Yeah, I may be a moral man privately, but have zero principles with my purchases. I don't care that much about it. Just inanimate objects used as tools to me.
Last edited:
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
Yeah, I may be a moral man privately, but have zero principles with my purchases. I don't care that much about it. Just inanimate objects used as tools to me.
Depends on what you're running, if code optimized for AVX-256/512 or FP64, I concede Intel beats AMD, but else AMD beats intel, and there is always more than one way to optimize a process for a platform, maybe some process will run faster on AMD avoiding AVX-256/512.
I believe the way is organized the execution pipes in zen architecture way long better than current Intel, matter of time IMHO most people to realize it.
I think AMD was smarter than intel by not supporting AVX256/512 (supports AVX256 by emulation), as is mostly related to code that use to be offloaded into GPUs, by levering those operations to the GPU, you get an overall faster and more efficient system.
Last edited:
I just test systems in real world usage and then buy and deploy the fastest ones. Synthetic benchmarks, whitepaper specs, and brand tribalism are not important to me.
Apple has just released a new iMac Pro, with a very nice CPU inside, supporting AVX-512. It makes no sense at all, to choose a CPU for their higher end model, whenever is available, which will have a different instructions set. This will cause a serious problem to app developers and of course to the Mac platform. IMHO...
In double precision space, the majority of GPUs don't have a wide gap over a large transistor budgt AVX2-512 implementation.
AVX 256 isn't 'emulated' it is just not one microcode. There is no emulation code that is loaded outside of the processor. It AVX 256 instruction is broken up into two microcode ops by the internal decoder.
"... We have two MUL and two ADD in the FP unit, capable of joining to form two 128-bit FMACs, but not one 256-bit AVX. In order to do AVX, the unit will split the operations accordingly. On the counter side each core will have 2 AES units for cryptography as well as decode support for SSE, AVX1/2, SHA and legacy mmx/x87 compliant code.... "
The whole x86 instruction set is decoded into internal microops for both AMD and Intel. So the decoder translated into something else would mean the whole architecture is "emulated". It is not. Emulation is misguided connotation for what that is.
later in the article...
"... Some users will lament the lack of true single-instruction AVX-2 support, however I suspect AMD would argue that the die area cost might be excessive at this time. That’s not to say AMD won’t support it in the future – we were told quite clearly that there were a number of features originally listed internally for Zen which didn’t make it, either due to time constraints or a lack of transistors. ... "
The catch-22 is the a much bigger (full double precision) FP function unit would cut into how much AMD under cut Intel on price and they'd need multiple designs. AVX-2 512 isn't only Intel's smaller, mainstream offerings either. AMD had enough trouble getting one baseline Zen core out the door.
Actually no single line of macOS is optimized for AVX512, maybe also not for AVX256.
Believe me, the only single clue I have more solid on the furure Mac is about switching to AMD, it had been a thing at Apple, and I think the xeon based iMac Pro will be a single generation product, to dissapear with future iMac and the Mac Pro taking its place. the iMac Pro was a patch to skip the Mac Pro until AMD got ready adecuate CPUs for it (And Intel released TB3 to the public domain), tooo many coincidences not to see.
The instruction set isn't different. That is the 2017 iMac Pro. It would be cheaper to do a 2018-2019 iMac Pro v2 with Intel, but if there are long term cost and technical reasons to flip to AMD in years after 2017 Apple could do that and keep the two models lined up with one another on CPU. The new Mac Pro isn't coming in 2017 ( probably not coming in the first half of 2018 either).
If Apple does with the iMac Pro as they have with the Mac Pro over the last two updates cycles ( disappear for 3-4 years at time), then the choice of CPU isn't going to matter much. They'll loose more and more folks over time. The iMac Pro probably won't be on a 12 month update cycle most of the time, but something better than 4 years will bring up windows where the CPU direction could shift.
Time to market instead of instruction set is why it makes sense to leverage the same CPU as the iMac Pro. A new Mac Pro is waaaaaaaaaaay past late at this point. Apple really should be trying to reuse as much as they can of the iMac Pro internals to get a Mac Pro update out the door. No new "science' project, just pull the stuff they have already worked out the bugs on. Simply giving an updated Mac Pro a wider power envelope 900-1000W ( versus 450-500W) gives a wider range of non CPU functionality and performance. Even taking all those "shortcuts" doing that the new Mac Pro would land in late 2018.
That's is true if you consider Xeon-Phi as a GPU, is not, no GPU support AVX instructions, at least not from AMD or nVidia, and in FP64 nVidia Pascal GP100 and Volta GV100 simple turns arrounds intel fastest Xeon-Phi on same wattage.
good reading about https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/08/nvidia-intel-xeon-phi-deep-learning-gpu/
I mean is emulated, it is run on code or microcode since no actual silicon implements in full the instruction. Sneaky words IMHO.
[doublepost=1514050892][/doublepost]
An Big advantage from AMD's architecture is the CPU complex integrates the "North Bride", as the just announced Zen 2 architecture AMD confirmed old motherboards with socket AM4 will be compatible with the new CPUs, therefore an AMD Based MAC could see timely hardware updates w/o a single new motherboard, at least until TB4/PCIe4/5 comes to mainstream and are useful for somethig.
Is clear reason why Apple is switching to AMD, just consider the latest Intel Coffe-Lake CPU having same socket and system requirement as the Kaby-Lake, intel imposed it should run on Z370 chipset ruling obsolete Z270 motherboards on no technical grounds (later hackers confirmed it can run on Z270), I think this is an good argument to skip Intel if you are an integrator as Apple, it will save millions each year while providing quickly and timely updated hardware offers to the Market.
Last edited:
Basic AVX is 256 bits ( not AVX2 , the initial instruction set extension.). So extremely likely not missing 256 AXV support. AVX2 appeared with Haswell. Even the completely comatose Mac Mini is at least the Haswell level of evolution. [ Ironically, the current Mac Pro is the only Mac for sale as 'new' now that is retarded on vector math support. ]
"... Manipulate large images using the CPU’s vector processor. "
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/accelerate
Even if Apple's libraries are grossly lagging behind the times, Intel has math libraries that are up to date ( installing the Intel compiler can give access. ).
Pure delusion. The iMac Pro isn't going anywhere. The iMac Pro is pragmatically an extension of the iMac product line, so the iMac replacing itself is just pure hocus pocus. As HBM2 memory prices drop and GDDR6 rolls out the limitations what level of performance fits inside of an iMac Pro will loosen; not get harder. Over time the iMac Pro will cover more of what has historically been the Mac Pro's performance space.
Apple isn't gong to deliberately use the Mac Pro to kill off the iMac Pro. That would be less iMac panel sold which only increases their costs. The Mac Pro has a role to play in the line up but that is primarily in spaces that the iMac Pro doesn't fit ( a smaller space. ). If Apple does a repeat performance and disappears for another 3-4 years after releasing a new Mac Pro , then this revised Mac Pro is the more likely single generational product. ( that would give the more integrated Macs another two Moore's Law iterations to get better. )
The opportunity for AMD to displace hasn't been better in a long time. But AMD is going to need to execute. ( the stumbles on graphics delivery timeline probably has hurt as much as helped them with Apple. ) Intel is probably going to limp forward with a 14nm+++ ( coffee lake like stop gap) until they can get their 10nm+ act together, but if AMD is creeping along at a similar cadence there isn't much of an advantage.
[doublepost=1514054382][/doublepost]
SouthBridge not NorthBridge. intel systems implement memory , highest speed bus, and PCI-e controllers in them. What AMD did is put stuff like USB and SATA into the die, which gets to be a bit more than dubious once you slap 2,4,6 of those into a single package. Ryzen 7 ok , but up in the EPYC range it is a bit dubious (e.g., no transistor budget for full 512 but do have budget for 4 usb controllers. sure the I/O lanes can be used for PCI-e but that logic is comatose and sucking up die space. )
That is a huge stretch. If those newer chipsets implement something Apple want to track ( better power usage/management ) , better NVM-e support , better Thunberbolt discrete chip integration , etc. Apple isn't going to have a problem with moving forward.
Aftermarket CPU upgrades is a market Apple doesn't care much about. Sure they'd probably like to ride the costs down on a board for an individual mac , but frankly that they have done more so of late by just not doing any upgrade at all.
Apple designs their own boards so bumping the chipset ( that probably has the same dimension means just feeding new parts into the contract on demand build. ). Apple doesn't make 800-900K logic boards and then try ti figure out which Mac they can put them inside of. The generally make them as they need them. There is no huge inventory of empty boards sitting in warehouse hoping to get into a Mac 5-9 months from now.
Last edited:
Right. AVX2 is 256-bit, but it added 256-bit integer instructions. AVX was mainly 256-bit floating point.
AVX-512 is the new 512-bit extension.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Vector_Extensions#Advanced_Vector_Extensions_2
[doublepost=1514054937][/doublepost]
There are other Imac Pro threads in this forum - this thread is specifically about the future new modular desktop Mac Pro - the MP7,1.
Not just the iMac will replace, or the Mac Pro, but as the next iMac 5K (non pro) moves to the new APU with 8 Zen cores + 24 Vega GPU cores + ECC memory support, add this the Base Mac Pro should offer 8/16 cores + Vega 56 graphics at even much lower price range than the baseline iMac pro, most pro users not satisfied with the maxed out iMac 5K would think twice to spend $5K on the iMac pro while spenden much less on the Mac Pro + regular upgrades will have everything, thus the iMac Pro market will shrik as it has no sense but to compete with HP Z AIO, a very limited market, also the iMac Pro still has the same thermal cancer as the tcMP, limited TDP flexibility, barely handles Vega64+18 Xeon cores (at the expense of huge thermal throttling). Sorry I dont buy the idea the iMac Pro its an new extension product, I stand its just an Accidental Product required to fill the hole while Apple gets ready to migrate from Intel.
The problem with load movers as the Mac Pro, is Apple isnt willing to update its internals as often they update the MacBook Pro line, thus stable internals means winnings on both sides (users and Apple), maybe wont get the latest TB4 or PCIe5 (NVMe SSD its an PCIe peripheral should be stable until PCIe5 got mainstream, but also its possible for AMD to implement PCIe5 on the same Socket, only things as TB4 may require new/revised Logic Board)
Apple dont cares on DIY CPU updates, but on Product Life-Cycles, following Intel timelines is messing them, its usual when a new MBP or iMac comes out, the next month Intel launches an new CPU/Chipset shadowing the just launched Mac Apple dont want that.
Last edited:
You have a lot of conjectures and opinions that you present as facts - when it's just AMD cheerleading.
[doublepost=1514068196][/doublepost]
This is kind of ludicrous - since Intel is very open about sharing product futures with its customers.
You make it sound like Apple is surprised when Intel announces a new CPU - when in fact Apple most likely had access to engineering and pre-productions samples for many months.
Ok Actually is the PCH Platform Controller HUB, N/S Bridges are for old dogs.
[doublepost=1514068456][/doublepost]
We know Apple get access to Intel Prototypes even Stuff not in timeline, but they have an big problem with Intel Timelines having or not early access, Intel uses to launch new products just after Apple introduction, moving to AMD means the Market wont focus on Intel but AMD timelines, as AMD should sell Apple Custom APU, and maybe CPU its wont be so loud as AMD timelines matches better Apple's (or Apple is matching them)., alse there is a chance for Apple to introduce their Own Stuff in semi-custom AMD APU/CPUs.
[doublepost=1514068702][/doublepost]
Maybe, but that Custom APU commisioned by Apple is not an DNG rumor, is something widely rumored since 2 years, google that, where Apple Will put 8 zen cores and 24 Vega Cores? the Mac Mini? it only fits the iMac 5K non-pro, maybe since also is rumored this APU could interconnect in 2P solution a Dual APU iMac Pro / mMac Pro its possible.
Alright !
Since we are on the topic of eponymous Mac (Pro) rumors... and there have been a few in this enormous thread...
What are the ones that corroborate each other ( from diff sources ) and the ones that do not ?
Also, long time forum members can please chime in here... How many of the rumours have been close to the final results ?
Since we are on the topic of eponymous Mac (Pro) rumors... and there have been a few in this enormous thread...
What are the ones that corroborate each other ( from diff sources ) and the ones that do not ?
Also, long time forum members can please chime in here... How many of the rumours have been close to the final results ?
Dear god I hope they don't listen to you. You are essentially advocating for the trashcan v2. The iMacPro was the mac for those who thought the trashcan was a good idea. The next macpro needs to be for those who have been sleeping in the dark corner of their office with the shakes and sweats since 2013. There may not be a better way to kill a product line than this approach.
I'm warmed by the notion that you contradict yourself in the next post, so ... I hold out hope.
That rumor originated from WCCFtech article 2 years ago, and we already know how reliable WCCFtech articles are lol. I would say Intel's newly announced FPGA package featuring AMD GPU is far more likely candidate to be in Next iMac and Macbook Pro.
I was listening to a podcast today where they were talking about the iMac Pro (I know this isn't the iMac pro section). But they were talking about costs of these kinds of machines. They used an interesting use case about the purchase justification based on cost.
One of the companies they talked about is a medical imaging company called Osirix who develop mac only 2d and 3d imaging apps and they got to play with the iMac pro when it came out for their app. They said that for a company like Osirix making apps for the medical field showing models from CT Scans, the cost is a minor factor when compared to the fact that the CT machine that actually produces the images costs over $2.5 million, so the computer takes up a very minor part of the imaging budget for the medical organisation.
It also compares on a smaller scale when looking at cinema cameras and high end medium format cameras. The cost of the cameras themselves are considerably more then the computer cost.
I think whatever the Mac Pro 7,1 will be. It will be similar to the iMac Pro only in the way that those who purchase it will most likely have a justified professional use case.
I think we will see hobbiests making up only a small percentage of purchasers.
One of the companies they talked about is a medical imaging company called Osirix who develop mac only 2d and 3d imaging apps and they got to play with the iMac pro when it came out for their app. They said that for a company like Osirix making apps for the medical field showing models from CT Scans, the cost is a minor factor when compared to the fact that the CT machine that actually produces the images costs over $2.5 million, so the computer takes up a very minor part of the imaging budget for the medical organisation.
It also compares on a smaller scale when looking at cinema cameras and high end medium format cameras. The cost of the cameras themselves are considerably more then the computer cost.
I think whatever the Mac Pro 7,1 will be. It will be similar to the iMac Pro only in the way that those who purchase it will most likely have a justified professional use case.
I think we will see hobbiests making up only a small percentage of purchasers.
Sure, that's how companies make money , they just don't care about a few grand here or there ....
I'm a photographer with medium format digital gear, and I got a free MBP when I bought my first digital back .
My 3 Macs combined are worth less than 10% of my camera equipment .
But I'll be damned if buy a Mac tower that's not equipped and priced to my expectations - or toilet paper, or anything else for that matter .
Nor does anyone else who is running a business .
There might be a few equipment purchases for tax reasons, and there are many silly purchase decisions based on ignorance, but noone in the professional field will waste money on purpose .
Hence the ancient MP 3.1 I'm still using ...
Do you have a set time frame you work with for where the equipment has to have paid for itself within a time? Say write it off in 2 or 3 or more years? Does your company have a budget for equipment replacement every so many years? Genuine question, just asking out of curiosity.
Reusing the iMac Pro internals for a headless desktop would be easy: get a rectangular thermal core, put the left board on top and the right board on bottom...and then build the rest of the system around that.
Very doable, but obviously no more “pro”—and no more expandable/upgradable—than the iMac Pro.
Very doable, but obviously no more “pro”—and no more expandable/upgradable—than the iMac Pro.
The thing about camera systems, they’re all piecemeal upgradable from mix & match vendors - lenses, lighting etc, and in in medium format like Phase One or Red cinema cameras the imaging sensor itself is a separate part from the camera body.
Camera systems are very slotbox.
The problem is that now, as then, when talking about the thermal core—we have no clue how the design scales. Could you just turn it from a triangle to a square and it'd still work the same way? Could you scale it up to accommodate a TDP twice the nMP with no problem, or are there issues? Given that they had issues with accommodating flexibility in updating the tMP, it doesn't seem like the idea is inherently all that flexible. It may be that the thermal core was the perfect solution to what Apple set out to achieve, but doesn't necessarily have much to offer a different design.