You're changing the context. I was responding to "but you're not giving any justification for the extra expenditure." and "no justifiable reason for spending $150".
I'm giving reasons for the $150 expenditure.
Okay. Then to clarify my stance (so we can stop running around in circles here). Breakout boxes are fine. But if given the choice between an actual PCIe slot and a breakout box, there's no reason to go with the breakout box unless we're dealing with the kinds of penny-pinchers you refer to later on (and even then, penny pinching in IT is always a recipe for disaster).
Talking about in the context for what Apple's initial intentions were for the 2013 Mac Pro.
I understand the logic that you and 2013 Apple were going with. The fact of the matter is that it sucked and enough people hated it that it was never tried again and, in all likelihood it probably won't be tried again until many many years from now.
GPUs back in 2013 could absolutely throttle due to too much heat
GPUs in a cylindrical confined space WOULD absolutely throttle due to too much heat. GPUs in towers and workstations have dedicated cooling (or, in the case of the 2019 Mac Pro, cooling that is coordinated with the system's overall cooling) that would render that problem moot. The GPU architecture was also a huge reason for the design being abandoned.
Like I said, lack of Mac Pro updates and Thunderbolt 2 restricted the concept of floating cards. Therefore of course it's not a super common use case because it was never given a shot.
Are you suggesting that Pro customers who clamored for another tower would consider another cylinder with Thunderbolt 3 instead of Thunderbolt 2? Because I'm pretty sure the reaction to 100% external expansion was met with unilateral distaste among those communities. Frankly, I thought it was an interesting idea at the time. But I for many industries that are not prepared to move everything to breakout boxes and/or Thunderbolt 3 external versions of longstanding cards, I can see where there'd be tons of resistance.
Which means you're buying PCI-E enclosures to plug it in.
No, it means you have a CHOICE. Pros like CHOICE. They don't like Apple telling them what they want when they clearly don't want better.
You literally said " not spending $150 debate with no justifiable reason ".
I'm saying that if I have a slot, why do I need to spend $150 on a breakout box? For MacBook Pros, iMacs, and Mac minis, a breakout box is awesome and exactly what the doctor ordered. But on a workstation, I shouldn't HAVE to spend the money when a PCIe slot would suffice just as well, if not better. You're not selling me on the notion of a breakout box being better FOR A MAC PRO than a PCIe slot. Only on the notion that it's utilitarian for Macs that don't have that luxury.
If Thunderbolt 3 was enough to remedy the problem, we would've had a second cylinder in 2016 or 2017 with Thunderbolt 3, newer Xeons, and GPUs that might not be as performant as the D300-D700 cards were relative to 2013, but still way more performant than those cards in raw performance and that would've suited fine in that design architecture. However, that didn't happen. What we got instead was an iMac Pro that more or less served the same overall purpose as the 2013 Mac Pro and as a stop-gap, not as Apple's Mac Pro endgame strategy. They took in feedback from Pro users. It wasn't that Apple didn't want to consider it. They did, and their buyers revolted and told them that they were going to switch platforms if they didn't do something about it.
They didn't because of the thermal design for the GPUs. Not sure how you expect Apple to sell an updated Mac Pro four years later with only 1 new feature: "Thunderbolt 3".
You say this as though Apple hasn't released updated Mac Pro models that only offer modest gains over their predecessors. The 2010 was a modest bump from the 2009 model and the 2012 model is the same exact Mac as the 2010 model. You really can just slap a newer Xeon (Intel is always making newer Xeons) and an updated GPU (again, use something less powerful, but still more performant than its predecessor and that solves the GPU design architecture problems if only for one or two refreshes). It's not like they would've ONLY shipped Thunderbolt 3. Though, you keep making the claim that Thunderbolt 3 would've made the difference, so I'm not sure why you're contradicting yourself here.
Except base price of the tower Mac Pro is $5999 while trash can was $2999. You literally are paying extra for the PCI-e slots.
You say that as though that's ALL I'm paying for. Also, of note, the Mac Pro cost $1000 more than the iMac Pro and the iMac Pro operated on the same premise as the 2013 Mac Pro; good if you either don't need internal expansion and/or can get by with external expansion. And this time with Thunderbolt 3.
Mac Pro 2013 didn't implement a professional program, so no.
Not any official one. But certainly, Apple didn't do anything to expressly prohibit people to design pro accessories around the 2013 Mac Pro.
I'm asserting that since Thunderbolt 3 was not given a chance due to lack of updates, you can't say for sure whether or not it would have failed.
I CAN say for sure that it would've failed because Apple's decision to abandon it was entirely predicated on the overwhelming feedback of the pro customers who deemed it a failure. It failed because people didn't want it. People told Apple they didn't want it. So, Apple, accordingly abandoned it. If anyone wasn't giving it a shot, it was the Mac Pro customer base, not Apple. Apple GAVE it a shot.
Certainly if the iMac Pro was successful enough at turning it all around, Apple might have given that machine a refresh around the time the 2019 Mac Pro came out for those that prefer that form factor and external expansion; but they didn't.
- the company that originally did the chipset no longer exists, or isn't willing to expend the effort to offer new drivers
You could distill my point on that topic down to this point. That's typically the primary cause for a given Intel Mac to be left out of a major new macOS release.
