MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)

[CWallace]

Because the feedback they were getting on the 2013 Mac Pro was leading to a clear picture that the iMac Pro (which came out of the same failed product philosophy that gave us the 2013 Mac Pro) will be a market failure of such epic proportions, that it will make the 20th Anniversary Macintosh look like the iPhone.

Apple has been taking flak for the Mac Pro's current design for years - long before they decided to replace it with the iMac Pro. Plus nobody knew the iMac Pro was coming much before it's reveal at WWDC (there was a vague rumor about a new "Pro" iMac from the Foxconn Leaker, but nobody seemed to take him seriously). And as much as the detractors refuse to accept it, iMacs are currently in wide use in many markets that would benefit from a more powerful model like the iMac Pro. All that being said, I do believe they came to realize that the iMac Pro, while better than the current Mac Pro, would not be sufficient to meet the needs of their most-demanding customers and that is where this new Mac Pro is aimed at.

What could have happened?

I think what happened is that the proponents of the Macintosh finally got their voices heard by senior management. Of Apple's three hardware "tent poles", only the Mac is seeing general growth year on year within each respective quarter (iPhone is generally flat and iPad is generally declining) and senior management is finally noticing this. As such, they're now willing to invest in Mac to a higher degree than they have in the past.

I hope that this time, Apple has done a thorough market analysis and talked with the end users and show them the prototypes for end user feedback. I think they lacked that with the Mac Pro 2013.

We know from the "April Meeting" that Apple has been speaking with some of their largest customers on what they felt were the limitations and drawbacks from the Mac Pro and what they wanted in a new Mac Pro level machine. The iMac Pro is a more capable machine than the current Mac Pro, but it's not going to be as capable as the most powerful machines offered by OEMs like HP or Dell running Windows and Linux. And this is where I expect the Mac Pro will be aimed at.

 

[AidenShaw]

We know from the "April Meeting" that Apple has been speaking with some of their largest customers on what they felt were the limitations and drawbacks from the Mac Pro and what they wanted in a new Mac Pro level machine. The iMac Pro is a more capable machine than the current Mac Pro, but it's not going to be as capable as the most powerful machines offered by OEMs like HP or Dell running Windows and Linux. And this is where I expect the Mac Pro will be aimed at.

I hope that Apple has been hearing that a *range* of workstations is important - from single socket systems with E3 equivalents to dual socket E5 systems. The mMP doesn't have to be the most expensive workstation on the planet....

 

[Peace]

I hope that Apple has been hearing that a *range* of workstations is important - from single socket systems with E3 equivalents to dual socket E5 systems. The mMP doesn't have to be the most expensive workstation on the planet....

You sure this is an Apple discussion ?

 

[iPadified]

Apple has been taking flak for the Mac Pro's current design for years - long before they decided to replace it with the iMac Pro. Plus nobody knew the iMac Pro was coming much before it's reveal at WWDC (there was a vague rumor about a new "Pro" iMac from the Foxconn Leaker, but nobody seemed to take him seriously). And as much as the detractors refuse to accept it, iMacs are currently in wide use in many markets that would benefit from a more powerful model like the iMac Pro. All that being said, I do believe they came to realize that the iMac Pro, while better than the current Mac Pro, would not be sufficient to meet the needs of their most-demanding customers and that is where this new Mac Pro is aimed at.




I think what happened is that the proponents of the Macintosh finally got their voices heard by senior management. Of Apple's three hardware "tent poles", only the Mac is seeing general growth year on year within each respective quarter (iPhone is generally flat and iPad is generally declining) and senior management is finally noticing this. As such, they're now willing to invest in Mac to a higher degree than they have in the past.




We know from the "April Meeting" that Apple has been speaking with some of their largest customers on what they felt were the limitations and drawbacks from the Mac Pro and what they wanted in a new Mac Pro level machine. The iMac Pro is a more capable machine than the current Mac Pro, but it's not going to be as capable as the most powerful machines offered by OEMs like HP or Dell running Windows and Linux. And this is where I expect the Mac Pro will be aimed at.

Let's hope so.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

I maintain the entry level Mac Pro will cost less than iMac pro and will be configurable to $15k+ minimum.

 

[mattspace]

And as much as the detractors refuse to accept it, iMacs are currently in wide use in many markets that would benefit from a more powerful model like the iMac Pro.

See, I think this is the same sort of broken logic that gets us claims that the touchbar is a hit feature, because the touchbar Macbook Pro is selling well.

IMHO the reason the iMac is selling well in "pro" fields, is because it is the only option (the Mac Mini is a joke, and there are times a laptop isn't suitable). It's the fastest desktop Mac for many tasks, but to extrapolate from that, the idea that the nature of the iMac - an all in one, largely disposable appliance, is a significant contributor to its success, rather than being a vestigial characteristic piggybacking on performance and lack of choice, is like painting the target around the bullet holes and presenting oneself as a great marksman.

We don't have a comparable Mac as a separate desktop and monitor, so we can't claim that the iMac's form factor has any causative influence on its penetration into the "Pro" market.

I would be willing to bet that the market for users who need the performance difference between an iMac and an iMac Pro, but don't have the space to put in a tower is vanishingly small. It's a product which only makes sense in the context of being the only "Pro" desktop Apple were going to sell. The fact that it isn't being killed off before release has a lot to do IMHO with the politics of why Apple made a $20k gold watch, and a $300+ self-congratulatory photo book.

The cost of a workstation, and the disposability of an appliance, "Nuts & Gum, together at last.".

 

[antonis]

Didn't apple admit that the 2013 MP was a bad idea, after all, and apologised for it ? Yes.
Was the reason for being a bad idea that it didn't have a built-in screen ? Nope.
Do the given reasons for being a bad idea stand for an iMac as well ? Definitely, probably on a higher degree as well.

So, what admitted problems of 2013 MP is the iMac Pro going to address ?

 

[goMac]

Didn't apple admit that the 2013 MP was a bad idea, after all, and apologised for it ? Yes.
Was the reason for being a bad idea that it didn't have a built-in screen ? Nope.
Do the given reasons for being a bad idea stand for an iMac as well ? Definitely, probably on a higher degree as well.

So, what admitted problems of 2013 MP is the iMac Pro going to address ?

It's pretty clear Apple sees the problem as the small design where they couldn't put full power GPUs in. So I'd expect a larger case, beefy power supply, way better thermals, and top end GPUs. They're going to build a tank they can just throw upgrades in without worrying about the design for the next 10 years.

May or may not mean PCIe GPUs. Also doesn't mean a case as large as the 2012 Mac Pro's with optical drives and SATA slots.

If they can get PCIe GPUs working with Thunderbolt nicely they may take that path. I could also see them doing some new custom card design standard with Intel perhaps that keeps the video ports internal. Who knows. They can't be the only ones trying to get discrete PCIe GPUs working with Thunderbolt.

 

[Derived]

Wow. How many hours-per-day does that keyboard get used? I'm honestly curious because when I found that the Magic Keyboards' batteries can't be swapped-out, that was a deal-killer for me, although I liked the "flatter" way that the keyboard rests. (I use Panasonic and Eneloop rechargeable AA's for my Apple aluminum BT keyboard and my Logitech M510. That's 2 AA's each and the charge and use lasts about 8 weeks.)

Maybe the battery in the Magic Keyboard is enormous. Certainly, the power switch (if it has one) may fail before other parts, with the exception being the space bar. FWIW, in 25 years the Bluetooth spec will probably have shifted a few times. https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/bluetooth-core-specification/deprecated-specifications

We ain't complainin', we're explainin'...

Right now? Quite a few, 8+ hours for sure. Usage has gone way up in the last few months but I haven't charged it since I think partially in the beginning of May and I still have about 30% right now as I type this.

 

[namethisfile]

It's pretty clear Apple sees the problem as the small design where they couldn't put full power GPUs in. So I'd expect a larger case, beefy power supply, way better thermals, and top end GPUs. They're going to build a tank they can just throw upgrades in without worrying about the design for the next 10 years.

May or may not mean PCIe GPUs. Also doesn't mean a case as large as the 2012 Mac Pro's with optical drives and SATA slots.

If they can get PCIe GPUs working with Thunderbolt nicely they may take that path. I could also see them doing some new custom card design standard with Intel perhaps that keeps the video ports internal. Who knows. They can't be the only ones trying to get discrete PCIe GPUs working with Thunderbolt.

This is just a theory. But, Apple "confessing" about design flaw was just them saying, AMD couldn't deliver a GPU appropriate for the nMP. But, didn't wanna "point finger." So, they pointed the finger to themselves, which is a classy move. But, it's also sort of true that it could be nMP design. But, it's more true that AMD couldn't deliver, which they didn't.

Now, that AMD GPU is going into an iMac first before a Mac Pro, which is probably not what Apple wanted to do.

 

[CWallace]

I maintain the entry level Mac Pro will cost less than iMac pro and will be configurable to $15k+ minimum.

I agree.

See, I think this is the same sort of broken logic that gets us claims that the touchbar is a hit feature, because the touchbar Macbook Pro is selling well.

IMHO the reason the iMac is selling well in "pro" fields, is because it is the only option (the Mac Mini is a joke, and there are times a laptop isn't suitable). It's the fastest desktop Mac for many tasks, but to extrapolate from that, the idea that the nature of the iMac - an all in one, largely disposable appliance, is a significant contributor to its success, rather than being a vestigial characteristic piggybacking on performance and lack of choice, is like painting the target around the bullet holes and presenting oneself as a great marksman.

Except it's not "the only option". Scientific applications run on Unix/Linux so that macOS is a version of Unix means it can handle those applications. But if you need high-end performance, you're running those apps not on iMacs, but on Dell and HP workstations and you will on occasion see an HP/Dell Xeon workstation mixed in with those iMacs and MacBook Pros doing the "heavy lifting". An iMac Pro - and definitely a strong Mac Pro - will be able to replace that workstation.

And of course this forum is filled with posts by "pros" who crow about leaving Apple behind for a Windows PC because it has better performance (or price/performance value) thanks to being more customizable or using nVidia GPUs (as their workflow is optimized for that vendor). The iMac Pro won't do much for that since it will be AMD-only, but if the Mac Pro has an nVidia option (and I think it will - either directly or via an nVidia partner), that is going to make the Mac much more appropriate for them again.
[doublepost=1504635568][/doublepost]

This is just a theory. But, Apple "confessing" about design flaw was just them saying, AMD couldn't deliver a GPU appropriate for the nMP. But, didn't wanna "point finger." So, they pointed the finger to themselves, which is a classy move. But, it's also sort of true that it could be nMP design. But, it's more true that AMD couldn't deliver, which they didn't.

AMD had better GPUs after the Dxxx series, but the current Mac Pro was not designed to have a single high-TDP GPU and the (strong) majority of Mac software could not take advantage of two GPUs. So upgrading the GPUs with newer low-TDP models was possible, but overall performance was not going to be much better (especially compared to the high-TDP units) while they would raise the price of what was already an expensive machine on a price/performance basis.

 

[antonis]

The 10-year plan was also said for the 2013 MP. Since then, I admit, it gives me the chills reading this again.

Apple admitting MP's shortcomings was nothing like courtesy towards AMD, imo. They admitted that they were trapped in the thermal envelope of their own design, making upgrades impossible. They have also invested a bit too much & too early on the success of TB as the cookie cutter for everything.

iMac Pro is based on the same logic. Thermal envelope is not even in the discussion, as the machine is by design not upgradeable to begin with. So, it is a bit weird admitting their mistakes while announcing the "apple mistakes v2.0".

mMP is anyone's guess, of course, as I assume it is currently only a bunch of thoughts on a paper.

 

[goMac]

This is just a theory. But, Apple "confessing" about design flaw was just them saying, AMD couldn't deliver a GPU appropriate for the nMP. But, didn't wanna "point finger." So, they pointed the finger to themselves, which is a classy move. But, it's also sort of true that it could be nMP design. But, it's more true that AMD couldn't deliver, which they didn't.

Now, that AMD GPU is going into an iMac first before a Mac Pro, which is probably not what Apple wanted to do.

Apple's experience with CPUs was that each generation (roughly) ran cooler and faster than the last. When they put in the D700 they assumed that would be worst case, and they every new AMD GPU would be cooler than the last

Didn't pan out. The D700 was already a stretch, and while GPUs have gotten faster they haven't gotten cooler.

 

[namethisfile]

The 10-year plan was also said for the 2013 MP. Since then, I admit, it gives me the chills reading this again.

Apple admitting MP's shortcomings was nothing like courtesy towards AMD, imo. They admitted that they were trapped in the thermal envelope of their own design, making upgrades impossible. They have also invested a bit too much & too early on the success of TB as the cookie cutter for everything.

iMac Pro is based on the same logic. Thermal envelope is not even in the discussion, as the machine is by design not upgradeable to begin with. So, it is a bit weird admitting their mistakes while announcing the "apple mistakes v2.0".

mMP is anyone's guess, of course, as I assume it is currently only a bunch of thoughts on a paper.

It is odd that Apple would blame it on a "design" flaw. It's weird because Apple is a design company, as well. And, a successful, innovative one at that.

It's also odd that the "design" of the nMP 2013, which is a vertical chamber using natural convection is a proven design (Apple wasn't the first to do this) and is effective. The nMP is basically taking that concept and making everything about it around it, if that makes sense. Get it? a-round-it? Heheheheh....

So, "design" wise it's weird saying this design is flawed (it's not true).

It's also weird that the nMP if the design is so flawed has been emulated, imitated and borrowed by many other companies. Such as that trashcan HP made, etc....

So, a lot of things about that Apple statement is weird.

And, don't blame it on TB (thunderbolt). The nMP 2013 did not became that way because of TB alone. TB is not the harbinger of a glorified round mac mini as many people see it.

Thunderbolt is just not that "powerful."

Another weird thing is that if nMP is flawed it is the "design" of the GPU's. They're custom.

Not "user" upgradeable.

Guess who has the "power" to upgrade those GPU's?

You guessed it!

A-Mutha***-Deee!!!

Apple is classy tho and didn't put their finger on them.

But, I am here to not point the finger, too. Just acknowledge that finger!

Thank you!

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple's experience with CPUs was that each generation (roughly) ran cooler and faster than the last. When they put in the D700 they assumed that would be worst case, and they every new AMD GPU would be cooler than the last.

I think that you're being overly kind to the amigos at Apple.

The trend towards bigger and hotter GPUs was well underway in 2013. Look at Hawaii....

Apple had to underclock the D700s to fit an inadequate power/thermal envelope from day one.

 

[William Payne]

Apple took a gamble and lost. They thought that small form factor with multiple smaller gpu's would become the norm. IT DID NOT!

In the custom PC market small form factor is still very much a niche. Generally everything has gotten bigger, CPU's, GPU's, cases.

With the availability of high wattage power supplies and the popularity of SLI, more and more people are running multiple giant GPU setups. It is not uncommon to see systems with multiple Titan X's now.

Efficiency and small form did not win the war. Massive size, huge power and ludicrous speed did.

 

[ManuelGomes]

We could see Titan Ridge TB controllers with DP1.4 on mMP.
It comes with CFL and CNL PCH though.

 

[William Payne]

I hope Apple adopts display port 1.4 if they don't allow us to use ports on the GPU.

Apple make good computers but they are not the leaders in display technology if you need color accuracy or reference monitors. Standard display ports would be nice.

 

[ManuelGomes]

Will, how long do you think that trend will last?
For the general population I mean.
And almost everyone has done a similar machine, so I guess it wasn't such a failed concept after all.

 

[William Payne]

Will, how long do you think that trend will last?
For the general population I mean.
And almost everyone has done a similar machine, so I guess it wasn't such a failed concept after all.

Sorry which trend are you meaning? My fault just want to know what part of my post you are reading before I answer.

 

[ManuelGomes]

They will be aiming at an external display with HDR.
5K@60Hz@10b with HDR requires a lot of bandwidth

 

[CWallace]

iMac Pro is based on the same logic. Thermal envelope is not even in the discussion, as the machine is by design not upgradeable to begin with. So, it is a bit weird admitting their mistakes while announcing the "apple mistakes v2.0".

The iMac Pro's cooling is designed to cope with a single high-TDP GPU -maybe not as high as what the PC OEMs are offering, but still a fair bit more than what's in an iMac or Mac Pro right now.

 

[ManuelGomes]

Sorry, I meant the big boxes with loads of GPUs inside.
Even now that is reserved for the die hard "I want a beast of a machine" guys. And Aiden of course.
The average Joe has nothing like that under their desk.

 

[AidenShaw]

With the availability of high wattage power supplies and the popularity of SLI, more and more people are running multiple giant GPU setups. It is not uncommon to see systems with multiple Titan X's now.

Yep....

Tue Sep  5 13:39:13 2017
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| NVIDIA-SMI 384.69                 Driver Version: 384.69                    |
|-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| GPU  Name        Persistence-M| Bus-Id        Disp.A | Volatile Uncorr. ECC |
| Fan  Temp  Perf  Pwr:Usage/Cap|         Memory-Usage | GPU-Util  Compute M. |
|===============================+======================+======================|
|   0  GeForce GTX TIT...  Off  | 00000000:04:00.0 Off |                  N/A |
| 22%   29C    P8    13W / 250W |     11MiB / 12207MiB |      0%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   1  GeForce GTX TIT...  Off  | 00000000:0A:00.0 Off |                  N/A |
| 22%   26C    P8    15W / 250W |     11MiB / 12207MiB |      0%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   2  GeForce GTX TIT...  Off  | 00000000:84:00.0 Off |                  N/A |
| 22%   25C    P8    15W / 250W |     11MiB / 12207MiB |      0%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   3  GeForce GTX TIT...  Off  | 00000000:8A:00.0 Off |                  N/A |
| 22%   28C    P8    15W / 250W |     11MiB / 12207MiB |      0%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+




Tue Sep  5 13:42:42 2017
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| NVIDIA-SMI 384.66                 Driver Version: 384.66                    |
|-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| GPU  Name        Persistence-M| Bus-Id        Disp.A | Volatile Uncorr. ECC |
| Fan  Temp  Perf  Pwr:Usage/Cap|         Memory-Usage | GPU-Util  Compute M. |
|===============================+======================+======================|
|   0  TITAN X (Pascal)    Off  | 00000000:04:00.0 Off |                  N/A |
| 23%   25C    P8     8W / 250W |     10MiB / 12189MiB |      0%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   1  TITAN X (Pascal)    Off  | 00000000:0A:00.0 Off |                  N/A |
| 23%   26C    P8     8W / 250W |     10MiB / 12189MiB |      0%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   2  TITAN X (Pascal)    Off  | 00000000:84:00.0 Off |                  N/A |
| 23%   24C    P8     8W / 250W |     10MiB / 12189MiB |      0%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   3  TITAN X (Pascal)    Off  | 00000000:8A:00.0 Off |                  N/A |
| 23%   23C    P8     8W / 250W |     10MiB / 12189MiB |      0%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+

 

[William Payne]

Sorry, I meant the big boxes with loads of GPUs inside.
Even now that is reserved for the die hard "I want a beast of a machine" guys. And Aiden of course.
The average Joe has nothing like that under their desk.

The average joe in that regard probably doesn't need a Mac Pro, they may want one but not need one.

The reality is for average joe surfing the net they really don't need much of a computer. I do a lot of my internet surfing on my phone.

Once people start doing intensive tasks then their needs go up.