"The thinnest Mac Pro ever"

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by animatedude, Apr 3, 2013.

  1. animatedude macrumors 65816

    Feb 27, 2010
    Sorry folks i just needed say this....:p

    it's %40 smaller.
    70% ighter
    an all SSD.
    USB 3.
  2. AlphaDogg macrumors 68040


    May 20, 2010
    Boulder, CO
  3. Shrink macrumors G3


    Feb 26, 2011
    New England, USA
  4. goMac macrumors 603

    Apr 15, 2004
    Why HDMI in a Mac Pro? I'm hooking up to monitors, not TVs.
  5. Shadow%20Mac macrumors 6502

    Dec 28, 2007
    Many new monitors have support for HDMI, combined with an audio out port. This allows you to dock a set of speakers the monitor and capture video and sound from the computer with one cable.
  6. AlphaDogg macrumors 68040


    May 20, 2010
    Boulder, CO
    Pro Apple users don't want unified cable solutions. Many of them already have great DVI displays already, so HDMI would be unnecessary. Of course DVI and HDMI video are the same thing, so quality would not be any different between the two signals. But DVI is already an established "pro" video interface that is quite successful.
  7. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Mar 10, 2009
    Many new monitors support DisplayPort

    "DisplayPort vs. HDMI"

    Some even support Display 1.2 (and broader color space capabilities).

    HDMI isn't unique here. Hasn't been for years.

    Between DisplayPort and Thunderbolt....


    Since when? It isn't like Apple hasn't trotted this out before.

    Apple Display Connector http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Display_Connector



    There are a subset that want modular everything but there is another set of folks do are looking for cable reduction.
  8. AlphaDogg macrumors 68040


    May 20, 2010
    Boulder, CO
    ADC: If ADC was successful, we'd still use it today. It lived a very short life.

    Mini Displayport: Mini Displayport is not unified, just unique. Has it been successful outside the portable Mac market? Nope.

    Thunderbolt: Thunderbolt has benefits much greater than unification of cables. Thunderbolt offers seriously fast bus speeds, which is the reason for its value. You're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.
  9. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem


    Feb 19, 2005
    Seems silly to speak on behalf of "all" pro users.

    HDMI isn't exactly unnecessary.
  10. AlphaDogg macrumors 68040


    May 20, 2010
    Boulder, CO
    Sure, I made a generalization. And of course HDMI isn't unnecessary.. But as far as I'm aware, lack of HDMI is not a reason why someone would pass on a computer. Adapters exist if needed, as well as extra GPUs.
  11. d-m-a-x macrumors 6502

    Aug 13, 2011
    i think what you want is an "i" something, not a Mac Pro
  12. thekev macrumors 604


    Aug 5, 2010
    They do, but displayport is typically dominant on higher end displays. Some have multiple inputs, but it's more commonly displayport + dvi + vga inputs even today. HDMI shows up much more frequently on sub $500 displays. The usual prediction on here is that thunderbolt will be a priority rather than HDMI. Typically it works with a mini displayport to displayport cable. That isn't to say that the thunderbolt display was designed to complement the mac pro, as I don't think this was the case.
  13. KaraH macrumors 6502

    Nov 12, 2012
    An iPro ... best not to give them ideas.

    Over on the iMac forum some are gushing over the thinness of the new iMac. The techy users that actually know thin=non-upgradeable have a quite different reaction.

    When even OWC suggests not trying to open your case that is saying something ...
  14. Lancer macrumors 68020


    Jul 22, 2002
    It's not going to run SSD only, half the reason people buy the MacPro is to maximize the internal storage. I do bet they will run Fusion (optional) and probably bigger than on the iMac/Mini. But it will have 4x 3.5" bays just like the current one.
  15. nanofrog macrumors G4

    May 6, 2008
    The following image should speak volumes...

    Attached Files:

  16. TheEasterBunny macrumors 6502

    Jan 22, 2013
    Lets face facts.
    Apple has been going toward disposable devices since the first iPhone. Devices that are upgradeable, do not lend to this direction very well, but iDevices do.
    Considering the direction they have gone with external devices and their interfaces, and with OS X, user upgrades are the last thing Apple wants.
    A device that hangs around for 6+ years is definitely not in the plan! It doesn't make for a good business model.
    Ever notice that in order to upgrade browsers beyond a few levels (like 1 or 2) you have to upgrade OSX?
    Look at Microsoft, people are still using XP, it can run most current browsers, the devices have a wide range of OS's that can be run, and can be used for years. But how does the companies bottom line look today as compared to 10 years ago? What did MS do with windows 8? What direction are they going now that they see the writing on the wall?
    Not to even mention Nvidia's cloud graphics service they are working on!
  17. sarthak macrumors 6502

    Nov 19, 2012
  18. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Mar 10, 2009
    DisplayPort v1.2 allows for daisy chaining monitors. At least on that standard's dimension, the video signal distribution issue is on the monitors as much as the new cards.

    There is a fixed amount of edge space on PCI-e card. Some of that should be used to blow hot air directly out of the back of the box.
  19. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Mar 10, 2009
    These are somewhat conflicting dynamics. The SSD "half" of a Fusion set up doesn't require a 3.5" bay. For example, the Mini implements Fusion with two 2.5" drives. The iMac uses a custom mSATA drive blade.

    It also isn't likely that the components used to implement Fusion on a Mac Pro would differ wildly from those used on other Macs. A combo of the Mini 2.5" drive and the 1 and 3 TB HDDs used in 27" iMac set-ups is far more likely. Same parts used across multiple Mac products is Apple's modus operandi.

    My expectation is that the number of internal storage device bays goes up. But that might be three 2.5" and three 3.5" ( Apple's OCD for symmetry kicking in). Or four 2.5" and two 3.5". If they dump both 5.25" bays then four 3.5" bays are probably still around.

    There is growth in HDD density. The marketing page for the Mac Pro now points out can have 8TB ( 4 x 2TB). Apple can top that with just three 3.5" drives now of 4TB capacity ( 12TB : a 50% increase ) and still have two 2.5" bays in one of the old 5.25" to "goose" 8 of that 12TB with "fusion" acceleration (pair two of the 4TB drives up each with SSD partners). Coupled with internal SATA III connections ( 2 for C602 chipset) that all represents a substantial improvement over the current and previous Mac Pros.

    The Mac Pro isn't likely going to be rejiggered to be a box for a large number of relatively inexpensive drives.
  20. Lancer macrumors 68020


    Jul 22, 2002
    JMO but I think Apple will either go with a blade SSD for Fusion or a seperate 2.5" bay just for SSD. Either to be run solely as SSD or as Fusion in the next MacPro, depending on the customer specs. Either way I think we'll still see 4x 3.5" bays so users can add up to 16Tb of internal storage and bigger in the future as HDD sizes grow.
  21. bearcatrp macrumors 68000

    Sep 24, 2008
    Boon Docks USA
    If apple were to come out with something like this, the rest of the pro folks waiting on a mac pro will leave (not many left though). The pro's need allot of storage. External options just add to the cost of a new system. With 4TB drives being released, having 4 of these will satisfy many. Apple needs to have hot swappable drives in the next mac pro.
  22. deconstruct60, Apr 4, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2013

    deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Mar 10, 2009
    If Apple keeps FW, but adds USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt then probably won't get a blade SSD. USB 3.0 means an additional discrete controller on motherboard. Thunderbolt is another controller plus probably a discrete GPU and VRAM on the motherboard too. Conceptually the mSATA slice could be put on a daughter board on a shelf for easier access but not as useful or as straightforward as just incorporating a 2.5" drive tray similar to the 3.5" trays.

    2.5" HDDs will get bigger over time too. Thinner 2TB versions should roll out in the transition between 2013-2014. ( [but even now url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236348[/url] )

    three 2.5" bays SSD , 2TB , 2TB
    three 3.5" bays 4TB , 4TB , 4TB

    is still 16TB with one of those in a "fusion" set up. Nuking both 5.25" bays it could go in like this ( all transverse mounted like current HDD sleds)

    old top 5.25" bay : 2.5" sled 3.5 sled [ the canonical Fusion drive pair configuration]
    old lower 5.25" bay : 2.5" sled 2.5 sled [ could get 3 in this row. but two makes it symmetric and easier vibration management. ]
    shorten 3.5 row : 3.5" sled 3.5 sled

    In notch after two 3.5" drives some more board and vertical space for embedded GPU+VRAM and associated heat/fan subsystem. (or displaced x4 slot because embedded GPU somewhere else displaced it there. )

    P.S. why 6? because i think the 4 SAS/SATA links on the C600 ( which are SATA only for C602) are also 6Gb/s. I missed that earlier when looking at Intel's spec sheet. So that makes 6 Gb/s SATA lanes available. Apple would match those up with the storage drive sleds so that all the "same speed". Similar to only offering USB 3.0 sockets on 2012 Macs. If use the others than folks have to know that different sleds have different speeds. ( doable, but not as simple to remember. )
  23. NOV macrumors 6502


    Mar 27, 2004
    The Netherlands
    Personally I would like to see an increase on USB ports. For license protection from audio vendors purposes I already need 3 USB ports: Waves, iLok, Pace.

    Then I have an Apogee Symphony, 2 Midi interfaces, scanner, printer, 2 USB keyboards and some other stuff (iPhone cable, cartridge interface).

    Of course I have a USB connection station but the fact remains that some devices become unstable/ unreliable when not directly connected to the MP.

Share This Page