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

[wallysb01]

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.

A step down from what? The Xeon E5-2630 v4 was a 10 core 2.2-3.0 GHz processor for $667. The silver 4114 is a 10 core 2.1 to 3.0 GHz for $690. Its pretty much the exact replacement (which to an extent is a disappointment from Intel, it would be nice if the 12 core, 4116 was at this price point). If you're comparing the low end multi socket capable Xeons to the E5-1600 (in the tcMP) or -W series (in the iMac Pro) in max single core clock speed, you're doing it wrong. You only get these processors if you need multicore performance above all else (edit: well, that's not the only reason, like ultra-high memory needs would be another, but you get it). If you want both > 12 cores (in single or duel processor packages) and high single core clock rates, you're going to have to back the truck up for it.

 

[Mago]

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?

That's is the dividing point among all mMP speculations:
Apple can:
* Designing a More-less Custom GPU skipping the std PCIe interface as they did with the tcMP and keep feeding the TB headers as Intel drafts.
* Ask GPU manufacturers to add an Internal DP port to connect to the TB headers, then use a more-less STD GPU, allowing you to upgrade it but considering a GPU w/o Internal GPU feed will disable Thunderbolt Output.
* Provide an DP plug as MB DP Feedback signal for TB3 Headers.

Only 1-2 seems probable solutions to me.

 

[edanuff]

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?

The Apple display that accompanies the mMP will almost certainly be USB-C/TB3 only. There will very highly likely only be one GPU slot. That slot will be occupied by a card that powers the Apple display. That card will need to route back to the back panel USB-C/TB3 ports. This is why you need some sort of internal connector or route-back mechanism. It is possible that Apple will have the option that you can put in a third party card and not have the video flow to the TB3 ports. We can only speculate.

 

[goMac]

That's is the dividing point among all mMP speculations:
Apple can:
* Designing a More-less Custom GPU skipping the std PCIe interface as they did with the tcMP and keep feeding the TB headers as Intel drafts.
* Ask GPU manufacturers to add an Internal DP port to connect to the TB headers, then use a more-less STD GPU, allowing you to upgrade it but considering a GPU w/o Internal GPU feed will disable Thunderbolt Output.
* Provide an DP plug as MB DP Feedback signal for TB3 Headers.

Only 1-2 seems probable solutions to me.

List is missing software routing of PCIe GPUs to internal GPU to Thunderbolt, much like some PC vendors do.

2 and 3 seem completely unlikely to me. One GPU may have to drive 4-6 DisplayPorts. No one is going to put 4-6 headers on a GPU. So I think that's not happening. That's something PC vendors do when they only care about supporting one display.

 

[JesterJJZ]

I think 2 slots would be a happy medium for most. I'd like 4 personally, but I could live with two as I wouldn't need a Raid SAS card if I get a TB3 Raid array and I can get Blackmagic output over Thunderbolt as well. USB3 is built in so with 2 slots I can have two GPUs and be happy.

 

[AidenShaw]

I think 2 slots would be a happy medium for most. I'd like 4 personally, but I could live with two as I wouldn't need a Raid SAS card if I get a TB3 Raid array and I can get Blackmagic output over Thunderbolt as well. USB3 is built in so with 2 slots I can have two GPUs and be happy.

"Most" are happy with a laptop or a Mini Mac.

For the upgradeable MP, however, two double-wide x16 slots and two additional x4 or x8 slots should be the minimum.

If you bought a cMP - did you think that USB 3.0 would become almost essential?

The mMP should be able to continue to be relevant in the near future.

 

[goMac]

"Most" are happy with a laptop or a Mini Mac.

For the upgradeable MP, however, two double-wide x16 slots and two additional x4 or x8 slots should be the minimum.

If you bought a cMP - did you think that USB 3.0 would become almost essential?

The mMP should be able to continue to be relevant in the near future.

The more I think about this argument, the more I go back to Apple probably using PCIe GPUs.

I think it's a given that Apple will want to support PCIe I/O cards, especially in since some cards in markets they want to support push more than Thunderbolt 3 can support.

But if you start dividing your PCIe lanes between proprietary GPU slots and normal PCIe slots this becomes a real problem. You might even have 16 PCIe lanes reserved for a second GPU on single GPU configs that become entirely wasted.

If we know Apple wants to support both dual and single GPU configs (which is something they've hinted at) the proprietary, dedicated GPU slots just seem to make no sense.

But that's just me thinking about it.

Even if you go "But AMD has so many spare lanes!", do you think Apple would want to just leave a giant double wide wasted slot in systems that will never go to dual GPU that can't be used for anything else? I mean just think of the space alone.

 

[William Payne]

Thunderbolt while mostly seen on apple was never proprietary to apple. Thunderbolt is all intels creation, apple just implemented it. Other manufacturers are now implementing it themselves, and also AMD Threadripper Motherboards are showing up with Thunderbolt headers on the boards preparing for when Intel allows AMD to use it.

Apples early implementation of thunderbolt should not be confused for an Apple only proprietary interface. They were just the first to really put it to mainstream use.

 

[beaker7]

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.

Long renders of high res video in a 70 degree office must be considered a "most extreme circumstance" then because we can't do that in a reliable manner with the nMP. I've got 2 here that have been relegated to footage ingest and web surfing only, because of it.

 

[AidenShaw]

But if you start dividing your PCIe lanes between proprietary GPU slots and normal PCIe slots this becomes a real problem. You might even have 16 PCIe lanes reserved for a second GPU on single GPU configs that become entirely wasted.

Two words - PCIe switches.

It's absurd to "reserve" PCIe lanes for unused devices. Overcommit the PCIe lanes with switches, and everyone is happy until you plug in enough devices to use more than the native number of PCIe lanes and try to run *all* of them at *full* bandwidth at exactly the same time.

And if you hit a rare load where *all* need *full* bandwidth simultaneously, the PCIe switches dynamically share the bandwidth.

...do you think Apple would want to just leave a giant double wide wasted slot in systems that will never go to dual GPU that can't be used for anything else? I mean just think of the space alone.

Oh, wow. "Giant" is about two finger widths.

Before the MP6,1 came out, were Mac pros demanding a "smaller system". No. Quite emphatically no. "We didn't ask for a smaller system" was a common complaint when people realized that the MP6,1 was a huge step backwards.

And HP/Dell/... have "innovated" this issue that seems to stump Apple. HP has the Z4/Z6/Z8 workstations, so that you can choose single or dual socket, different PCIe layouts, different RAM slots, ...

Apple has failed to innovate outside of "making it smaller even though nobody was asking for smaller".

 

[vailr]

The Apple display that accompanies the mMP will almost certainly be USB-C/TB3 only. There will very highly likely only be one GPU slot.

Why do you imply that only a bundled pair of 2018 Mac Pro + 2018 Apple monitor will be the single purchase option?
If someone wants to use their own preferred non-Apple & non-Thunderbolt port equipped monitor with the 2018 Mac Pro, then they're obviously going to want a Display Port or a dual-link DVI or an HDMI port; preferably all 4 ports present, for maximum flexibility. While this newly revised Apple monitor is also going to need the same variety of connection ports, for customers wanting to purchase just the monitor.

 

[William Payne]

USB-C isn't much of a dongle needing pain much now, nor was it ever really. You can get usb-c cables with a majority of ends on them now.

Even certified DisplayPort ones.
[doublepost=1513380761][/doublepost]https://www.startech.com/nz/AV/usb-c-video-adapters/usb-c-displayport~CDP2DPMM1MB

 

[singhs.apps]

Long renders of high res video in a 70 degree office must be considered a "most extreme circumstance" then because we can't do that in a reliable manner with the nMP. I've got 2 here that have been relegated to footage ingest and web surfing only, because of it.

Some people’s idea of industrial design is visual aesthetics first, function second.

 

[Coyote2006]

I just hope to see:

- Base unit with replaceable CPU, replaceable RAM and basic/mobile GPU
- Extension unit for additional SSDs/HDs
- Extension unit for high speed GPUs

Would be great to have external GPU-units that could be connected also to MacBooks...

 

[curtvaughan]

Don't think Apple shares your utilitarian design philosophy.

That is apparently true for the last 5 years - form over function across all products ranging from iPhones through all the various Macs. "Utilitarian" should be, along with high performance and expandability, the most important distinction on a Mac Pro. It doesn't need to be thin or pretty, just highly functional. Focus your pretty needs on fancy displays.

 

[joema2]

...For the upgradeable MP, however, two double-wide x16 slots and two additional x4 or x8 slots should be the minimum....

Note: it is not totally certain the "modular" Mac Pro will have user-accessable PCIe slots, or may not have them at all. In general we've interpreted the "modular" statement to mean a user-upgradeable slot box of some kind.

However a careful reading of the Apple press conference does not mean that with certainty. There are various possibilities, see this post: #75

 

[Mago]

List is missing software routing of PCIe GPUs to internal GPU to Thunderbolt, much like some PC vendors do.

This will lock GPU options to AMD Only, since nVidia isnt offering something alike yet,

One GPU may have to drive 4-6 DisplayPorts.

Not right as you only need a single DP signal for each TB3 Header (2 TB3 ports) so only 3 DP internal connectors are enough to feed the beast (as the tcMP configuration), and are something reasonable, those using DP/HDMI display setup could ditch Mac Pro exclusive GPUs for more mundane GPUs (still the question about the GPU bios).

I'm on the side Apple will offer their very own GPUs, maybe something like giant game carthidges integratin liquid cooling and maybe a dedicated PSU.

 

[namethisfile]

This will lock GPU options to AMD Only, since nVidia isnt offering something alike yet,



Not right as you only need a single DP signal for each TB3 Header (2 TB3 ports) so only 3 DP internal connectors are enough to feed the beast (as the tcMP configuration), and are something reasonable, those using DP/HDMI display setup could ditch Mac Pro exclusive GPUs for more mundane GPUs (still the question about the GPU bios).

I'm on the side Apple will offer their very own GPUs, maybe something like giant game carthidges integratin liquid cooling and maybe a dedicated PSU.

Yeah, I also agree.

I don't think anyone would really be thrilled deep inside their hearts if we see another revised cheesegrater mac pro 2018 with yer ol' PCIE slots in there.

My only real wish is that this new mMP 2018 version is as easy to get inside to change RAM, CPU, GPU, storage, etc. as the cheesegrater cMP 5,1 and 4,1's....

Easier to get into than the 2013 trashcan Mac Pro. That is how easy I want it to be.

I think that is all. And, yeh, cartridge-style GPU's would be awesome. And, I hope Apple can make their own GPU's to sell at Apple store. And make it market-place competitive, price-wise. So, an Apple cartridge-style RX580, for example, is at $249-$289. Not $449 such as what a the Apple HD7950 still sells at to this very day. !!!

It would tremendously help weed out and eradicate greedy ppl on ebay and the internet over-pricing USED GPU's for their Mac Pro's.

I know it's counter-intuitive for me to expect pricing to be like that considering it's Apple, but, I think it's for a "good cause."

I don't know. But, it's tremendously difficult to find GPU's with prices that are not ridic for my cMP 5,1 that works natively with it.

I thought I was scott-free with my RX460, but, 10.13.2 broke sleep with it. And, of course, there are Pascal cards using Nvidia web drivers. But, again, it's not "native." Or, "trouble-free."

 

[Macintosh IIcx]

Note: it is not totally certain the "modular" Mac Pro will have user-accessable PCIe slots, or may not have them at all. In general we've interpreted the "modular" statement to mean a user-upgradeable slot box of some kind.

However a careful reading of the Apple press conference does not mean that with certainty. There are various possibilities, see this post: #75

Great post, joema2! I think the point Apple was making is that they want to be able refresh motherboards, CPU and GPU with more of-the-shelf parts than in the current Mac Pro. Both the motherboard and the GPUs in that were very much custom designs that would just be to costly to re-engineer each year. I honestly think that was the main issue with the nMP; that they didn’t upgrade the CPU, mobo, GPU and ram each year.

So i’m going to assume that the next Mac Pro will be based on components that is more plug and play, especially GPUs. That will probably also mean easier to upgrade for the user, but that is just a side effect, not a goal in itself as far as Apple is concerned.

 

[beaker7]

. And, I hope Apple can make their own GPU's to sell at Apple store. And make it market-place competitive, price-wise. So, an Apple cartridge-style RX580, for example, is at $249-$289. Not $449 such as what a the Apple HD7950 still sells at to this very day.

Hahahahahahahhahah.....








Hahahhahahahahhahaha

 

[ssgbryan]

Yeah, I also agree.

I don't think anyone would really be thrilled deep inside their hearts if we see another revised cheesegrater mac pro 2018 with yer ol' PCIE slots in there.

You would be wrong. What most of us wanted was a cheesegrater with updated ports. Our big quibbles have been storage (people who don't have much in the way of data only want 1 or 2 SSD slots; those of us that have lots o' data still want 4 3.5" bays. And there is a subset of us that still want a slot for our Blu-ray players.)

 

[William Payne]

You would be wrong. What most of us wanted was a cheesegrater with updated ports. Our big quibbles have been storage (people who don't have much in the way of data only want 1 or 2 SSD slots; those of us that have lots o' data still want 4 3.5" bays. And there is a subset of us that still want a slot for our Blu-ray players.)

Internal storage is becoming more and more niche across the board. So much is on external servers/NAS now and then just the current project gets imported to the local workstation. I know not all work like that but it is becoming more and more a thing. I have met people who were working that way 10 years ago with cMP's, all their archival data was on a big server say like an apple xserve, and they would just transfer the project files they were working on to their mac pros at their desk.

 

[flowrider]

Well, with 7K+ posts this thread is becoming a circle jxxk, We are repeating ourselves and repeating the same arguments. Nothing new


Lou

 

[William Payne]

Well, with 7K+ posts this thread is becoming a circle jxxk, We are repeating ourselves and repeating the same arguments. Nothing new
View attachment 742354

Lou

For people who day they just want something like a dell or hp workstation / a return to similar to the cMP some of the ideas over the last so many pages have been waaaayyy out there.

 

[ssgbryan]

For people who day they just want something like a dell or hp workstation / a return to similar to the cMP some of the ideas over the last so many pages have been waaaayyy out there.

Well, there is only so much one can talk about - a lot of us have been waiting 5+ years for a replacement. At some point, every pro and con is recycled.