Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I hope the new Mac Pro or its replacement lives up to its name by really being a "Pro" computer:
Hardware RAID-5 with cache memory,
Hot-pluggable Hard Drives,
BluRay Dual SuperDrive (actually, external BluRay may be better in the long run)
USB 3.0
FW800
eSATA
and all the rest of hardware features we should expect for a Mac.
Hardware RAID-5 with cache memory,
Hot-pluggable Hard Drives,
BluRay Dual SuperDrive (actually, external BluRay may be better in the long run)
USB 3.0
FW800
eSATA
and all the rest of hardware features we should expect for a Mac.
Yes there is. Functionality. Thickness is not a requirement functionality for those other Macs. The equivalent newer versions of the appropriate Mac Pro parts run just about as hot (or hotter in GPU card case) than they did 5-6 years ago.
The Mac Pro isn't bulky just to be bulky. It is bulky because it has a job to do. If job hasn't changed much then the case won't change much.
Apple does incorporate function into the their designs.
Now if Apple has some magical Area 51 technology that can effectively cool 4 cards that are outputing about 400W of heat collectively and 200W of CPU zone heat in 1/3 the space then yeah sure they'd shave size without sacrificing function. But it is doubtful they do.
5.25" drive bays tossed? At least one probably. But vast majority of Mac Pro users are using 2.5" drives now. One 5.25" bay could easily be swapped for two 2.5" bays. Again function driving retaining the space.
What is probably a functional change is the gratitously tall handles. Minor height vs. depth adjustmets could place the handles so not standard rack width hostile in the horizontal orientation. Not rack optimize, just not hostile for no good reason (other than to be different than the long gone XServe.)
Mobile macs: part of their function is to be smaller, lighter, and lower power consumers. So yes they get thinner.
iMac: toss ODD and there isn't alot of need for a thick edge.
Mini : about as big as it always has been. ( function hasn't changed that much. Drive swapped for ODD. ).
It is grossly superficial analysis to just yelp thinner.
If Apple decides they want to gut the Mac Pro performance. Move desktop oriented designs with mainstream Core i7 options (not the Xeon E5 derivatives i7 39xx/38xx ) or Xeon E3 the function would change and the case would dramatically change. Gone is bandwidth for 4 slots (probably drop down to just one slot). Gone is the 200W CPU thermal zone constraints.
I doubt they go there because they already have a Mac in that space: the iMac. Apple needs an extensively overlapping product in the iMac space like they need a hole in the head.
Its not easy to find a dual cpu motherboard with 8 slots for ram. and those kind of specs are just surface.
Every mixing engineer (pro), every music composer, film editor, tv editor, anyone that does design for advertising, scientists, researchers etc. etc....
I'm sure the new model will be great!
Apple left the display business back around 2010. They are in the docking station with a built in LCD business, but they really don't products primarily oriented to being displays.
What Apple sells are approximately iMacs with the CPU+GPU stripped out. Same screen. Almost same power supply ( since has to be hefty enough to power their larger laptops ). couple of USB and/or FW ports , webcam (like iMac and laptops ).
They have now shifted to a better docking station connectivity solution: Thunderbolt. But the MagSafe power connect still present is a crystal clear indicators that isn't a display as the rest of the market defines a display.
Given there is no larger iMac screen to boost the volume of there is low likelihood for another larger screen size. In fact, Apple has been dumping larger screen sizess with their "retina" push. The 27" is already Retina at a reasonable working distance, so there is little motivation to push bigger.
It is doubtful Apple will do a 21.5" screen until that is an affordable 4K Ultra HD option.
Apple used to sell printers. There still are lots of good-great 3rd party printers you can buy. Same is true for Displays. There are more than few very good options out there. This is a "gap" already well filled by 3rd parties.
Matte version would be great but not holding my breath on that one.
The new iMac screen tech will likely show up in a revised ( with USB 3.0 ) TB docking station ("display"). That will be close enough to matte for most folks. Especially if put a monitor hood on it. There is a much smaller bit of reflection to moan and groan about for those looking for drama, but Apple has largely licked the "super duper glossy it is like a mirror" problem.
My 21.5" iMac's screen is actually LESS reflective than the Dell matte display next to it. Your statement is so very true.
I don't know why they didn't just use this AR coating from the start. AR coatings have been around for ages and only just now is Apple using them? C'mon!
And yes, iMac. Apple lost me as a Mac Pro customer by making me wait so damn long. I made some sacrifices in expandability, but they are mostly made up for with USB 3.0, and the system is plenty fast for my needs.
LOL. They already did back in 2012.
" ... The word on the street was that IBM would announce the zEnterprise EC12, the high end of the z12 product line, sometime in late September or early October with shipments ramping through the fourth quarter. But, according to sources inside IBM, the chips and systems were ready early and so Big Blue decided to get the machines out the door on the same day that the company is talking up the feeds and speeds of the z12 processor at the Hot Chips conference in Silicon Valley. ..."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/28/ibm_system_zec12_maiframe/
Which helped IBM to a nice final quarter of 2012
"... BM CFO Mark Loughridge attributed the stabilization of revenues and the increase in profits to a rebound in System z mainframe sales and the steady growth in software sales both related directly to IBM system software as well as running on competitive gear or further up the stack. ..."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/23/ibm_q4_2012_financials/
Apple is about the only vendor that was slacking on "bigger iron" solutions in 2012. Itanium updated late 2012. Everybody on Xeon E5 upgraded. AMD severs... upgraded. Oracle Sparc .... well Fujistu rolled out upgrades but Oracle kind of shot those down with the T5 several weeks ago.
not "rack-hostile" - like the term
Like that - just make it more rack-friendly rather than rack-hostile.
----------
The Dell T5600 has 8 slots, the Dell T7600 has 16 slots (up to 512 GiB from the factory - only $17.9K extra).
Like that - just make it more rack-friendly rather than rack-hostile.
----------
The Dell T5600 has 8 slots, the Dell T7600 has 16 slots (up to 512 GiB from the factory - only $17.9K extra).
I knew this was coming.
That's exactly what I meant, it's a workstation grade computer.
----------
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".
The new model most likely will be great, but look at the iMac. You can still configure that with perfectly powerful specifications, including dedicated graphics. Not only that, but a 27" iMac fully configured (3.4GHz i7, quad core, 32GB RAM, 2GB Graphics, 3TB Storage and an external SuperDrive) costs $3,497 where fully configured a Mac Pro (Two 3.06GHz 6 core Xeons, 64GB RAM, two 1GB dedicated graphics cards, 8TB of total storage, two disk drives and two Apple displays, typical for these kind of people) will cost $11,497, so it's easy to see that the iMac is much easier on the budget, and, in my opinion, would be better for the occupations you listed since they'd save more money. I also believe that you can hook up an external monitor to an iMac via ThunderBolt.
By just choosing the best processor in the Mac Pro already doubled it's price over the fully configured iMac, but get what you want.
That's why I said that, I didn't say "Apple should throw it out the door 'cause no one uses it".
The realy sad thing is that my Hack will still be faster and more expandiable. Once Ivy Bridge E hits the market I will be able to push past what ever offering Apple will have. To little to late Apple but at the end of the day you are trying.
Wondering if they will wait this long again for a major Mac Pro update. Late 2015/ Early 2016 is when DDR4 hits the market along with new Sever chips to match support for DDR4. If the pro does come out it could be the last one we see.
Wondering if they will wait this long again for a major Mac Pro update. Late 2015/ Early 2016 is when DDR4 hits the market along with new Sever chips to match support for DDR4. If the pro does come out it could be the last one we see.
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.
Can I ask.. why would that be?
You really think everyone here is interested on Mac Pros?
Only
those people who use the Mac Pro as a way to make a living, for business, and also intellectuals and enthusiasts.. Its not for everyone.. I myself don't do much but I like it because I am an enthusiast and maybe will make use of it some day.. given I did all the upgrades for it.. It used to be a 2009.. but I gutted the boards for the 2010 boards and now its a 6-core machine.
those people who use the Mac Pro as a way to make a living, for business, and also intellectuals and enthusiasts.. Its not for everyone.. I myself don't do much but I like it because I am an enthusiast and maybe will make use of it some day.. given I did all the upgrades for it.. It used to be a 2009.. but I gutted the boards for the 2010 boards and now its a 6-core machine.
If its true,which Cpu are available for?
Perhaps Apple could split and unify Mini and Pro Line.
This will make Apple sell Mac Pro with Ivy or Haswell Cpu,
waiting for the XEON later this year but not stayn without an entire line
for all the year....something like this
Perhaps Apple could split and unify Mini and Pro Line.
This will make Apple sell Mac Pro with Ivy or Haswell Cpu,
waiting for the XEON later this year but not stayn without an entire line
for all the year....something like this
Attachments
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!
I have done exactly the same thing.
16 core beast for my main machine and a Retina Mac Book Pro for the times I am on the road.
I love working in OS X but I also love being able to put stonking big graphics cards into my edit box. Currently run 2 x 4GB GTX680's
Switching away from FCP a couple of years ago has given me this luxury. Best of both worlds.
Last edited:
LOLZpersonok,
Price is not everything. You don't want to be penny wise and pound foolish!
$11,497 is not a lot to some professionals. It all depends on what your clients requirements are for the job. If you are smart you can bill part of that cost in as part of the job. We are talking Macs here, not cheap plastic Acer machines. For Pro users Apple is not trying to be J. C. Penny!
I am a scientific researcher, do not need more than a mac mini for my work. My father is a designer, still uses a G4 from 2003 for most of his work and an iMac 2009 for Photoshop work. So your generalization is totally wrong. Some designers, some researchers may need a Mac Pro. But as of now, most do not. I will buy a top of the line Mac Pro when Apple releases one but not because I need it. I just like having a powerful workstation at home, which I can use for 5+ years and upgrade whenever I want.
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.
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.
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?