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

[fuchsdh]

My point is that none of your four systems go beyond the six core mark ( and if you purchased the 5,1 second hand, likely the tcMP with its higher core count and dual GPUs was also not something you need or wanted ) nor the current iMac Pro ( presumably )

Perhaps you are looking for empty slots in a Mac Pro that you can fill with peripherals of your choice ?

If I bought now, I'd look at an 8-12 core system probably because I'm forced to trade off clock speeds for cores, and software is still very scattershot with actually supporting multiple cores to this day (After Effects lost its buggy multiprocessor rending back in 2014, and it still hasn't made a comeback.) If my daily software was going to be pegging all the cores consistently rather than just intermittently with certain apps and plugins, I'd consider more, but the tradeoff ain't worth it. I'm not a good target for the current SP line because of that.

If Apple had released a revision to the Mac Pro after the 6,1, I'd probably have bought it (or if they'd dropped the BTO prices in 2015 or 2016 instead of the middle of 2017) but when I was looking to buy the economics of getting a 5,1 instead and selling my old 3,1 Mac Pro to pay for most of it were simply too good to ignore.

(It should go without saying I'm not using a G4 for professional work, and my MacBook Pro is mostly about portability—I try to never do any heavy project on it, it's just filling my on-the-go needs.)

 

[singhs.apps]

If I bought now, I'd look at an 8-12 core system probably because I'm forced to trade off clock speeds for cores, and software is still very scattershot with actually supporting multiple cores to this day (After Effects lost its buggy multiprocessor rending back in 2014, and it still hasn't made a comeback.) If my daily software was going to be pegging all the cores consistently rather than just intermittently with certain apps and plugins, I'd consider more, but the tradeoff ain't worth it. I'm not a good target for the current SP line because of that.

If Apple had released a revision to the Mac Pro after the 6,1, I'd probably have bought it (or if they'd dropped the BTO prices in 2015 or 2016 instead of the middle of 2017) but when I was looking to buy the economics of getting a 5,1 instead and selling my old 3,1 Mac Pro to pay for most of it were simply too good to ignore.

(It should go without saying I'm not using a G4 for professional work, and my MacBook Pro is mostly about portability—I try to never do any heavy project on it, it's just filling my on-the-go needs.)

Not even the iMac pro ?

 

[fuchsdh]

Not even the iMac pro ?

No point in buying a machine now when in a year I'll (hopefully) have more options to make a better choice. Since I've already got a 4K screen and a better color-proofing monitor I'm not in huge need of the 5K screen (let alone having enough room on my desk for that.)

Whatever machine I'm using I'd like to use a minimum of five years.

 

[singhs.apps]

No point in buying a machine now when in a year I'll (hopefully) have more options to make a better choice. Since I've already got a 4K screen and a better color-proofing monitor I'm not in huge need of the 5K screen (let alone having enough room on my desk for that.)

Whatever machine I'm using I'd like to use a minimum of five years.

So the expandable options that the mMP may provide is not a consideration at all, yes ? Only the slightly higher clockspeeds that apple might offer for the Xeon w mMP counterparts ( to the iMac pro ones ) ?

But what if apple doesn’t ? What if it sticks to the same processor specs as the iMac pro but still prices them the same ( or higher )

Also in your require 5 years of usage, while the xeons might scrape by, looking at the ‘historical’ jumps of the GPU, certainly the option to insert a newer GPU in the mMP down the line is also a consideration ? ( the iMac Pro nor the tcMP offer that solution )

 

[fuchsdh]

So the expandable options that the mMP may provide is not a consideration at all, yes ? Only the slightly higher clockspeeds that apple might offer for the Xeon w mMP counterparts ( to the iMac pro ones ) ?

But what if apple doesn’t ? What if it sticks to the same processor specs as the iMac pro but still prices them the same ( or higher )

Also in your require 5 years of usage, while the xeons might scrape by, looking at the ‘historical’ jumps of the GPU, certainly the option to insert a newer GPU in the mMP down the line is also a consideration ? ( the iMac Pro nor the tcMP offer that solution )

Those would all be nice, if not necessary. What flexibility they offer affects how much I can afford to spend (if I can conceivably keep a machine 5+ years with upgrades, then I can justify a higher price up front because amortized costs will still be lower over its lifespan) and how long I conceivably run the machine.

I'm not entirely sure how Apple could reuse the same processors as the iMac Pro and still end up with a higher cost while they aren't shipping a display, but even then it's still (presumably) getting full performance out of the chips rather than the occasional throttling under heavy load for the iMac Pro, and/or getting the full standard Intel SKUs of the 8 and 12 core rather than the iMac Pro specialty chips.

Either way, I'm not sure where discussing my personal situation matters. Every pro has differing needs, and I think it's inarguable that a more flexible machine offers more potential niches it can fill for more people. My issue is that I don't think it makes sense in a pragmatic way to believe Apple would offer 1S and 2S systems if the difference requires more effort expended on their part than previous tower Mac Pros. Intel's decision to split the Xeon line more makes me think Apple isn't going to try and bridge it any more than they used to. But of course that's just an educated guess, and we'll have to see how Apple pitches the new Mac Pro.

 

[goMac]

I think everybody see what they want, actually Apple just named moving from dual low power GPU to single high power GPU, and modular macintosh pro, both very open to what you want to see, whatever It comes 2 year later.

Apple specifically said some people want dual GPU, some people want a high powered single GPU, some people just want a large amount of CPU power, and they want to cover all those cases.

That doesn't mean dual CPU, but it certainly doesn't rule it out. Especially if you look at that as possibly them seeing that as a shortcoming with the 2013 design.

It's not us seeing "what they want", it's Apple saying that they understand that the Mac Pro can't be one size fits all.

(FWIW, I've always preferred dual CPU workstations when doing development. Single CPUs are getting fast enough I don't know if I'll stick with that or not on the next Mac Pro, if it's an option. I think only once have I worked with code running on a remote server because it was a 4 CPU box. I'm not going to have two boxes for day to day dev work. What I have at my desk is what I have at my desk. That's it. If I'm moving my workflow to Linux, the machine I have at my desk is moving to Linux.)

 

[fuchsdh]

Apple specifically said some people want dual GPU, some people want a high powered single GPU, some people just want a large amount of CPU power, and they want to cover all those cases.

You have a link for that? Because they mention hitting a broader audience with the new Mac Pro in the transcript, and I saw single versus dual GPU mentioned, but not dual CPUs. I could have missed it.

I feel like all we've got in terms of assurances is "highest end" (it's gonna be more powerful than the iMac Pro, although there are many ways you could consider that), "modular", and in the iMac Pro release, "upgradeable". (Of course to what extent is also up in the air.)

 

[goMac]

You have a link for that? Because they mention hitting a broader audience with the new Mac Pro in the transcript, and I saw single versus dual GPU mentioned, but not dual CPUs. I could have missed it.

I mentioned in my post that they haven't made any specific assurances about dual CPU. I'm not saying they have. But they've mentioned customers who want to maximize CPU performance, and that could point to Apple pondering dual CPUs, especially if you take that as them reflecting on the 2013 Mac Pro.

 

[fuchsdh]

I mentioned in my post that they haven't made any specific assurances about dual CPU. I'm not saying they have. But they've mentioned customers who want to maximize CPU performance, and that could point to Apple pondering dual CPUs, especially if you take that as them reflecting on the 2013 Mac Pro.

Ah, sorry, misread. It's certainly possible. The big thing I think is clear is that they realized two equal-load GPUs just wasn't flexible enough, they certainly spent less time on CPUs in general.

 

[goMac]

Ah, sorry, misread. It's certainly possible. The big thing I think is clear is that they realized two equal-load GPUs just wasn't flexible enough, they certainly spent less time on CPUs in general.

I think they wanted to roll out dual GPU architectures on other lines (and they do consider machines like the 15" MacBook Pro dual GPU), but Mac software developers have just never supported dual GPUs in their products.

Apple has made a few attempts to push dual GPU development before with no results.

 

[Mago]

in the transcript, and I saw

I just discovered, if I read the trasncript every 7 characters (blank dont account) you'll find the words: AMD Zen, Dual nVidia GTX1080Ti, Chrystal Cube, Fully Immersion Liquid Cooling, and Tim Cook's partner name...

#TheAppleCode

I Swear, I did it...
[doublepost=1515709456][/doublepost]

I think they wanted to roll out dual GPU architectures on other lines (and they do consider machines like the 15" MacBook Pro dual GPU), but Mac software developers have just never supported dual GPUs in their products.

What do you think about a Trash Can Based on a Single/Dual ThreadRipper APU (8-16 Zen Cores + 24-32 Vega Cores + 16Gb HBM on the same Die, dual APU capable in a barely bigger thermal core design and almost the same trash can form factor (dual SSD, 6 Tb3, etc) ???
Still modular, upgradeable (as long AMD launches new APUs and Apple release upgrade kit to authorized centers)

 

[Slash-2CPU]

Been waiting really since the 2013 trash can(Return of the G4 Cube) came out.

Just ordered a Dell Precision and about $11k in associated Windows replacement software licenses.

My first mac workstation was a IIx. My last was a heavily-upgraded 2009 Mac Pro which died last night. Neither the 2013 trash can nor the iMac Pro can even be considered an adequately mocking insult to what is needed. Bye, Apple. You left me.

 

[goMac]

What do you think about a Trash Can Based on a Single/Dual ThreadRipper APU (8-16 Zen Cores + 24-32 Vega Cores + 16Gb HBM on the same Die, dual APU capable in a barely bigger thermal core design and almost the same trash can form factor (dual SSD, 6 Tb3, etc) ???
Still modular, upgradeable (as long AMD launches new APUs and Apple release upgrade kit to authorized centers)

I think that is not at all what the next Mac Pro will be. I could have stopped reading at Trash Can. But if Apple builds a Mac Pro that depends completely on APUs they might as well not even bother releasing one.

There's no reason for them to release a Mac Pro that would get slaughtered by a base model iMac Pro in GPU performance.

 

[Biped]

What do you think about a Trash Can Based on a Single/Dual ThreadRipper APU (8-16 Zen Cores + 24-32 Vega Cores + 16Gb HBM on the same Die, dual APU capable in a barely bigger thermal core design and almost the same trash can form factor (dual SSD, 6 Tb3, etc) ???
Still modular, upgradeable (as long AMD launches new APUs and Apple release upgrade kit to authorized centers)

Trashcan*,*** + RGB** = Winning****

* Internals don't matter as apple has their finger on the pulse of their market, and therefore can do no harm.
** RGB is there to appease the cheesegrater gamer crowd.
*** New Magical™ based TDP solution.
**** 'What you want not there? You don't need it! So sit down, shut up and enjoy'

 

[Mago]

a Mac Pro that would get slaughtered by a base model iMac Pro in GPU performance.

I dont talk about the Just announced APUs, but the big one leaked a month ago, which is know its aimed at compute clusters, this one actually more powerful than the best iMac Combo: 16 ThreadRipper (actually Epyc) cores plus a full fledged Vega64 GPU Plus 16Gb HBM (the one leaked included onlu 46 Vega Cores), those VEGA cores interlinked to the CPU cores on AMD own fabric, much faster than PCIe3, and according the leaks allor 2P solution (dual APU on the same Board), so an APU ased trashcan, should be equivalent to a 32 Core Epyc CPU plus two Vega64, 32 cores plus128 GPU cores (linked like a one big unique multi-GPU solution), this APU will burn less than 450W each, allowing the 900W total magic number.

 

[singhs.apps]

I dont talk about the Just announced APUs, but the big one leaked a month ago, which is know its aimed at compute clusters, this one actually more powerful than the best iMac Combo: 16 ThreadRipper (actually Epyc) cores plus a full fledged Vega64 GPU Plus 16Gb HBM (the one leaked included onlu 46 Vega Cores), those VEGA cores interlinked to the CPU cores on AMD own fabric, much faster than PCIe3, and according the leaks allor 2P solution (dual APU on the same Board), so an APU ased trashcan, should be equivalent to a 32 Core Epyc CPU plus two Vega64, 32 cores plus128 GPU cores (linked like a one big unique multi-GPU solution), this APU will burn less than 450W each, allowing the 900W total magic number.

Hmm ok... I can buy that possibly... but would like to see an nvidia option in there ( most likely it ain’t happening. Intel, AMD and Apple don’t want a lunch stealing kid in their little sleepover parties )

For a while I thought you meant 32 GCN cores instead of the full 64 in those APUs.

2xthreadripper (1950x or bust. Just saying )class EPYCs with 128 PCI lanes ? What’s not to love?

Heck it might even sway over the single slot Xeon crowd considering the amount of processing you can do with these puppies with an extremely attractive price ( for the performance you are getting )

 

[goMac]

I dont talk about the Just announced APUs, but the big one leaked a month ago, which is know its aimed at compute clusters, this one actually more powerful than the best iMac Combo: 16 ThreadRipper (actually Epyc) cores plus a full fledged Vega64 GPU Plus 16Gb HBM (the one leaked included onlu 46 Vega Cores), those VEGA cores interlinked to the CPU cores on AMD own fabric, much faster than PCIe3, and according the leaks allor 2P solution (dual APU on the same Board), so an APU ased trashcan, should be equivalent to a 32 Core Epyc CPU plus two Vega64, 32 cores plus128 GPU cores (linked like a one big unique multi-GPU solution), this APU will burn less than 450W each, allowing the 900W total magic number.

Sure, the upside of APUs is they're linked directly to the GPU and they bypass the PCIe bus.

The downside is they get trashed by discrete GPUs in performance. The next generation APU AMD has will be outdated by the next generation discrete GPU that AMD has. That APU is going to be released right against Vega 20 which will leave it in the dust.

This years APU competing with last year's GPU. Given all the history with the Mac Pro and GPUs, that doesn't sound like a winning combination. I mean, it sounds like something Apple might be stupid enough to do. But it's not a winner.

The only way that sort of thing would fly is if there were normal PCIe slots and discrete GPUs offered as add in options.

This is all great stuff for the iMac (but not a unique offering when you look at the new Core series with onboard Vega GPUs), but doesn't really work for a pro workstation. These are basically prosumer parts. Even 16 cores is kind of on the mid end for a workstation.

 

[mattspace]

trashcan ... two Vega64

so after a big mea culpa over only having an inflexible solution with limited scope & dual weak GPUs that were well outdated, their solution is...

...another inflexible solution with limited scope & dual weak GPUs that'll be outdated by the time it launches.

*slow 80s movie clap*

 

[singhs.apps]

BTW that 48 GCN APU seems to be just someone playing around with ideas.

 

[jeff7117]

Been waiting really since the 2013 trash can(Return of the G4 Cube) came out.

Just ordered a Dell Precision and about $11k in associated Windows replacement software licenses.

My first mac workstation was a IIx. My last was a heavily-upgraded 2009 Mac Pro which died last night. Neither the 2013 trash can nor the iMac Pro can even be considered an adequately mocking insult to what is needed. Bye, Apple. You left me.

And another long time, die hard Mac user switches. This is what it's come to. Lots of users need real, dependable workstations NOW. Apple is too-little, too-late and what they don't realize is that once we switch, we most likely will NOT be coming back.

 

[pl1984]

Those would all be nice, if not necessary. What flexibility they offer affects how much I can afford to spend (if I can conceivably keep a machine 5+ years with upgrades, then I can justify a higher price up front because amortized costs will still be lower over its lifespan) and how long I conceivably run the machine.

I'm not entirely sure how Apple could reuse the same processors as the iMac Pro and still end up with a higher cost while they aren't shipping a display, but even then it's still (presumably) getting full performance out of the chips rather than the occasional throttling under heavy load for the iMac Pro, and/or getting the full standard Intel SKUs of the 8 and 12 core rather than the iMac Pro specialty chips.

Either way, I'm not sure where discussing my personal situation matters. Every pro has differing needs, and I think it's inarguable that a more flexible machine offers more potential niches it can fill for more people. My issue is that I don't think it makes sense in a pragmatic way to believe Apple would offer 1S and 2S systems if the difference requires more effort expended on their part than previous tower Mac Pros. Intel's decision to split the Xeon line more makes me think Apple isn't going to try and bridge it any more than they used to. But of course that's just an educated guess, and we'll have to see how Apple pitches the new Mac Pro.

Has it been confirmed the iMac Pro throttles when under heavy load? I haven't read anything so I'd be interested in any pointers to where I can find information on this.

 

[fuchsdh]

Has it been confirmed the iMac Pro throttles when under heavy load? I haven't read anything so I'd be interested in any pointers to where I can find information on this.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/12/29/video-does-the-imac-pro-get-too-hot-when-under-load

TLDR: Not by much, and not for long (and it will never throttle to its base clocks), but it does choose to be quiet. Good news is that if fan control apps get updated, I imagine all you'll have to do if you want max performance at cooler temps is hike the fans a bit. Probably the best news is even under sustained CPU + GPU load the GPU remains much cooler, so that should be a breath of relief for people concerned about longevity.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

I dont talk about the Just announced APUs, but the big one leaked a month ago, which is know its aimed at compute clusters, this one actually more powerful than the best iMac Combo: 16 ThreadRipper (actually Epyc) cores plus a full fledged Vega64 GPU Plus 16Gb HBM (the one leaked included onlu 46 Vega Cores), those VEGA cores interlinked to the CPU cores on AMD own fabric, much faster than PCIe3, and according the leaks allor 2P solution (dual APU on the same Board), so an APU ased trashcan, should be equivalent to a 32 Core Epyc CPU plus two Vega64, 32 cores plus128 GPU cores (linked like a one big unique multi-GPU solution), this APU will burn less than 450W each, allowing the 900W total magic number.

Pretty entertaining speculation here! I would probably use one of these at the office - I like the nMP form factor, but I'm pretty sure it's dead. It would be neat if they kept it alive like this and slashed the price.

What do you think it would cost?

 

[Mago]

What do you think it would cost?

It's just an conceptual speculation, I believe too our loved trash can is dead, maybe the mMP will share some design pattersn with the trashcan but the little barrel arround a thermal core is pretty dead, Unless a dramatic solution as this Dual High Performace APU is implemented.

It Wont be cheap, consider a 32 core Epyc cost near 6000$, and each Vega 64 adds 600-1200$ extra (depend on how you account 'pro'), so a Dual HEDT-APU solution easy could cost above 8.000$ before Adding RAM, Storage, TB3 and Apple Tax.

Of course the Dual APU has its advanges, as its faster fabric interconnect both CPU complex much faster than does PCIe3, while being much more power efficient, albeit being an Insanely Amazing Engineering Tour de Force, and saving huge space, but I bet Apple will be conservative and opt for COTS Epyc CPU plus discrete GPU, this will be consistent with the few cues I have about.

 

[singhs.apps]

a 32 core Epyc cost near 6000$,

Most searches suggest the Epyc 7601 costs near the 4K mark. Nowhere did I find any links for a 6k price tag.