Still Waiting for Mac Pro Updates, Suitable Intel Processors Due in Q4

[AidenShaw]

Why does Apple need to wait for a new CPU?

I don't see why so many people are acting like the Mac Pro delay has anything to do with Apple not caring about them anymore? Clearly, they want to design it to use a certain CPU which Intel doesn't have ready yet.

Like someone else said, even a 2006 Mac Pro is still a really useful machine in 2011! I own one myself and simply by adding an SSD as the boot drive and adding more RAM, it feels completely up to date and speedy.

As much as these cost, you want it to be right when a new one comes out. I'd rather wait for the new Intel chips than buy one with older tech in it, just to have it today!

I'm surprised at this argument - it wouldn't fly for HP or Dell customers.

Other companies update their workstations on a schedule disconnected from Intel's tick-tock dates.

There are lots of improvements that Apple could make on the current Mac Pro, while using the current CPUs.

• Only 4 drive slots on a case that humonguous? Preposterous.
• Only 4 PCIe slots? Ditto.
• Where's USB 3.0? Don't need Intel for that.
• Only 32/64 GiB RAM - other guys support 192 GiB
• Graphics card support - only two midrange options? No CUDA BTO option?
• No BD reader or burner option?
• No Thunderbolt ports? (I realize that TBolt is still vaporware, but the ports would be nice "future-proof" additions.)

There's a lot that Apple could have done months ago to improve the Mac Pro.

Then, when new CPUs/chipsets are ready a minor update with the new parts - just like Dell and HP will do.

 

[Hellhammer]

Intel is currently on C1 stepping and reportedly, it is the stepping that the first models will ship it. I.e. it's looking good for Q4.

Then, when new CPUs/chipsets are ready a minor update with the new parts - just like Dell and HP will do.

It's not always as simple as it sounds. If the socket remained the same, then it would. However, SB-E brings LGA 2011 which is a totally new socket, and physically very different from LGA 1366. That means Apple will have to redesign the logic board in order to use LGA 2011.

Redesigning it now to include the features you listed doesn't make much sense, given that it's only a couple of months till LGA 2011. We all know the state of Mac Pro and it looks like Apple doesn't want to invest too much on it. Redesigning the board always costs money and in this case, the LGA 1366 would unlikely pay back the R&D costs due to its short lifespan.

 

[d-m-a-x]

Intel is currently on C1 stepping and reportedly, it is the stepping that the first models will ship it. I.e. it's looking good for Q4.



It's not always as simple as it sounds. If the socket remained the same, then it would. However, SB-E brings LGA 2011 which is a totally new socket, and physically very different from LGA 1366. That means Apple will have to redesign the logic board in order to use LGA 2011.

Redesigning it now to include the features you listed doesn't make much sense, given that it's only a couple of months till LGA 2011. We all know the state of Mac Pro and it looks like Apple doesn't want to invest too much on it. Redesigning the board always costs money and in this case, the LGA 1366 would unlikely pay back the R&D costs due to its short lifespan.

Yup, which makes me wonder about the short lifespan sandy bridge is going to have with Ivy bridge coming.

 

[Hellhammer]

Yup, which makes me wonder about the short lifespan sandy bridge is going to have with Ivy bridge coming.

We won't see enterprise level Ivy Bridge anytime soon. Consumer CPUs will come in March-April according to the reports but Ivy Bridge-E (or whatever it will be called) won't be out until Q4 2012 at the earliest (this is what the slide indicates).

 

[d-m-a-x]

We won't see enterprise level Ivy Bridge anytime soon. Consumer CPUs will come in March-April according to the reports but Ivy Bridge-E (or whatever it will be called) won't be out until Q4 2012 at the earliest (this is what the slide indicates).

well get a year out of it. The xeons really have a bigger lifespan - my 2006 mac pro was the only machine of that era that can run lion

 

[AidenShaw]

...and I forgot eSATA ports

It's not always as simple as it sounds. If the socket remained the same, then it would. However, SB-E brings LGA 2011 which is a totally new socket, and physically very different from LGA 1366. That means Apple will have to redesign the logic board in order to use LGA 2011.

The independent motherboard makers (Asus, MSI, GigaByte,...) seem to have no trouble popping out new boards left and right - even coming out with multiple variations using the same chipset/socket.

Apple surely has the talent and resources to modify a motherboard occasionally, if they wanted to.

Instead, I wonder if the plan is to continue to neglect the Mac Pro until the sales are so low they can cancel it.

Redesigning it now to include the features you listed doesn't make much sense, given that it's only a couple of months till LGA 2011. We all know the state of Mac Pro and it looks like Apple doesn't want to invest too much on it. Redesigning the board always costs money and in this case, the LGA 1366 would unlikely pay back the R&D costs due to its short lifespan.

Agree here - in fact my post said "There's a lot that Apple could have done months ago to improve the Mac Pro." It's much too late now - savvy buyers would realize that the new chips/chipsets were right around the corner, and wouldn't buy now. If it had been updated in Jan-Mar (when it was two years old), or even at the CPU bump in July 2010 - it would have paid off.

well get a year out of it. The xeons really have a bigger lifespan - my 2006 mac pro was the only machine of that era that can run lion

If you define "era" as a month, that is.

• Aug 2006 - Mac Pro
• Sep 2006 - Imac upgrade to Core 2 Duo
• Oct 2006 - MacBook Pro upgrade to COre 2 Duo
• Nov 2006 - MacBook upgrade to Core 2 Duo

 

[d-m-a-x]

The independent motherboard makers (Asus, MSI, GigaByte,...) seem to have no trouble popping out new boards left and right - even coming out with multiple variations using the same chipset/socket.

Apple surely has the talent and resources to modify a motherboard occasionally, if they wanted to.

Instead, I wonder if the plan is to continue to neglect the Mac Pro until the sales are so low they can cancel it.




Agree here - in fact my post said "There's a lot that Apple could have done months ago to improve the Mac Pro." It's much too late now - savvy buyers would realize that the new chips/chipsets were right around the corner, and wouldn't buy now. If it had been updated in Jan-Mar (when it was two years old), or even at the CPU bump in July 2010 - it would have paid off.



If you define "era" as a month, that is.

• Aug 2006 - Mac Pro
• Sep 2006 - Imac upgrade to Core 2 Duo
• Oct 2006 - MacBook Pro upgrade to COre 2 Duo
• Nov 2006 - MacBook upgrade to Core 2 Duo

err, windows and mac are the only systems capable or running Adobe CS. Have we not learned that bi-partisanship does not work?

 

[Hellhammer]

The independent motherboard makers (Asus, MSI, GigaByte,...) seem to have no trouble popping out new boards left and right - even coming out with multiple variations using the same chipset/socket.

But that is a bit different. Their main or even only income is from motherboards so they have to offer various products and keep updating them frequently. They have competition.

Apple, on the other hand, has more or less monopoly because of OS X. People who choose Mac Pro most likely don't buy it because of the specs, but because of OS X. That "allows" Apple to get away with inferior specs compared to other manufacturers.

Apple surely has the talent and resources to modify a motherboard occasionally, if they wanted to.

Definitely, but I'm sure they are more interested about profits. No reason to do anything unless it will bring profit. It's looking more and more that the pro market doesn't bring Apple enough profits, and thus Apple may be abandoning that market at some point.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple, on the other hand, has more or less monopoly because of OS X. People who choose Mac Pro most likely don't buy it because of the specs, but because of OS X.

With all the big software packages being multi-platform and Apple's own professional offerings being less than enthusiastically received, it seems to me that very few people have actual "need" of OS X. It just doesn't offer any exclusivity as far as tasks/workflows goes anymore (did it ever ?).

People who "want" OS X merely misunderstand what a computer needs to be used for : Not a religious OS holy war but as a tool to get work done.

Anyway, Aiden has the right of it. Apple could very much do a few more updates to Mac Pro mid-cycles to bump up the GPU, RAM and add other features that creep up like TB, USB 3.0, eSATA and others.

 

[Hellhammer]

Anyway, Aiden has the right of it. Apple could very much do a few more updates to Mac Pro mid-cycles to bump up the GPU, RAM and add other features that creep up like TB, USB 3.0, eSATA and others.

I never said Apple couldn't. However, when looking at Mac Pro's history and Apple's current direction (i.e. consumer market), such update seems very unlikely.

 

[anthorumor]

Mac Pro should have at least 4 thunderbolt ports and the very best videocard from Nvidia or AMD. A newer form factor would be nice...

 

[KnightWRX]

I never said Apple couldn't. However, when looking at Mac Pro's history and Apple's current direction (i.e. consumer market), such update seems very unlikely.

We're all saying the same thing then are we...

 

[kingtj]

Re: surprised

Aiden, your upgrade suggestions are all good ones, but the fact remains that Apple updates any given computer system of theirs on essentially an annual cycle. Incremental updates do get released earlier than that, from time to time, but only when it involves something that's literally a drop-in replacement part, like a slightly faster CPU or increased standard amount of RAM.

Dell and HP customers expect to choose from a far bigger line of products, all receiving very regular updates. But those companies also sell a LOT more product, since large corporate and govt. and military contracts go to them regularly. Apple would drown in old inventory they couldn't sell, and/or never have exactly the system you wanted in stock at a retail store if they tried to keep up with all of that.

The plus side of Apple doing fewer, very selective upgrades to a product line is - it helps keep resale values high, and helps ensure less OS bugs are introduced due to driver problems with various configurations of things.

I'm surprised at this argument - it wouldn't fly for HP or Dell customers.

Other companies update their workstations on a schedule disconnected from Intel's tick-tock dates.

There are lots of improvements that Apple could make on the current Mac Pro, while using the current CPUs.

• Only 4 drive slots on a case that humonguous? Preposterous.
• Only 4 PCIe slots? Ditto.
• Where's USB 3.0? Don't need Intel for that.
• Only 32/64 GiB RAM - other guys support 192 GiB
• Graphics card support - only two midrange options? No CUDA BTO option?
• No BD reader or burner option?
• No Thunderbolt ports? (I realize that TBolt is still vaporware, but the ports would be nice "future-proof" additions.)

There's a lot that Apple could have done months ago to improve the Mac Pro.

Then, when new CPUs/chipsets are ready a minor update with the new parts - just like Dell and HP will do.

 

[Eric S.]

Apple doesn’t want to support a server because they want to be the server. For individuals, iCloud is the server. For the enterprise, watch for an iCloud version to support enterprise clients as the server.

iCloud is a glorified sync app, not a server.

 

[AidenShaw]

err, windows and mac are the only systems capable or running Adobe CS. Have we not learned that bi-partisanship does not work?

Huh? Where'd Adobe come from?

ps: You should say "Windows and OSX", a "Mac" running Linux can't run the full CS.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Highest Priorities for next-gen professional Mac Pro

How about a different tack on this. When Apple comes out with the next-gen Sandy-Bridge Xeon Mac Pro, what the the highest priority features that you would like to see for professional users and apps? Here is one list, modified for the positive form:

There are lots of improvements that Apple could make on the current Mac Pro, while using the current CPUs.

• > 4 drive slots
• > 4 PCIe slots
• USB 3.0
• Max 192GB RAM
• More Graphics card support, w/ more midrange options. CUDA BTO option.
• BD reader or burner option
• Thunderbolt ports

To this I would add:

• Power and cooling to support two of the biggest/fattest/fastest/hottest AMD/ATI GPU boards
• Four maximum-bandwidth PCIe slots, two for GPU, two for network and I/O
• Highest-performance SSD options (e.g. KingstonX, Vertex-3 Max IOPS, etc.)
• 10-12 builtin 6 Gbps SATA III internal ports

 

[Hellhammer]

Four maximum-bandwidth PCIe slots, two for GPU, two for network and I/O

PCIe slots are not limited because of Apple but because of Intel. You only get 36 PCIe lanes (this is the case in X58 as well as X79). Thus you can only get two full-speed (x16) slots, or four x8 slots.

Highest-performance SSD options (e.g. KingstonX, Vertex-3 Max IOPS, etc.)

Highest performance isn't always the best. Look at the issues surrounding Vertex 3 and other SF-2000 based SSDs. Professionals and especially enterprises require reliability, and in many cases, reliability is far more important than the performance. Apple uses Toshiba SSDs and they have proven to be very reliable when compared with their faster brothers. You can always add an aftermarket SSD.

 

[d-m-a-x]

Huh? Where'd Adobe come from?

ps: You should say "Windows and OSX", a "Mac" running Linux can't run the full CS.

I am just wishing for more options here. I don't like windows, and i am pretty much stuck with mac because my clients think if you don't have the shiny box with the apple logo on it, you are not for real. I was looking at linux, but you can't run adobe well on it

 

[Naimfan]

Definitely, but I'm sure they are more interested about profits. No reason to do anything unless it will bring profit. It's looking more and more that the pro market doesn't bring Apple enough profits, and thus Apple may be abandoning that market at some point.

This is the crux of the matter. I think we'd all agree that Apple certainly has the necessary talent to update the Mac Pro with many of the suggestions listed by Aidenshaw and others.

However--to do so would require a commitment of resources that are, in Apple's judgment, better used elsewhere. By "better used," I mean that Apple's judgment is that they are likely to see a higher return than they would on updating the Mac Pro.

Also, while I think many of the suggestions are good, I don't think it makes sense for Apple to rework the Mac Pro without moving to the Sandy Bridge-E processors. If they have to effectively redesign the entire machine, why not just do it once? To do otherwise would slice the margins they receive on the Mac Pro, and that's not Apple's MO.

 

[AidenShaw]

To this I would add:

• Power and cooling to support two of the biggest/fattest/fastest/hottest AMD/ATI GPU boards
• Four maximum-bandwidth PCIe slots, two for GPU, two for network and I/O
• Highest-performance SSD options (e.g. KingstonX, Vertex-3 Max IOPS, etc.)
• 10-12 builtin 6 Gbps SATA III internal ports

Support Nvidia cards as well - CUDA is much more important than OpenCL to many professionals.

What good are 10-12 SATA 6gbps ports internal, without 10-12 internal drive bays?

I'd say 8 ports internal, and 4 eSATA external with PM support.

Have 8 bays - 2 (or maybe 4) of them for 2.5" SSDs. Save space by making them trayless - just slide the naked drive into the slot. (Anyone with a Drobo will understand.)

PCIe slots are not limited because of Apple but because of Intel. You only get 36 PCIe lanes (this is the case in X58 as well as X79). Thus you can only get two full-speed (x16) slots, or four x8 slots.

Jein.

PCIe switches exist so that you can have more lanes of PCIe slots than come out of the chipset. (e.g. http://www.plxtech.com/products/expresslane/pex8616)

Of course, you don't get added bandwidth from the switch - so if you need to run all PCIe cards at full bandwidth all of the time the switch wouldn't be as good as more lanes from the chipset.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Support Nvidia cards as well - CUDA is much more important than OpenCL to many professionals.

Is this strictly Adobe, or are there other professional apps that need CUDA?

What if (just a what if) Adobe supported OpenCL? If Apple consistently supported high-end AMD configurations, Adobe possibly might be more interested in OpenCL.

What good are 10-12 SATA 6gbps ports internal, without 10-12 internal drive bays?

I'd say 8 ports internal, and 4 eSATA external with PM support.

Have 8 bays - 2 (or maybe 4) of them for 2.5" SSDs. Save space by making them trayless - just slide the naked drive into the slot. (Anyone with a Drobo will understand.)

How about an option for 10-12 2.5" bays? Not just for SSD - lots of folks using 2.5" in RAID/server configurations. Lots of servers use 10-12 spindles for RAID.

Anyway, I'm just discussing priorities.

Regarding PCIe -- I thought there was supposed to be a new chipset for Sandy Bridge that had more PCIe lanes? Maybe just a rumor.

 

[AidenShaw]

Is this strictly Adobe, or are there other professional apps that need CUDA?

http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_app_tesla.html

Government & Defense
RealityServer
Ikena: Imagery Analysis and Video Forensics
Signal Processing Library: GPU VSIPL
IDL and MATLAB Acceleration: GPULib
GIS: Manifold
MATLAB GPU Computing: MathWorks
MATLAB Plugin: Accelereyes

Molecular Dynamics, Computational Chemistry
OpenMM library for accelerating molecular dynamics on GPUs
GROMACS using OpenMM
NAMD molecular dynamics
VMD visualization of molecular dynamics
HOOMD molecular dynamics
Acellera: ACEMD bio-molecular dynamics package
BigDFT: DFT (Density functional theory) electronic structure code
MDGPU
GPUGrid.net
MATLAB GPU Computing: MathWorks
MATLAB plugin: Accelereyes

Life Sciences, Bio-informatics
GPU HMMER
DNA Sequence alignment: MUMmerGPU
LISSOM: model of human neocortex using CUDA
Silicon Informatics: AutoDock
MATLAB plugin: Accelereyes

Electrodynamics and electromagnetic
Acceleware: FDTD Solver
Acceleware: EM Solutions
Remcom XStream FDTD
SPEAG Semcad X
CST Microwave Studio
Quantum electrodynamics library
GPMAD : Particle beam dynamics simulator

Medical Imaging, CT, MRI
RealityServer
GPULib:IDL acceleration
Acceleware: Imaging Solutions
Digisens: SnapCT tomographic reconstruction software
Techniscan: Whole Breast Ultrasound Imaging System
NVPP: NVIDIA Performance Primitives (early access)
MATLAB GPU Computing: MathWorks
MATLAB plugin: Accelereyes

Oil & Gas
RealityServer
Acceleware: Kirchoff and Reverse Time Migration
SeismicCity: 3D seismic imaging for prestack depth migration
OpenGeoSolutions: Spectral decomposition and inversion
Mercury Computer systems: 3D data visualization
ffA: 3D Seismic processing software
Headwave: Prestack data processing
GIS: Manifold
MATLAB GPU Computing: MathWorks
MATLAB plugin: Accelereyes

Financial computing and options pricing
SciComp: derivatives pricing
Hanweck: options pricing
Exegy: Risk Analysis
Aqumin: 3D Visualization of market data
Level 3 Finance
OnEye (Australia): Accelerated Trading Solutions
Arbitragis Trading
Enabling GPU Computing in the R Statistical Environment
MATLAB GPU Computing: MathWorks
MATLAB plugin: Accelereyes

MATLAB, LabVIEW, Mathematica, R
MATLAB

CUDA Acceleration for MATLAB
Accelereyes: Jacket engine for MATLAB
GPULib: mathematical functions for IDL and MATLAB
Integrating Simulink with CUDA using S-functions
Enabling GPU Computing in the R Statistical Environment
Mathematica plug-in for CUDA
Using NVIDIA GPUs with National Instruments LabView

Electronic Design Automation
Agilent EESof: ADS SPICE simulator
Synopsys: Sentaraus TCAD
Gauda: Optical proximity correction (OPC)

Weather and Ocean Modeling
CUDA-accelerated WRF code

Video, Imaging, and Vision Applications
Axxon Intellect Enterprise Video Surveillance Software
Pflow CUDA Plugin for Autodesk 3ds Max
RUINS Shatter CUDA Plug-in for Maya
Bullet 3D Multi-Physics Library with CUDA Support
CUDA Voxel Rendering Engine
NVPP: NVIDIA Performance Primitives (early access) Volume Rendering with CUDA for VTK / Slicer3
Furryball: Direct3D GPU Rendering Plugin for Maya
For consumer CUDA applications, visit NZone

Adobe isn't even mentioned.

What if (just a what if) Adobe supported OpenCL? If Apple consistently supported high-end AMD configurations, Adobe possibly might be more interested in OpenCL.

Possilby - but GPGPU means CUDA to most of the world outside of Apple's walled garden.

How about an option for 10-12 2.5" bays? Not just for SSD - lots of folks using 2.5" in RAID/server configurations. Lots of servers use 10-12 spindles for RAID.

Enterprise RAID/server configs usually use SAS, not SATA. Those apps usually are concerned with IOPS and MBPS. Desktop/workstation users are often as concerned with TBs - and the 3.5" disks are much larger.

I would never argue for fewer drive slots. 10-12 slots that would work for either 2.5" or 3.5" and either SATA or SAS would be great (and expensive). Or even a machine with six 3.5" slots, but in each slot you could insert a tray that would hold two 2.5" disks.

 

[Kvantos]

Still waiting for Mac Pro updates...

It has been a long time since the Mac Pro has been updated. Although Apple is not in the habit of making announcements about forthcoming products, it would seem that they owe it to their customers to give at least a rough estimate of a release date. Furthermore, if they intend to abandon the Mac Pro, they should issue an end of life statement so that customers and prospective customers could plan accordingly.

 

[cmaier]

It has been a long time since the Mac Pro has been updated. Although Apple is not in the habit of making announcements about forthcoming products, it would seem that they owe it to their customers to give at least a rough estimate of a release date. Furthermore, if they intend to abandon the Mac Pro, they should issue an end of life statement so that customers and prospective customers could plan accordingly.

Sure. Like they did for the xserves. Oh, wait...

 

[AidenShaw]

It has been a long time since the Mac Pro has been updated.

Since March 2009, to be exact.

In July 2010 there was a non-update "update". Same box, mobo. Different graphics card options, and different CPUs that plugged into the same socket.

It was a "rearranging the deck chairs" level upgrade.