After today's release of iMac Pro, I'm even more anxious for the modular Mac Pro than ever before! iMac Pro just doesn't cut it. Zero upgradeability. 
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.
MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macpro 2016
- Sort by reaction score
So if you did this the most sensible way:
Precision 5820 with:
10 core Xeon W
1TB NVMe SSD (don't buy this yourself since you generally want the OS included, but could save some bucks if you make this DIY)
2x8GB RAM
Comes to $3769
Sell your 2x8GB RAM for ~$100.
Buy 4x16GB RAM for $800
Buy 5K monitor for ~$1000
Buy Vega 64 at B&H for $800
Comes to $6269
Throw in some mouse/keyboard/touchpad things maybe that brings you up to 6500 or so.
This is highlights what I've said before about this iMac Pro. Its totally reasonable deal if you get the base model, maybe boost the RAM yourself (which this alone would bring down your cost above to about $7000). But the upgrades are bad deals, all of them.
[doublepost=1513278382][/doublepost]
After today's release of iMac Pro, I'm even more anxious for the modular Mac Pro than ever before! iMac Pro just doesn't cut it. Zero upgradeability.
Oh wow, I hadn't realized they said RAM won't be replaceable. That's horrible on all machines, but even worse on something that's supposed to compete with workstations.
Apple could release a new Mac Pro and a few hours later there would be posts about how this is a sign that the Mac Pro is over.
Seems that way...just pages and pages of the same nonsense about how no doubt the next Mac Pro will definitely, absolutely be an all-soldered, non-upgradable, un-openable small-form-factor box that will be overpriced and under spec'd. This is nonsense, and I will bet anyone here that this is exactly what won't happen.
Dumpster fire ? Here, hold my beer...
With net neutrality dead in the water, Apple will realize their upcoming mac-pro customer base will all soon be unemployed, so they will probably kill the project. All non IOS departments will be dropped to triple their legal teams so they can simultaneously sue Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, will still maintaining their iPatentLitigation™ efforts.
Apple has enough money to BUY AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, AND Comcast. Now THERE'S an idea!
Intel Xeon W has enough. 48 PCI-e lanes on the CPU and 16-24 lanes on the PCH is enough to do a reasonable Mac Pro.
Apple GPU - x16
open double wide slot - x16
T2-SSD - x4
TBv3 - x4
TBv3 - x4
TBv3 - x4 ( or stop at 4 TBv3 sockets and another open slot )
hang the dual 10GbE off the PCH along with USB 3.0 type A (or even USB 3.1 gen 2 type A if add a controller), standard S.2 slot , Wifi/Bluetooth etc. (possibly a SATA drive ). [ can swap S.2 on PCH for open T2-SSD on CPU bus. ]
Mac Pro would retain the 6 TB socket bragging rights over the 4 socket MBP and iMac Pro. (and if drop back to even 4 would have a standard socket... so still extremely differentiating for increase in case size tradeoff. )
The AMD options would have more, but more to do what? >3 standard PCI-e slots? Not likely for Apple. An insane number of TBv3 sockets as proposed earlier in this thread? Again not likely? ( the iMac Pro has Type A sockets. There is about a zero rational reason for the Mac Pro to go to "everything Type C" OCD mania when the iMac Pro didn't. ). AMD gets more by cranking up the NUMA differences between slots, that may not buy Apple much on a more limited subset of lane usage.
Apple built their own Secure element chip. AMD having something similar may not help much. AMD options are more affordable. If anything that would be the edge from Apple's perspective.
for x4 SSDs handing off the PCH chipset isn't going to see parallelism gains vastly higher than the performance the iMac Pro's SSD turns out.
if try to hang them off the CPU lanes then there is no room in an iMac Pro. The four TBv3 sockets coming out of the iMac Pro represent no more than two x4 lane assignments.
If an updated Mac Pro was hamstrung with a single SSD again there there wouldn't be an advantage over the iMac Pro. One or two more standard SSDs ( S.2 slot or standard x4 card with S.2 slots ) if only on $/addition if not huge bandwidth difference. Given the T2 in the iMac Pro, I suspect the standard Mac Pro configuration to have one custom, soldered T2 driven SSD. The difference would be another set of open slots that could be filled BTO or by the user.
[doublepost=1513287347][/doublepost]
Zero user replicability. The RAM is on DIMMs, it is the case that doesn't have a user entry point. There is little to indicate that the upcoming Mac Pro will loose the capability of taking off the outer case (at least some part of it). Even the MP 2013 has the ability. The case open versus case closed would be part of the difference between the two products.
if the iMac Pro has to be cracked open for service anyway there is a window of doing a RAM upgrade. Not an everyday action. But not impossible (soldered everything). Soldering RAM on thin laptops makes some sense ( trading horizontal for vertical space. ). On desktops it is dubious ( Yes Apple has done it on some entry level iMacs but those have a stack of dubious characteristics of slavishly copying the MBA. ).
Bigger trend line indicated by iMac Pro is Apple pushing SSD controller duties into their own T2 chip which is solder to the logic board. Likely means the standard configuration across the whole line up will move to Apple only SSD. Highly doubtful Apple is going to restrict T2 usage to just the iMac Pro. Won't be surprising to see it rolled out over the whole desktop line up in 2018 time frame (maybe slide out to 2019 if keep same glacial slow product update tempo) . Laptop line up too (may not see touch bar on every laptop but T2 is everything but touch bar screen driver + fingerprint reader the T1 is. )
To get T2 costs down they'll need a high volume rate. That basically points to across the board Mac system roll out.
T2 either seriously helps or seriously hurts the case for AMD.
On one hand, Apple is moving stuff like SMC onto a platform they control. This might separate them a bit from Intel's architecture.
On the other hand, the APU cases kind of dies. We know the Mac Pro is supposed to be modular, which strongly implies dGPU. And any use case for an integrated GPU to drive things like bridging PCIE GPUs to the Thunderbolt bus starts to dry up because T2 has a GPU.
In fact, T2 looks like it's driving the image signal processing, which could mean it's already sitting on the DisplayPort bus.
Depends upon how Apple wants to go and how flexible AMD is willing to be. If AMD was willing to put Apple's secure enclave processor into an AMD CPU package for some custom CPUs then would probably save even more board space. AMD has a security processor embedded in their design ( just a Cortex-A5 but they have thought about this a bit). If they pulled theirs out to the CPU package as opposed to on-die then Apple's propritary doodad could fit more easily.
I think one reason Apple has a discrete one is because Intel doesn't have any solution here that Apple finds acceptable. ( actually separate cores and ram are easier to lock down then a virtual slice that shares resources and switchs modes on some privileged which most rogue users can inject is some driver code update. . )
The Threadripper and EPYC aren't APU solutions. The Mac Pro 2013 has a technically dGPU but pragmatically it is really an embedded one. I don't think 'integrated' is the right word there ( iGPU has a CPU package connotation to it as this point in usage ). It is on a board, but it is for the Mac Pro. I don't see any changes coming there because a big part of the driver there is Thunderbolt and that doesn't change if make a "Modular" Mac Pro and highly likely to forgo Rube Goldberg solutions of trying to make general market dGPUs do what they are not designed to do.
Apple can do simply mods of baseline GPU card reference designs of just taking the edge port connectors off and routing the DisplayPort output down to the card edge. ( Laptop GPU cards do this, but it isn't a PCI-e standard. ). Two card edge connectors and a notch ( to keep folks from putting the 'wrong' card in that slot) and done. It is modular ... just can't buy new parts from the Fry's/Newegg/etc. special bin.
The Mac Pro could have another for that which is decoupled from Thunderbolt so doesn't have the design constraints.
The need for integrated (to CPU package) GPUs is just as high going forward for the Mac Mini , iMac , and laptops as it is now.
T2 may have a GPU but perhaps only because it is an Apple Watch design modification. The T1 does. I would imagine a later T3 iteration that covers both use cases ( Touch bar, touch id , face id ). Right now though if trying to minimize the T2 costs that could be stripped out pretty barebones GPU just for corner case compute GPU duties associated with image processing flow that isn't 100% fix function logic. .
No. Image signal processing is taking input from the camera(s) sensor output. Had little to do with pushing data to a LCD panel .
I think this has more to do with the growing trend of people putting tape over the cameras embedded in their laptop/monitor/iMac. Keeping rogue programs from the camera ( security ) and perhaps later something like Face ID (which cranking up the 'horsepower' gets cheaper in the security chip . ) .
Last edited:
The only information regarding AMD cpu's in the mac pro is a bunch of peoples wishful thinking on here. There is zero evidence. Also Apple just released its most powerful computer it has ever sold using the latest intel chipsets in its class.
Maybe they will offer a choice of either intel or AMD. In some use cases for example threadripper has been found to not be the best choice. Video editing softwares like premiere pro have been found to not like threadripper. However there will be use cases that will really like threadripper.
I say either stick with intel or give the customer a choice.
Maybe they will offer a choice of either intel or AMD. In some use cases for example threadripper has been found to not be the best choice. Video editing softwares like premiere pro have been found to not like threadripper. However there will be use cases that will really like threadripper.
I say either stick with intel or give the customer a choice.
Ah, that makes sense.
I've heard it's actually based on the A10 from the iPhone 7. It's iOS installation does contain GPU drivers for an A/S series processor as well.
Given that it does pre-boot stuff I still wonder if it has any graphics output to the display.
Oh wow, I hadn't realized they said RAM won't be replaceable. That's horrible on all machines, but even worse on something that's supposed to compete with workstations.After today's release of iMac Pro, I'm even more anxious for the modular Mac Pro than ever before! iMac Pro just doesn't cut it. Zero upgradeability.
That's not true. The iMac Pro is not USER upgrade-able. You can have the memory upgraded though; you just have to have an Apple service technician do it. I'm guessing you'll be able to upgrade the SSD too...and maybe even the processor if you're feeling frisky.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...ilable-heres-how-people-are-already-using-it/
"Its memory is in full-size DIMM slots and can be upgraded by an Apple service technician, but there is no opening through which a user can access those slots. The processor is socketed, along with some other components, but the machine was not designed to be upgraded or serviced in this way."
the mMP should include a 2nd NVMEe, and Maybe even x8 NVMe, it makes the things complicated for Xeon-W but Amd Epyc still has plenty CPU lines (not PCH), PCH lines shares the same 5GTs channel to the CPU on the Xeon-W.
About the mMP configuration, I had a vision, a sort of mini Quad-Tower each Tower is a Functional Module interconnected to the others thru a central "hub" structure, Tower 1 (front left) contains the CPU, Ram and SSD and its cooling solution, Tower 2-3 (on the side) contains the GPUs, Tower 4 (at bottom bethind Tw1) contains the PSU and I/O shileld Module.
Drop an unnecessary third Thunderbolt Controller, add an NVMe, and I think that’s likely the Mac Pro.
Both PCI slots would be normal form factor, to allow Apple to sell single or dual GPUs. Maybe even squeeze in one more slot for those who have a high end capture card and do dynamic lane allocation.
I actually wonder if people are going so out there imagining what the Modular Mac Pro will be that no matter how great it is people will be disappointed
At this point, my guess is a similar WWDC unveiling and then a later in 2018 release. possibly even MP2013 "barely squeaking by in 2018" model.
I hadn't realized until researching the iMac's processors that Intel has gone screwy with Xeons this year and the E3/5/7 stuff is all binned. Dual sockets mean Gold processors which mean a pretty crazy high price. Just going with the stock -W models instead of the down clocked iMac variants wouldn't be terrible for me; I certainly don't need 18 cores, I do need more than 6. Downside is only four RAM slots, but if they can fit multiple PCIe storage and a few slots on it that covers me.
Intel's lineup and feature set this year make about as much sense as a potato peeler on an emergency life raft.
and next year, when all the pennies drop, and people realise that "VR Ready" is based on Apple classing 360 video as "VR" (which it isn't), and that the card in that machine is already a full level of performance below the minimum you need today to do a VR work environment, you're up for another $7k+ just to get to today's Dell or HP, which will be able to be up to the standard of next year's Dell or HP with a $1000 GPU.
If you price a custom HP Z series and pick the components closest to whats in the iMac pro maxed out the price is pretty much the same. In fact more for the HP as you have to buy a screen.
[doublepost=1513320868][/doublepost]People also have talked about how if the iMac pro was a mac pro you could attach a specialised screen, but they say it as if that is some way to save money. But say a 31" 4k colour accurate Eizo screen for example, they cost as much as the entire base model iMac pro.
[doublepost=1513321020][/doublepost]I mean, also one quadro p6000 costs as much as an entire base model iMac pro.
[doublepost=1513320868][/doublepost]People also have talked about how if the iMac pro was a mac pro you could attach a specialised screen, but they say it as if that is some way to save money. But say a 31" 4k colour accurate Eizo screen for example, they cost as much as the entire base model iMac pro.
[doublepost=1513321020][/doublepost]I mean, also one quadro p6000 costs as much as an entire base model iMac pro.
Low/mid end Xeon E5s are now bronze and silver, both of which are duel processor capable. You can build a duel processor, Xeon silver-based (16-24 core total) dell or supermicro machine for around the price of the entry iMac Pro. It won't have some of the bells and whistles, but it will have more performance for multi thread compute.
[doublepost=1513322882][/doublepost]
Well, that's good. At least its possible, but sheesh, you just made something that should take about 2 minutes into an afternoon long affair.
Do note that the iMac Pro´s 8 and 10 core CPUs are B versions, lower clocked. But 14 and 18 seem to be the full fat.
Looking forward to seeing if these can deal with professional high stress usage. We were told the nMP’s thermal design was sufficient and that turned out to not be the case. Hopefully they’ve learned.
The funniest complaints I'm seeing about the iMac Pro are the people who still want the xMac and are complaining that the machine uses Xeons. Guys, it's not coming. It never has been. Give it a rest. If you want all-consumer parts, then you're not and never have been what Apple considers a pro desktop machine.
The new Mac Pro could be the second coming of the cheese grater and these people still wouldn't be happy.
The thermal core limited their upgrade options and was in hindsight an impressive design with limited utility, but it didn't fail in the machine. It did what it was supposed to—perform without throttling except under the most extreme circumstances.
The problem is that the silvers are a step down, not a perfect replacement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#"Skylake-SP"_(14_nm)_Scalable_Performance
Bronzes have no turbo boost, and the clock speeds on the silvers are lower than previous SKUs in Mac Pros.
There's some nice benefits, like 6 DIMMs, but it seems like too heavy a sacrifice for single-core tasks.
The new Mac Pro could be the second coming of the cheese grater and these people still wouldn't be happy.
[citation needed]
The thermal core limited their upgrade options and was in hindsight an impressive design with limited utility, but it didn't fail in the machine. It did what it was supposed to—perform without throttling except under the most extreme circumstances.
The problem is that the silvers are a step down, not a perfect replacement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#"Skylake-SP"_(14_nm)_Scalable_Performance
Bronzes have no turbo boost, and the clock speeds on the silvers are lower than previous SKUs in Mac Pros.
There's some nice benefits, like 6 DIMMs, but it seems like too heavy a sacrifice for single-core tasks.
Last edited:
I'm going to throw out a dumb question, just to get a refresher ... and maybe also see if there's any paradigm shift.
This one is about Thunderbolt (TB ... any flavor, unless it is important to differentiate) & PCIe based GPUs.
Grossly oversimplified (since I know that I don't recall ... even if I really understood) - -
Going back ~5 years, my recollection on the prospects of TB on a cMP was that there were technical issues on piping stuff back & forth from the motherboard onto the PCIe card (etc) to then pipe it out of the GPU card's video port.
Now today, we have the iMac Pro, which has an integrated 5K display. And on its back, the I/O is four USB 3 ports (style A), and four TB-3's (style USB-C). Any issues/concerns regarding TB-over-video has been obviated because the 5K display has been integrated.
Okay, now looking forward to notional mMP concepts...
Q: If I had a PCIe GPU card that had some sort of video-out port that was NOT of {TB/USB-C}, is there any reason that all of the historical "have to pipe TB over/back/up/down/etc" is a relevant engineering constraint or issue?
I think what I'm getting to is to try to confirm for myself is the question of if the whole issue of TB interfacing to PCIe video cards topic has been one that is only present when there's a TB-based video port on said PCIe card. If this is the case, then isn't the whole engineering details mess become moot if the decision is made to simply not have TB outputs from PCIe cards?
TL;DR: Patient: "Doctor, Doctor ... it hurts when I go like this!" MD: "So don't go like that!".
This one is about Thunderbolt (TB ... any flavor, unless it is important to differentiate) & PCIe based GPUs.
Grossly oversimplified (since I know that I don't recall ... even if I really understood) - -
Going back ~5 years, my recollection on the prospects of TB on a cMP was that there were technical issues on piping stuff back & forth from the motherboard onto the PCIe card (etc) to then pipe it out of the GPU card's video port.
Now today, we have the iMac Pro, which has an integrated 5K display. And on its back, the I/O is four USB 3 ports (style A), and four TB-3's (style USB-C). Any issues/concerns regarding TB-over-video has been obviated because the 5K display has been integrated.
Okay, now looking forward to notional mMP concepts...
Q: If I had a PCIe GPU card that had some sort of video-out port that was NOT of {TB/USB-C}, is there any reason that all of the historical "have to pipe TB over/back/up/down/etc" is a relevant engineering constraint or issue?
I think what I'm getting to is to try to confirm for myself is the question of if the whole issue of TB interfacing to PCIe video cards topic has been one that is only present when there's a TB-based video port on said PCIe card. If this is the case, then isn't the whole engineering details mess become moot if the decision is made to simply not have TB outputs from PCIe cards?
TL;DR: Patient: "Doctor, Doctor ... it hurts when I go like this!" MD: "So don't go like that!".