 Mac Pro, they could have kept the same form factor, and still added thunderbolt. This would give you both the INTERNAL expansion and EXTERNAL expansion.

but by going to the 'can' format with no expansion available internal, the new 2013 Mac Pro ONLY has external expansion and no internal expansion.

a 2013 Mac Pro with both internal and external expansion options would have been far more expandable than the current iteration.

this really isn't a hard concept to understand.

It could have kept the same form factor, but it didn't. Too bad... so sad.... Apple is not going to keep two limited manufacturing run platforms - the market for them does not support it. I am just pleased they actually have a computer that I can replace my Mac Pro when it eventually meets it's demise, or when I have a valid financial use case to replace it. I just find it annoying that people keep on saying the new one is not as expandable as the one I already have maxed out when it is not. Sorry about those that want a big tower, but if I really really wanted a big tower I could still build it... Case, 1/3 height enclosed rack, Mac Pro, Mac Pro rack, 24-drive rack mount drive case, Thunderbolt SAS.... and you still have room to expand inside "the case" (rack enclosure).

 

[LordVic]

It could have kept the same form factor, but it didn't. Too bad... so sad.... Apple is not going to keep to limited manufacturing run platforms - the market for them does not support it. I am just pleased they actually have a computer that I can replace my Mac Pro when it eventually meets it's demise, or when I have a valid financial use case to replace it. I just find it annoying that people keep on saying the new one is not as expandable as the one I already have maxed out when it is not. Sorry about those that want a big tower, but if I really really wanted a big tower I could still build it... Case, 1/3 height enclosed rack, Mac Pro, Mac Pro rack, 24-drive rack mount drive case, Thunderbolt SAS.... and you still have room to expand inside "the case" (rack enclosure).

you're making absolutely no sense.

"Apple is not going to continue making al imited run of cases..."

so, they killed the existing limited run of cases to implement, a more expensive limited run, more proprietary case? there's no point here.

your second pint: if you wanted a tower, you could still build it...

sure, but now you're spending an extremely high amount of money to replicate exactly what you had before. Thats what we call downgrading, not upgrading.

Taking away features and functionalityu, just to then further re-sell you those features and functionalities as Accessories is absolutely insulting to consumers.

as I said, I think the design itself is really cool of the new form factor, But the form factor itself is extremely limitting to what COULD have been done. The new Mac Pro was absolutely a situation where Apple wanted you to have a shiny item on your desk to show off, vs a standard computer tower tucked away somewhere. And in order to do this, they severely limited the capabilities of the form factor.

And as I said before, The external expandability of the 2009 Mac Pro had nothing to do with the form factor, and had everything to do with the technological capabilities fo the era. The current Mac Pro however, has it's expandability completely dictated by the form factor. And this is why Many people want nothing to do with it.

 

[LordVic]

I want one without the pricey pro graphics. I just want it for the Xeon. Why isn't this an option? Not every pro user is a 3D graphics designer.

yup! as a database guy and sometimes coder, What the hell do i care about 2x Professional grade GPUs? why the hell would I pay the premium for the new Mac Pro when likely, most of the cost is going to a 'feature' that 90% of the 'professional' world will never benefit from.

Pain and simple: the new Mac Pro, while extremely powerful, is a very niche product. It's aimed at Video and Image producers who also want a device that can "show off" by sitting on their desktops in viewable site. the "look" of the device is more a feature to many than the performance capabilities.

 

[dai613-2]

What GPU options? Will regular sized GPU's fit in current enclosure?

I would think the Fury Nano would be a good option (maybe the Fury Nano was designed for use in Mac Pros to begin with?). But early reports say the Fury Nano has a terrible coil whine.

 

[dwarg]

The design is not bad... it's a space saver and a conversation piece too. The design really does make sense over something that's going to be bulky and take up 3-4x's the space when not needed.

I currently use an iMac as my work machine for maximum single core performance 4Ghz. Then off load to my render farm for multi-threaded distributed computing tasks. Which is what Pros do. We don't sit around having conversations about how small, quiet and sexy our over-priced and under-powered computers are.

Sure, make it as small, quiet and sexy as you can. But if you're sacrificing power and speed for aesthetics, then you're not building it for pros.

The ONLY thing the current Mac Pro makes any sense for is if you're a Final Cut Pro video editor. Outside of that, nothing really leverages the power of its dual AMD graphics cards. Unless you work in Final Cut Pro a majority of the time, buying the current Mac Pro is essentially failing an IQ test.

I have a bank of 5 "cheese grater" Mac Pros in the room next to me serving as a render farm. I'd love to be investing in new technology, but I also like that I can buy better technology off eBay cheap. I just bought two more cheese graters a few weeks ago. I know of another creative agency doing the same in my town. They stuff them with Nvidia cards for Octane GPU rendering. I use the CPUs at a purchase cost of $40 per Ghz. The current trash can Mac Pros run you over $200 per Ghz (cost/(cores*Ghz)). Also, you can't even get a machine as fast, in CPU terms, today from Apple as you could from Apple 5 years ago. So I bought a 5 year old Mac Pro off eBay for $1700 that outperforms the closest competing new Mac Pro which is slower and would cost you over $7000.