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

Rumor Suggests Replacement for Mac Pro Due in April or May

milo said:
Except that they don't. Especially if you're talking about a small footprint box or something modular. Development costs of that would be very high while updating the MP would be much cheaper.

Fewer models isn't always better, it only makes sense when a new model actually meets the needs of both markets it's trying to hit, and as pointed out before, when the benefits outweigh the costs.

We agree on the problem Apple faces: the market for a high end machine is relatively small.

My proposed solution is: update the MP to the latest components as simply and cheaply as they are able to do.

Your proposed solution is: design a whole new box ($$) that is closer in size to a mini ($$), and somehow meets the needs of high end users as well as lower end users. That takes much more resources and is much higher risk of ending up not making anyone happy.

Exactly. But making a good profit isn't just good sales, it's good sales relative to development costs, and your idea has much higher development costs.


And I don't agree that can be done. This is a situation where there are two different markets and it makes more sense to just design two different products.
Click to expand...

I hear some of the things you are saying. But I am not really here to solve Apple's business on profit.

What I am addressing is a unit that is powerful enough for the pros that will be updated often enough to keep the pro market happy.

If this can also be benefited by more consumers, then Apple is on to something. Otherwise, say goodbye to the Mac Pro because Apple is not making enough on the small market compared to the mass consumers.

Now that Apple realizes this and they have penetrated the mass consumers, it makes even more Apple reluctant to focus on the Pro market. They have never made Apple profitable as today - just barely sustainable. I am sure Apple is enjoying it's success too much to focus on the pro market as time soon. Sorry but that is the reality. Apple exists as a business. Their specialty and target market is no longer pros. Hopefully, they will continue to consider creative industry as their included market.
 
Last edited:
Philoman said:
say goodbye to the Mac Pro because Apple is not making enough on the small market compared to the mass consumers.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, but nobody outside of Apple knows how many they're selling and how much they're making on it. And even Apple doesn't know how much sales would go up if they update. And apple doesn't need to "focus" on the pro market, obviously they don't have infinite resources but it's not like they'd have to shut down iPhone development to get the MP from sata II to sata III. They're a big company, they have had multiple product lines for years, and they've demonstrated that they can work on those multiple product lines at once without the building bursting into flames.

Honestly, the idea that spending a ton of money on a complex "solution" that tries to appeal to everyone (and has a good shot at failing and not making that money back) makes more sense than just doing a cheap and simple update is just baffling. You seem to think that if a company has one product that's more successful than other ones, the only strategy that makes sense is to stop making all those other products and just sell the one - really, is it that hard to see that there's some value in offering an actual line of products instead of just trying to sell one thing and trying to make it appeal to everyone?
 
Philoman said:
Agree on the first comment.

As for the pro, I am a pro. I work in front of a computer for the design industry all day - not video or 3D or large graphics.
Most designers do not need the full powers of a Mac Pro.

If wish for the Mac mini that is equal or a little more powerful than the high-end imac.
Click to expand...

Once you take out assembling large comp files to fpos, CG, motion graphics, and video, you can easily do all of that on a Mini unless it lacks some kind of specific hardware that could be accommodated by PCI slots or it won't support enough displays. Graphic design is not terribly resource intensive relative to modern hardware.

Philoman said:
I understand. What I am saying it that "the people doing work that demands a high end machine" are not large enough market for Apple be highly profitable due to various reasons. Many companies are using PCs due to cost. Consumers are willing to pay more but the there isn't a large market for that either compared to selling iPhone and iPads.

This my reason for a unit that can serve the pros and the mass consumers!
A modular mac that you can add to the base.

Base Unit
+ Processor option (Apple BTO)
+ GPU (Apple BTO or 3rd party)
+ Ram option (Apple BTO or 3rd party)
+ Storage option (Apple BTO or 3rd party)
+ etc.
Click to expand...

Everything you've stated is remarkably stupid and uniformed, in spite of your patronizing attitude. Did anyone question whether Apple needs to profit from their ventures to maintain interest in them? Trying to turn it into modules is just regurgitated thunderbolt kool-aid. A few tech bloggers saw an updated protocol and got excited, but it's not really designed as an infiniband like solution, and such a solution really just complicates the offering and makes it more expensive. It's also the opposite of what Apple usually attempts. They like concepts like the imac as it includes the sale of a display. You won't see a merger with something like the Mini. Different cpu classes use different sockets and chipsets.
 
wilhoitm said:
For those of us that do 3D lets hope that the new Mac Pro is still large enough to put one or two of these in it.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-titan/specifications (NVIDIA TITAN)

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-690/specifications (NVIDIA GTX 690)

With enough power to support a card or cards of these types, these cards require 250W to 300W each!

P. S. And we need PCI Express 3.0 too! :eek:
Click to expand...

Good luck with that.

Everyone else wants Thunderbolt integrated. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the new Mac Pro will come with Thunderbolt (and not accept standard PCI-e video cards of any kind, since Thunderbolt will require a customized graphics card slot to work with a discrete removable GPU), or it won't come with Thunderbolt and will work much in the same way the Mac Pro does today.

Given the number of people crying for a TB-enabled Mac Pro, and assuming Apple actually listened to them- you can basically kiss your dreams of stuffing any modern day GPU into the new Mac Pro goodbye.

-SC
 
I don't think having TB conflicts with discrete GPUs.

For TB-compatible PC mobos, you could just merge the signals to be output by TB/MDP and everything work as it should. (GPU still process 3D, TB still fully intact) It shouldn't be that hard to implement.
 
JayMBP said:
I don't think having TB conflicts with discrete GPUs.

For TB-compatible PC mobos, you could just merge the signals to be output by TB/MDP and everything work as it should. (GPU still process 3D, TB still fully intact) It shouldn't be that hard to implement.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is.

Asus's solution uses a loopback cable that plugs into the discrete GPU on one end, and the Thunderbolt card on the other. The Thunderbolt card "captures" the DisplayPort data and routes it through the TB port.

Apple is unlikely to go for such a crude solution.

That leaves three choices:

1) Make a Mac Pro that has an upgradable GPU on an MXM carrier (like the older iMacs), but doesn't support running a discrete PCI-e GPU over Thunderbolt

2) Make a Mac Pro that has the GPU soldered onto the logic board, but once again doesn't support running a discrete PCI-e GPU over Thunderbolt

3) Make a custom GPU PCB (similar to the AGP video cards that supported ADC, they had an extra edge connector for the monitor data) that has the DisplayPort output on the PCB itself, and routes into a proprietary connector on the logic board

TB is not compatible with the "idea" Mac Pro. It is for integrated systems. The Mac Pro has PCI-e slots. It does not need Thunderbolt (tough **** if you bought a TB monitor and now you can't use it). By forcing Thunderbolt into the Mac Pro, you effectively limit the expansion capabilities of the machine in one or more ways.

-SC
 
Price is my main concern.

There hasn't been an affordable, user expandable tower system since they switched to Intel CPUs but in the G3 - G5 days there was always something at the low end, just as upgradable as the high end but with 1 CPU and an entry level GPU.

I know they're Xeon workstations, not desktops built with Core i7s but there still needs to be something at a much lower price than £2099 that isn't some compromise of an all-in-one "laptop for your desk" system.

They also need to offer significant CPU performance over lower end systems. For raw CPU power, the BTO 2.6Ghz Mac Mini with 16Gb of third party RAM is faster than the current entry level Mac Pro. It needs to start with a 20,000+ geekbench score and offer that system for £1,500 or less to be viable as far as I'm concerned. All the expansion in the world can't make up for such pitiful CPU power compared with their lower end systems, particularly when the power required for a Xeon based system is sigificantly higher than the 85 watts of the Mac Mini
 
ScottishCaptain said:
Good luck with that.

Everyone else wants Thunderbolt integrated. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the new Mac Pro will come with Thunderbolt (and not accept standard PCI-e video cards of any kind, since Thunderbolt will require a customized graphics card slot to work with a discrete removable GPU), or it won't come with Thunderbolt and will work much in the same way the Mac Pro does today.

Given the number of people crying for a TB-enabled Mac Pro, and assuming Apple actually listened to them- you can basically kiss your dreams of stuffing any modern day GPU into the new Mac Pro goodbye.

-SC
Click to expand...

If they have to choose one, and they pick their niche, novelty I/O interface over the ability to have a discrete graphics card, in a machine that has no need for Thunderbolt as it already has PCI cards, Apple will have signaled they're no longer really interested in a huge swathe of the professional market.
 
ScottishCaptain said:
Actually, it is.

Asus's solution uses a loopback cable that plugs into the discrete GPU on one end, and the Thunderbolt card on the other. The Thunderbolt card "captures" the DisplayPort data and routes it through the TB port.

Apple is unlikely to go for such a crude solution.


-SC
Click to expand...

Uhhh... nop...

It's probably the Asus fault, but it doesn't necessary have to be this way.

When I had my PC with a TB-enabled MSI mobo, it got something called Virtu MVP loaded, and it didn't matter where the display was plugged, as long as you had it property setup (I had to manually select the apps that would use the discrete video, but I'm sure Apple could figure something out for MacOS.) the TB would work perfectly with the discrete GPU.

I knew it worked because I used to play Skyrim on it with my TBD, and I don't think the integrated could have handled my mods.
 
I really hope they at least make it user upgradeable. I hate the direction they are moving in.

I also hope they don't start it at some ******* insane price... but... they most likely will.
 
FluJunkie said:
If they have to choose one, and they pick their niche, novelty I/O interface over the ability to have a discrete graphics card, in a machine that has no need for Thunderbolt as it already has PCI cards, Apple will have signaled they're no longer really interested in a huge swathe of the professional market.
Click to expand...

They could have the GPU on a PCIe card and use data only Thunderbolt and at the same time, up the bandwidth to the newer 20 Gigabit kind. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Laptops often have integrated and discreet graphics, this would be the logical way of Apple giving everyone the best of both worlds.
 
kirkbross said:
I predict a smaller, modular system allowing people to build a more customized system around their needs.
Click to expand...

barkmonster said:
They could have the GPU on a PCIe card and use data only Thunderbolt and at the same time, up the bandwidth to the newer 20 Gigabit kind. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Laptops often have integrated and discreet graphics, this would be the logical way of Apple giving everyone the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

That sounds like an interesting way to improve the MiniMac - but would be a huge step backwards for the Mac Pro.
 
PowerPCMacMan said:
When you say "hack", do you mean the 4,1 to 5,1 firmware hack? I doubt the Mac Pro will even see Haswell.. given Apple's direction towards consumers.. This maybe the last Mac Pro.. who knows.. I am only speculating here... but as far as highly expandable and upgradable.. The 2009/2010/2012 may very well be THE LAST of the expandable ones.
Click to expand...

As in hack I mean a Hackintosh.
 
AidenShaw said:
That sounds like an interesting way to improve the MiniMac - but would be a huge step backwards for the Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

Can you explain how adding Thunderbolt is a step backwards?

I'm very clearly suggesting that the Mac Pro still has a PCIe graphics card but they add Thunderbolt as additional connectivity and citing the fact laptops often have both Thunderbolt/Integrated graphics and a dedicated GPU onboard as an example of the best of both worlds. How you could think I was suggesting they get rid of the PCIe graphics card and use a laptop GPU instead is beyond me.
 
milo said:
I just don't see the big advantage to making a high performance machine small comparable to a mini. Sure, if the components are smaller and less space is needed, then go a bit smaller. But these are machines you stick under your desk for the most part so performance is the top priority and size is never going to be tiny without sacrificing that.
Click to expand...

The under desk space here has to be shared with a UPS, a modem, a NAS drive, and a router. It would be very nice to let a smaller Mac Pro go in the same space. But a full sized tower has to be on a separate stand. Saving space is a constant goal for me.
 
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