Is this the same source who told you we'd see the Mac Pro this year?
MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macpro 2016
- Sort by reaction score
Is this the same source who told you we'd see the Mac Pro this year?
No, this one is one I actually rely on, consider it a fact, next year mac (desktops at least) will have CPU and GPU from AMD, only exception maybe on the mMP GPUs where apple could open the GPU to nVidia CTO, also seems Laptops to continue with Intel CPU at least on 2018, but all new desktop to move to AMD.
Hah.
Considering the size of Threadripper I don’t think the next CPU would even physically fit in an iMac.
mattspace
macrumors 68040
mentally prepare yourself for it to cost exactly the same as the iMac Pro based upon cpu, GPU and drive specs. Flexibility will be the "free" extra, the way the display is the "free" extra in the iMac Pro.
thanks for the contribution. any other way I can help you feel superior today?
flat five
macrumors 603
but there were only 3 days to pick from.. December 12th, 19th, and 26th..
not really sure if the announcement being today adds any credibility to the source
The Source is Good, the problem is the data wasn't explicit, exactly which was observed and where is something not to be revealed, but provided a clue the iMac Pro 'event' had to be today, at least seems to be a good fawcet for Apple leaks.
sparkie7
macrumors 68030
If Ive does the mMP right it should be a KO by the mMP
Flint Ironstag
macrumors 65816
Pretty safe bet the mMP will be dual socket with PCIe slots. It'll be easily (if expensively) configured to crush iMP.
SeaCaptainBiscuit
macrumors newbie
Note that unlike Intel, AMD could be talked into doing semi-customs that incorporate A-series (or T-series, etc.) on-package (or even into the actual chip).
-hh
macrumors 68030
Well, it depends ...
... if Ive puts it inside of a RED case, you can add another digit to the retail price.
sparkie7
macrumors 68030
deconstruct60
macrumors G5
There is little to indicate that is safe.
1. There is a huge pricing hole between the top standard configuration of the iMac 27" ( $2299) and the entry point of the iMac Pro ( $4999 ). While there are BTO configures that run up through that hole ( 27" upgrade CPU, 32GB , 1 TB SSD ... $3699 is still an almost $1500 hole. ), that is still primarily just the range of iMacs. There is at least loud moaning and groaning about Mac Pro pricing trends over last 10 years as there is about PCI-e slots.
There are Intel-W options with Apple could hit the $2999 price point the Mac Pro is currently taking up. If the Mac Pro + "Pro Display" is more expensive than the iMac Pro then the fratricide wouldn't be all that significant. The folks who have large sunk costs into displays already are segmented off from iMac Pro ( didn't want all-in-one). There is zero rational in driving those folks to two slot when that is not really their problem.
There is no overall good upside of trying to grandstand the iMac Pro with something even more uniformly more expensive. Too expensive would be a death spiral for the Mac Pro.
[ Dual slots tend to run to expensive even for the Dell/HP/Lenovo folks. That 's why the standard entry configs on those only run with one CPU slot filled (which Apple isn't likely to do at all. ). Moving up to the Intel SP or AMD EYPC doesn't make much sense for large fraction of single user workstation. Folks can make arguments about the corner case (much lower base clock ) single user workload but that isn't gong to sell numbers. Apple's 30% markup piled on top of SP/EYPc relatively high mark up just shrinks the user base. ]
2. No where in Apple's Spring pow-wow about "missteps" did they lament giving up the two CPU socket option. Users wanted bigger single GPUs. Would like to get more timely updates out (two CPU sockets doesn't do that. Especially now on separate product tracks at AMD and Intel. Add on top the Xeon W and Threadripper track more desktop chipsets and update cycles. ). There was nothing there about large for largeness sake being something they missed (there was no "bigger is better").
I think in between the lines in that sessions that was some opening for dealing with specialize workload cards (without jumping through a TB breakout box .) PCI-e slots.... not much of big gain there either. Previous Mac Pros only had 4 slots ( it isn't like Apple is going to reverse and shoot from >4 . ). Probably will be lucky even to get back to 2 open/free standard PCI-e slots. [ Thunderbolt /GPU integration likely will lock down 1 and if Mac Pro matches iMac Pro's 10GbE (with usual Mac Pro dual Ethernet Phys jacks ) and the (at least) dual TB v3 controllers that is likely pragmatically another. Highly likely the Mac Pro has more than one storage device this time. ]
3. More expensive is not what they have the highest need for in differentiation. The iMac Pro has no HDD. The new Mac Pro could ( not necessarily since Apple is SSD focused, but could be a differentiator.... or at least minimally one relatively standard SSD socket/drive connection). The Mac Pro probably would have upgradable RAM; iMac Pro doesn't.
deconstruct60
macrumors G5
There is are two pictures of respectively a TR and 2066 board board in this article with some RAM DIMMs in the same shot for perspective in this article (http://www.pcgamer.com/amds-threadripper-is-huge-with-an-equally-large-socket-and-cooler/) . I'll link them in.
Threadripper.
2066
top to bottom length wise the RAM DIMMs are longer so not blowing out space in that dimension with either socket.
There is a marginal width footprint different but if look at two pictures both have 8 DIMM slots. The width isn't so wide as to have moved any of the top picture's DIMM slots out of the field of view.
In terms of taller heat sinks, it is quite likely that the GPU card(s) will impose bigger problems in that dimension.
The Mac Pro is also at it's heart a BTO system (and Apple has indicated that it will continue to be.)
That means you need a base configuration from which you add CPU options, GPU options, or both.
I would expect a base configuration between $3000-$3500.
The iMac Pro does not seem to be a strong BTO contender. It seems like a box where Apple is pretty much forcing you to take high end parts you may or may not need.
The Mac Pro could start at 10 cores, but I kind of doubt it. I'd expect it to start lower. I think Polaris could also even be the starting point for GPUs, if it's not Vega 56.
If you're using a Mac Pro as a server or work node, a Vega 56 may not make a heck of a lot of sense.
That means you need a base configuration from which you add CPU options, GPU options, or both.
I would expect a base configuration between $3000-$3500.
The iMac Pro does not seem to be a strong BTO contender. It seems like a box where Apple is pretty much forcing you to take high end parts you may or may not need.
The Mac Pro could start at 10 cores, but I kind of doubt it. I'd expect it to start lower. I think Polaris could also even be the starting point for GPUs, if it's not Vega 56.
If you're using a Mac Pro as a server or work node, a Vega 56 may not make a heck of a lot of sense.
iMac Pro is limited what comes to SSD speed. It's not suitable for 8k RAW at all. This could be where mMP will excel. 8k needs a lot of I/O, and Threadripper (or similar Apple custom chip) will deliver.
Updated: hardware wise, not suitable, but software can do tricks.
Updated: hardware wise, not suitable, but software can do tricks.
Last edited:
CircleTect
macrumors newbie
Agreed, but it also depends. You can already get 2.5" drives up to 2TB - and if you can support multiple of them, that's a quite a lot of storage. 3.5" drives are still the standard in server infrastructure, but not for computers. I would be INCREDIBLY surprised if the new mMP supported them. Most companies we deal with who need multiple workstation setups use local server storage anyway.
In terms of the PCIE issue - I would tend to agree. Apart from the GPU though, there aren't many use cases for additional cards that require more than a x4 connection that a TB accessory couldn't handle.
My bet is still on a small form factor system.
8k RAW needs 4GB/s minimum, tests show iMac Pro can push 3GB/s read. So that means software is using RAM to buffer the clips, and as long as there is free memory, it'll work.
Or, the software creates a downsized copy of edit track for editing purposes...
Last edited:
Joe The Dragon
macrumors 65816
Even at the AMD epyc level 1 cpu is good with lots of pci-e. Even with Threadripper more pci-e then 1 intel chip.
With intel you need 2 cpus to get the needed pci-e lanes.;
[doublepost=1513175580][/doublepost]
what is the system block map on the imac pro?? With 1 gpu there is room to drive 4 ssd's at pci-e X4 each.
In theory, two TB3s joined together should be enough for studio quality 6GB/s data rate.
It can't be too small and still hit some of the points raised in that discussion from last spring. Its going to have to have at least two PCIe slots, as the single or duel GPU options was a big deal. Once you have room for 2x Titian Vs pulling 500W between them, its really not that big of a deal to make room for 4 3.5" bays. They also talk a lot about having a system that is flexible enough to fit a lot of different needs. Having at least some high capacity, internal storage would seem to be a pretty big deal in regard to that. I just don't see the point in having a small number of 2.5" drive bays for HDDs. You can get 2TB SSDs, and while they are expensive, we're talking about professional uses here. Price is a bit less of a concern, its more about fitting the needs. Which is to say, if all you need is 2-4 TBs max, people are just going to do it with SSDs (at least one of which can be in an M2). But what if you can't fit in <4TBs, and there are plenty of people still work with data sets that would be happier internally rather than over a network. Plus, needing a DAS unit for anything larger than say 4TBs is just plain dumb. That's not allowing for that flexibility they talked about in April. If have to buy 10 of these things, I don't want to also buy say 5 or more DAS to share between the users to go with my local linux/windows server on top of that. And all to do what? Save an inch or two in a few of the dimensions? Apple learned their lesson about having small workstations just for the sake of being small. I don't think they will go down that path again.
Honestly, at this point, I see duel processor vs single processor issues less of a deal breaker for people than the RAM/GPU/HDD issues. The Xeon W seems to have its draw backs, but if you can get up to 18 cores in single processor systems for around the same price as say a 20 core DP system (thinking the Xeon SP Silver line), that's going to hit most of Apple's Mac Pro user base. By the time you bump up to the Xeon Gold (where it seems you'd finally have a large enough CPU advantage to matter over the Xeon W), prices have gone through the roof. I'd personally like to see single and duel processor 'modules' for the new Mac Pro, but out of everything, this would be the one thing I can see them still compromising on.
singhs.apps
macrumors 6502a
Then I hope zen+ makes its way into the mMP with all of its high core counts and PCI lanes goodness.