Rumor Suggests Replacement for Mac Pro Due in April or May

[dragje]

That's not what I meant. What I mean is that the Mac Pro is insanely powerful and most people just don't need it, think about it. It's 12 processor cores, up to (unofficially) 128GB of RAM and I think something like 8TB of storage.

The iMac is both cheaper yet it goes up to 32GB of RAM, 3TB (I think) and still has dedicated graphics, so it's quite capable of doing the same thing, just with less RAM and 8 processor cores less.

The Mac Pro is a workstation grade computer, it's not like I was saying "Apple should throw it out the door".

True! But you're missing one aspect tough, I like to be able to put the latest graphic cards from third party manufactures into my computer. The iMac might be suitable to do lot's of things with it, for me machines can't be fast enough due of render time and being able to do multitasking jobs a fat amount of big files.

The problem I have with the iMac is that you 'still' pay a lot of money for it (still as revering to the fact Apple products are still to expensive in my point of view) but you can't do anything else with it except for clustering other devises on it using usb 3 and lightbolt maybe.... but you're stuck when you would like to put in a new graphics card for example and for many users out there, even more you might think, that's incredible important feature.....

I also think it's very unprofessional what Apple has done with it's Mac Pro users market. Apple DID had a say in the professional editing world with Final Cut Pro and destroyed it's position in one day when trowing an all ready good editing program overboard to come up with an editing program made for children. I have seen studio owners gone mad about it, not being able to load in once more their old projects and not even be able to restore the 'old' Final Cut program since Apple didn't allow that. YES Apple did take notice of the tons of justified criticism it got and restored the option of being able to re-use the old program quickly and YES Final Cut Pro -these days- is starting to look good once more (took a year or two....)....
But this all said, Apple DID loose a lot of professional users due of these mistakes made by Apple and yes, those where mistakes made by Apple....

Don't forget that editors, especially those working with an increasing demand for 2K video (soonish even 4K) need fast computers, computers with graphic cards that easily can handle those criteria. Even more important, when new graphic cards comes out and made ready for use with a Apple pro, many people do want this....

I even go as far that Apple has no choice other then to restore it's position it once had, that of a professional player not only for the masses. There where days I saw Apple at IBC (International Broadcasting Conference) in Amsterdam the Netherlands each year, but they are not their any longer. Reason? Because their hardware for the professional market is no longer a player compared with other companies. Simple as that.

Don't get me wrong, I love Apple products, working on it myself and love being able to work on them in the future, but a NEW Mac pro is defiantly needed if Apple seriously means that it does play a role in the professional market. I'm glad to see that Apple seems to understand what they have done wrong in the past.

 

[makaveli559m]

With a name like Mac Pro I would still think they would also come with optical drives and please no replies and comments about how they are not need or how you can add externals or how the huge price would be justified.

 

[iBug2]

My MacPro 2008 currently has 4 internal drives (2x2Tb, 2x1Tb) plus, sitting on top) 3x2Tb external LaCie drives in a mini rack. It sits on my desk next to its ACD30 display. Nice and quiet.

Everything is compact and self contained.

Providing the next MacPro can match this I'm in. I don't want loads of external thunderbolt drives scattered around a 'thin' cut-down MacPro 'lite'. If Apple kept the box the same, even with 2.5inch drive bays, I'd be happy to shout down the kiddies who'd moan about "old" design. Same/similar box, new internal architecture would make me happy. New ACD30 would be the cherry on the top but I can see me, reluctantly, giving my money to Dell for the first time there.

The thing is I don't use the internal bays of my Mac Pro. For people with a lot of storage, internal is useless. I have dozens of HD's so I need access to them constantly. So I have been using external enclosures since 2009 and it is much more practical to replace the drives than opening up a Mac Pro. So I would like it if Apple got rid of all internal bays in next Mac Pro, including the superdrive and made a slimmer one, I'd love that. Storage is mostly external now. Just do not get rid of PCI bays.

----------

There's no questioning the fact that the mac pro is probably at a historically overly inflated price with respect to its hardware. Which is why I'm guessing so many people in this thread are asking for the entry level upgradable mac pro to drop back to $1,500 where it use to be and the hardware to match the price.

Once the update comes then you can run your comparison, until then it's just a red herring.

Ultimately the issue is about not locking your money in the planned obsolescence of an iMac and having it work for you as long as possible in something that is highly upgradable like the mac pro. 2GB of video ram might look sexy to you now but give it two years when volta drops and then not so much. I like to get a solid 4-5 years out of a machine. My 8core 2008 mac pro with 32gb of ram is holding well enough. I have 2 new video cards available to me with the possibility of a 3rd coming in the mac pro. How well do you think an iMac from 2008 would look against that?

The thing is though you can buy 3 iMac in 6 years instead of one Mac Pro. So you would be upgrading the internals of your iMac in a sense, by upgrading the whole thing. Then again, a top of the line Mac Pro will be faster than a 2 year ahead iMac in multicore work, but not at single core jobs. So if your work consists of single core threads most of the time, buying and selling iMacs might make more sense.

 

[dragje]

There's no questioning the fact that the mac pro is probably at a historically overly inflated price with respect to its hardware. Which is why I'm guessing so many people in this thread are asking for the entry level upgradable mac pro to drop back to $1,500 where it use to be and the hardware to match the price.

Once the update comes then you can run your comparison, until then it's just a red herring.

Ultimately the issue is about not locking your money in the planned obsolescence of an iMac and having it work for you as long as possible in something that is highly upgradable like the mac pro. 2GB of video ram might look sexy to you now but give it two years when volta drops and then not so much. I like to get a solid 4-5 years out of a machine. My 8core 2008 mac pro with 32gb of ram is holding well enough. I have 2 new video cards available to me with the possibility of a 3rd coming in the mac pro. How well do you think an iMac from 2008 would look against that?

Very true, but because Mac Pro's last longer then iMac's in my view as well because you can equip it with new devices I love to see what Apple will bring when delivering a new Mac Pro. I would love to buy an up to date Mac Pro that can last for the next 4 years or more.... why?

1. The new mac pro would be capable of using the latest graphic cards + new ones in the future

2. The fast amount of ram possibilities enables me to create a machine that in 4 years time will still be very ok to work with because 128 gig internal memory will still be a lot by that time...

3. I don't need a new Mac Pro to play PacMan on it faster then it's previous versions but because 4K and a bit later 8K video will be the next big thing. 4 times the amount of HD footage requires a good working machine

4. For the reason you all ready mentioned, I like to invest in a machine like I did years ago with my current mac pro in a way that it's still very workable on this very moment. My Mac Pro is still as good as the newest iMac today, in fact in some cases even better... but that's techno talk...

Enough reasons for me to get my hands on a device that will bring me 'safe' toward the end of this decade.

 

[iBug2]

Very true, but because Mac Pro's last longer then iMac's in my view as well because you can equip it with new devices I love to see what Apple will bring when delivering a new Mac Pro. I would love to buy an up to date Mac Pro that can last for the next 4 years or more.... why?

1. The new mac pro would be capable of using the latest graphic cards + new ones in the future

2. The fast amount of ram possibilities enables me to create a machine that in 4 years time will still be very ok to work with because 128 gig internal memory will still be a lot by that time...

3. I don't need a new Mac Pro to play PacMan on it faster then it's previous versions but because 4K and a bit later 8K video will be the next big thing. 4 times the amount of HD footage requires a good working machine

4. For the reason you all ready mentioned, I like to invest in a machine like I did years ago with my current mac pro in a way that it's still very workable on this very moment. My Mac Pro is still as good as the newest iMac today, in fact in some cases even better... but that's techno talk...

Enough reasons for me to get my hands on a device that will bring me 'safe' toward the end of this decade.

Then your Mac Pro is quite new. My Mac Pro 2008 is slower than my retina Mbp in pretty much everything. Mbp has Ram that is twice as fast, it has SATA III, faster CPU, and an equivalently fast GPU to HD5870. So a 5 year old Mac Pro certainly is slower than top of the line laptops of today, and iMacs are even faster.

 

[H2SO4]

This a option. Don't need a Mac Pro is overpriced and no real roadmap they don't care about real pro users. You can have a great Workstation based on PC:
Custom made, HP Z, Leonovo and Boxx. Well configured is great. REALLY GREAT.

I switch form a Mac Pro to a custom workstation and use a Macbook Pro and i don't regret a single day!
The best from both world's!

P.S.: Only for open minds!

Odd post, it's like BMW saying. We don't need a Land Rover it's overpriced, they don't care about farmers. You can have a great off roader with all the options based on a Qashqai or a custom made car.

 

[komodrone]

Can I ask.. why would that be?
You really think everyone here is interested on Mac Pros?

I really think that most people wouldn't care about articles on startup companies making an app where you can watch movies with other friends online over webcam.

 

[gto55]

at least you can find some nice concepts

 

[Zwhaler]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....what a joke! Really?

Seriously... in the next several months? Hold off until we know it's just a few months away. Basically this is the same old story.

 

[H2SO4]

at least you can find some nice concepts

ImageImage

Like it a lot but how do you get access?

 

[xDeLiRiOuSx]

Looking for to the announcement!

I really hope they bring a new 30" ACD to their display line up too!

 

[iBug2]

I really think that most people wouldn't care about articles on startup companies making an app where you can watch movies with other friends online over webcam.

Looking for to the announcement!

I really hope they bring a new 30" ACD to their display line up too!

I do not think they will do that until we see higher res screens at 30-33 inches.

 

[hvfsl]

I'll bet all the drive bays (prob 5 of them) will be 2.5" drives (like SSD's)


If they do that...they can seriously shrink down the size of the box. I would not mind this since I only use SSD's already.

thoughts?

best,
SvK

I guess it is possible. Especially as there are signs the newmac pro will be rack mountable, they might want to get the width down so when it is laying on its side in the rack, it doesn't take up too much space.

Users that want lots of cheaper 3.5inch drives could go with an external inclosure.

 

[Macman45]

this can't come soon enough.

Hmm....Anybody want buy a brand new iMac?

 

[haravikk]

Hmm, nice idea, but they'd have to either have a couple custom build options, or supply a RAID card that has both internal and external ports.

I'm not sure they need to; an internal controller for however many drives can fit internally would still be a big improvement; so long as they still provide a way to fit third party cards that can support both internal and external devices then I think it would be fine. I mean, I think most Mac Pro users would be fine with 4+ internal drives in a RAID, plus a nice big external drive with its own RAID. While it'd be great if they covered mixed internal/external RAID, that's probably something best left to third parties as that kind of hardware built in would be too expensive I think. I'm just talking about covering basic RAID use as standard, as it's pretty poor to have workstations with no RAID capability at all when even budget gaming motherboards these days have at least some limited options!

I don't know of anyone who would need something as powerful as the Mac Pro other than people who really require a Workstation-class machine.

You mean… like a Mac Pro? I don't understand the point there; people using Mac Pros use them because they want a Mac workstation for image and video editing, 3d design, high end programming etc.

I mean, my main workload is programming, and I know the high end iMac is a decent performer, but when it comes to making lots of intermediate builds for testing, I'll happily pay a premium to shave time off lengthy compile times, as the iMac is really just a heap of laptop parts masquerading as a desktop; a great desktop, but it's still not got the performance that Mac Pro users crave and/or need.

If you don't need rack-mount then a desktop iMac is most likely going to be enough for you.

It really isn't; I can't slap 5 internal hard-drives into an iMac, and I notice a distinct lack of an 8-core or higher option on the processor, or high-end, upgradable graphics cards, or PCIe slots, or server grade RAM or processors. Hell, low-profile/low-energy computing has come a long way, but there are still better desktop class parts out there.

While I could do what I do on an iMac, it would be slower even than what I have now, as I generally require a lot of parallelism, but nowhere near a cluster of rack-mounted machines. It would also severely limit my options for future upgrades; while Apple might be fine with me having to buy a whole new machine to increase speed, I generally prefer to have more options on adding extra RAM, hard-drives, and a beefier graphics card first.

 

[dirtymagician]

Soon as i saw that picture i thought "why are apple starting to make electric razors?"

Think i need more sleep!

 

[BvizioN]

I really think that most people wouldn't care about articles on startup companies making an app where you can watch movies with other friends online over webcam.

Agreed. But there is some who like them. So in order for this site to please everyone (keep readers coming back here) they have to post various stuff, even stuff that many of us find it sometimes very boring. Personally I don't waste time with the ones I have no interest, I only read the title and move on.

 

[chaosbunny]

Then your Mac Pro is quite new. My Mac Pro 2008 is slower than my retina Mbp in pretty much everything. Mbp has Ram that is twice as fast, it has SATA III, faster CPU, and an equivalently fast GPU to HD5870. So a 5 year old Mac Pro certainly is slower than top of the line laptops of today, and iMacs are even faster.

Sure - except the 650m is slower than the 5870 - just have a look at the games forum, the 650m struggles to play The Witcher 2 at medium/high settings while I could play that game on high/ultra settings and 2560x1440 without any problems.

But it took the mbps and iMacs 4 years to catch up to the Mac Pros from 2008. In 2008 a new mbp was also faster than a PowerMac from 2004.

 

[iBug2]

Sure - except the 650m is slower than the 5870 - just have a look at the games forum, the 650m struggles to play The Witcher 2 at medium/high settings while I could play that game on high/ultra settings and 2560x1440 without any problems.

But it took the mbps and iMacs 4 years to catch up to the Mac Pros from 2008. In 2008 a new mbp was also faster than a PowerMac from 2004.

Well 650m is slower but the difference is negligable for most games and since the cpu is faster some games run even faster on my MBP. And ofc it took 4 years for laptops to catch up to Mac Pro, and that is what I said. If someone has a Mac Pro that is considerably faster than todays top of the line iMac, then that must be a more recent Mac Pro. The issue with Mac Pro is this: Unless you are doing a lot of multithreaded work, iMac is faster since the single core speeds of i7 CPUs in iMacs are higher than Xeons in Mac Pros. So if your work is 10% multithread 90% single thread, an iMac might be more or less the same speed as Mac Pro overall. And most of the Mac Pro users still deal with a lot of single or 2-4 thread work. Other than rendering and compiling, few processes can use 24 threads at the same time. So the core difference of Mac Pros will show itself in rare cases. Phototshop is multithreaded yet I do not see it using more than 200% cpu on my Mac Pro most of the time. When apps start taking advantage of dozens of cores on every operation possible a workstation will make more sense than today imho. And some calculations are by design not multithreadable.

 

[69650]

Looks like they are going to release just about everything in the second half of the year again. Big sigh.

I'll be interested to see if they keep the Mac Pro and Mac Mini or merge them into one scalable machine.

 

[haravikk]

at least you can find some nice concepts

Not sure I like either of those images; switching the Mac Pro's vents to the sides makes no sense as it would make access harder, and require huge, or a very large number of fans; unless they went with liquid cooling I don't see any way to pull that off without severely limiting the internal space, and even then it would be an incredibly awkward arrangement. Besides which, towers should be able to go under desks, but in those situations air flow to the sides may be limited. As much as I like the look of the front panel I just don't see it.

If they want to increase airflow then the obvious choices are the top and bottom of the tower, as the handles currently mean this is dead-space anyway, though I do use the understand of mine for routing the vast amount of cables I have connecting everything together. However, adding vents to the top could allow them to cool some components simply by moving them to the top of the machine, potentially eliminating a fan.

As for the second mock-up; I don't see what's doing for the machine. Slapping an LCD screen on the front is redundant as it would add cost, complexity and limit airflow for a feature most Mac Pro users will never see, and I'm not sure who a glowing blue apple symbol helps


The reason the PowerMac G5 (or more specifically the Mac Pro) design really worked is because gave us a true workstation layout with plenty of space, a focus on airflow, and easy access to all the user-serviceable internals such as drives and memory. It's pure function, that just happens to look good at the same time.

That said, I did love the look of the XServe G5 with its prominent front air intakes. If Apple could do something similar with a mixture of flat panels interspersed with air-intakes, then it could give a different style that might still be functional. Again, with liquid cooling as standard they could possibly reduce the size of the machine if they use a decently intelligent system, possibly limiting the machine to only needing one or two fans for cooling a single huge heat-sink.
I'd also love XServe style hot-swappable drives.

Actually, you could maybe combine the concepts; take the current form-factor, but move the hard-drives to the top of the machine but with room for eight, hot-swappable disk caddies, with a vent on top to cool the top four. Inside you have a big fan at either end of the PCIe slots, pulling cool air over them (and also across the underside of the lower four drive bays). Then liquid cooling applied directly to the memory modules, power supply and processors at the bottom of the machine, and maybe also cooling the intake fan of the PCIe bays for good measure, with one big heatsink and a fan at the back to cool that off.

The only issue is a location for an optical drive, but if they use a low-profile slot-loading one then they could easily fit it somewhere, possibly by adding a small gap between layers of hard-drives. But yeah, that would give you a design where the accessible side panel is for the memory and PCIe cards only, with directly accessible hard-drive caddies (still secure by the latch though).

 

[chaosbunny]

Well 650m is slower but the difference is negligable for most games and since the cpu is faster some games run even faster on my MBP. And ofc it took 4 years for laptops to catch up to Mac Pro, and that is what I said. If someone has a Mac Pro that is considerably faster than todays top of the line iMac, then that must be a more recent Mac Pro. The issue with Mac Pro is this: Unless you are doing a lot of multithreaded work, iMac is faster since the single core speeds of i7 CPUs in iMacs are higher than Xeons in Mac Pros. So if your work is 10% multithread 90% single thread, an iMac might be more or less the same speed as Mac Pro overall. And most of the Mac Pro users still deal with a lot of single or 2-4 thread work. Other than rendering and compiling, few processes can use 24 threads at the same time. So the core difference of Mac Pros will show itself in rare cases. Phototshop is multithreaded yet I do not see it using more than 200% cpu on my Mac Pro most of the time. When apps start taking advantage of dozens of cores on every operation possible a workstation will make more sense than today imho. And some calculations are by design not multithreadable.

Very true - for some folks the iMac is a great sollution, just not for all. I had one before I bought my Mac Pro in 2010 and now I'd rather switch to Windows than get an all-in-one desktop again.

For me the iMac has the disadvantages of a laptop (not upgrade/serviceable, mobile gpu, not much internal storage, etc.) AND the disadvantages of a desktop (I can't take it with me).

I use my machine for a lot of different things, graphic design, illustrations, 3D, video editing, gaming, ... and I don't like buying and selling my computer every 2 years.

 

[jamesjingyi]

Mac Pro now pls

 

[Lesser Evets]

Then your Mac Pro is quite new. My Mac Pro 2008 is slower than my retina Mbp in pretty much everything. Mbp has Ram that is twice as fast, it has SATA III, faster CPU, and an equivalently fast GPU to HD5870. So a 5 year old Mac Pro certainly is slower than top of the line laptops of today, and iMacs are even faster.

Are you actually using the computers or looking at the "benchmarks"?

I use a variety of new and old Mac products, my mainstay is a 2006 MP tower with 2 processors upgraded mildly last year. The upgraded MacPro is still faster to use than any newer non-Pro Mac because of dual processors. Using single-processor Macs made today are still like struggling through neck-deep mud compared to the 2006 MP.

There is a massive difference between single and multi-processor Macs. While a MBP of 2013 is definitely faster than iMacs and Minis and other notebooks of yesteryears, I wouldn't use it in place of a DP MacPro of any year. Yet.

... I would love to buy an up to date Mac Pro that can last for the next 4 years or more.... why?

1. The new mac pro would be capable of using the latest graphic cards + new ones in the future

2. The fast amount of ram possibilities enables me to create a machine that in 4 years time will still be very ok to work with because 128 gig internal memory will still be a lot by that time...

3. I don't need a new Mac Pro to play PacMan on it faster then it's previous versions but because 4K and a bit later 8K video will be the next big thing. 4 times the amount of HD footage requires a good working machine

4. For the reason you all ready mentioned, I like to invest in a machine like I did years ago with my current mac pro in a way that it's still very workable on this very moment. My Mac Pro is still as good as the newest iMac today, in fact in some cases even better... but that's techno talk...

Enough reasons for me to get my hands on a device that will bring me 'safe' toward the end of this decade.

Agreed. The MacPro I have has been the best computer investment to date, and I've owned dozens of computers over 30 years and worked on/with dozens more models (especially in recent years). The MacPro has been brilliant, even 1,1 is very good with all function, and I expect it to go another 2 years before it MUST be upgraded; so the $/year will beat any lower-end Mac while providing a better computing platform. High points for thrift across time, high points for satisfaction of product, highest points for longevity.

 

[iBug2]

Are you actually using the computers or looking at the "benchmarks"?

I use a variety of new and old Mac products, my mainstay is a 2006 MP tower with 2 processors upgraded mildly last year. The upgraded MacPro is still faster to use than any newer non-Pro Mac because of dual processors. Using single-processor Macs made today are still like struggling through neck-deep mud compared to the 2006 MP.

There is a massive difference between single and multi-processor Macs. While a MBP of 2013 is definitely faster than iMacs and Minis and other notebooks of yesteryears, I wouldn't use it in place of a DP MacPro of any year. .

2012 mbp's are faster than my 2008 8 core Mac Pro in every task I threw at so far. It renders faster, it compiles code faster, games run faster, desktop operations are faster. And it is expected. It has a faster everything inside. Mac Pro may have a slight edge in operations where 8 full threads are used continuously but the speed difference is around 10% and the twice as fast RAM inside mbp makes up for that loss by loading data faster to the cpu. So the overall speed is not affected much.