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

[goMac]

I stopped reading at "freelancers aren't pros" ...

I don't think he realizes how small most teams in the Mac Pro target market are. Or how specialized they are.

Again, it's not an accident that there are so few VR apps for Mac, even after official VR support shipped. Even though it's corner cases, Apple's whole VR strategy will fall apart without them shipping something like a Mac Pro.

 

[singhs.apps]

I stopped reading at "freelancers aren't pros" ...

 

[Mago]

Could have just designed a bigger can for that. Doesn't require a year and a half redesign.

Unless Apple is planning to move to AMD CPUs ... (timing matches then)

Now we're down to GPUs being on 8x PCIe lanes, and no PCIe slots.

8x PCIe lines are for capture devices beyond TB3 bandwidth, not for GPUs.

Is it possible that the new Mac Pro ships without learning from any of the reasons why the Can didn't sell?

Apple learned to Tax on every Mac component, imagine you are a HW designer, and you come to Craigś office and you names Apple has to resign its Tax on 600-7000$ GPUs coz that makes the Mac More Popular... the Accountant and Sales MGR will show you few figures about Mac earnings and Proprietary in-popularity.

Apple wasn't able to sell people a machine they didn't want.

,
So why the tcMP keep delivery times longer than 4 months before it launch, no body could touch a tcMP as quic as the iMac Pro now until late June, despite the crows of CheeseGrater widows burning Apple signs at the social network the tcMP outsold the cheesegrater by 3-4x years, the first year was the faster selling Mac Pro (2014).

I dream on the possibility to have the possibility to buy a barely capable mMP and then put the most titanic hardware inside by my self, if Apple allows me, my Mac Pro will have 10 core Xeon-W, dual nVidia 1080 or Pascal GP100, but I'm realistic and I can read whats the news suggest: Propietary, AMD, compact, kinda Upgradable but nothing like a PC.

An geneous move from Apple could be to Standarize its new GPU form factor, so the industry (sharing the TB3 issue) will adopt it on PC workstations, it happened before, and will be interesting but I think even on STD PCIe the mMP will be BIOS locked to only Apple-Approved or Apple-Sourced GPUs (as the last cheesegrater).
[doublepost=1516919932][/doublepost]

I don't think he realizes how small most teams in the Mac Pro target market are

VR/AR/ML/AI Teams are smalls, but mostly under some corporate umbrella. so not freelancers.

 

[mattspace]

VR/AR/ML/AI Teams are smalls, but mostly under some corporate umbrella. so not freelancers.

All the VR and AR people I know are small teams of ex-game studio people, or indies, none of which have any corporate umbrellas. Probably the biggest VR-involved company here, lists a grand total of 17 employees on Lnkedin.

Everyone DIYs / custom builds their hardware (or uses windows laptops with Nvidia GPUs that are similar spec to the iMac Pro when it comes to VR), and noone uses Apple technologies like AR Kit directly - it's all Unity & Unreal.

Even with corporate customers, how many do you think are on annual hardware refresh for workstations?

PCI 8x and over is only for capture cards? Even Apple specifically called out eGPU as a secondrate solution for VR vs a motherboard slot at WWDC, due to lack of PCI bandwidth.

 

[goMac]

Unless Apple is planning to move to AMD CPUs ... (timing matches then)

Still wouldn't take that long, and it wouldn't dictate starting all over like Apple has.

8x PCIe lines are for capture devices beyond TB3 bandwidth, not for GPUs.

You don't need that many lanes for TB3 bandwidth.

Apple learned to Tax on every Mac component, imagine you are a HW designer, and you come to Craigś office and you names Apple has to resign its Tax on 600-7000$ GPUs coz that makes the Mac More Popular... the Accountant and Sales MGR will show you few figures about Mac earnings and Proprietary in-popularity.

Hahahahahahaha oh boy, that's a good one.

I'm going to let you in on a secret.

Apple doesn't sell enough GPU upgrades to care. Why do you think it's so hard to get them to release GPU upgrades?

In fact, they care so little, it's almost easier for them to leave GPU upgrades to third parties. I doubt they ever make their money back on GPU upgrades, even with the high prices.

You think Apple is making bank off of GPU upgrades? Oh boy. That's hilarious. The only reason they do their own GPU upgrades is to keep people from complaining. And that's the basics of the problem here. They sell so little GPU upgrades that they thought they could get away with leaving it undefined for the Can Mac Pro. Except it so happens that the few people who do upgrades their GPUs also happen to be critical customers.

I have no doubt that if Apple could design a Mac Pro where you could put in third party GPU upgrades and they never had to dirty their hands with selling GPU upgrades they would do it 100%. No doubt.

Only in the fever dreams of MacVidCards does Apple make tons of money they are trying to protect through GPU upgrades.

If they were so intent on protecting their revenue stream, they would have never let AMD and Nvidia release retail cards. They wouldn't allow the Nvidia drivers to be signed. And they wouldn't allow cards to work out of the box for eGPU.

So why the tcMP keep delivery times longer than 4 months before it launch, no body could touch a tcMP as quic as the iMac Pro now until late June, despite the crows of CheeseGrater widows burning Apple signs at the social network the tcMP outsold the cheesegrater by 3-4x years, the first year was the faster selling Mac Pro (2014).

I don't think this was reflective of popularity as much as production issues.

I dream on the possibility to have the possibility to buy a barely capable mMP and then put the most titanic hardware inside by my self, if Apple allows me, my Mac Pro will have 10 core Xeon-W, dual nVidia 1080 or Pascal GP100, but I'm realistic and I can read whats the news suggest: Propietary, AMD, compact, kinda Upgradable but nothing like a PC.

I don't think you understand my point.

The above scenario is possible.

No one will buy it.

The Mac Pro would actually be dead within a few years.

Could Apple be that stupid? Sure. But I tend to think that they wouldn't bother wasting their time on something they've already learned won't sell, especially with the iMac Pro.

An geneous move from Apple could be to Standarize its new GPU form factor, so the industry (sharing the TB3 issue) will adopt it on PC workstations, it happened before, and will be interesting but I think even on STD PCIe the mMP will be BIOS locked to only Apple-Approved or Apple-Sourced GPUs (as the last cheesegrater).

Again, Apple doesn't want to control the GPU because they don't want to be in the GPU upgrade business. It loses them money.

There is a conspiracy angle you're assigning here that doesn't exist.

Could this happen? Sure. Will it happen because it makes Apple money? No.

VR/AR/ML/AI Teams are smalls, but mostly under some corporate umbrella. so not freelancers.

And small teams buy towers. It's the only way they can test across all the GPUs they support, and they only way they can upgrade hardware year over year.

Again, corporations tend to not upgrade because they lease. You don't upgrade a machine you don't own. Some small shops do lease, but even then when you get into the sorts of teams doing VR software, the ability to swap GPUs is essential.

 

[AidenShaw]

In since PC workstations have the same problem, I always wonder if maybe Apple and Intel are working on an industry wide solution. It just seems insane that Intel hasn't solved Thunderbolt + GPU + Xeon yet.

Could it simply be that if you have PCIe slots there is little need for T-Bolt?

And the solution is obvious - T-Bolt without DisplayPort.

Instead of the stupid bundling of T-Bolt with graphics - allow T-Bolt as an external PCIe connector (although low bandwidth) without the need to bastardize it to carry a display signal as well.

 

[singhs.apps]

Why would intel, until now that is, want to solve the Xeon + thunderbolt + GPU ? It would rather you do all that compute on its own processors , like the Xeon phi and such.

But with its own ambition to create discreet GPUs ( AMD is a stop gap arrangement) , don’t be surprised if they magically come up with a solution when their own cards hit the market ... 3 years from now or maybe longer...

 

[Mago]

I wont spend my time replying to exhausted biased arguments, but this one:

Apple doesn't sell enough GPU upgrades to care. Why do you think it's so hard to get them to release GPU upgrades?

In fact, they care so little, it's almost easier for them to leave GPU upgrades to third parties. I doubt they ever make their money back on GPU upgrades, even with the high prices.

LOL, The Truth its so Obvious, let me refresh your biased memory:

iMac Pro GPU Upgrade from Vega 56 to Vega 64 cost you 600$, while on the PC market the price disparity among Vega56/8GB and Vega64/16 GB is just 300$ (list price, not crypto poisoned demand)

 

[goMac]

I wont spend my time replying to exhausted biased arguments, but this one:

LOL, The Truth its so Obvious, let me refresh your biased memory:

iMac Pro GPU Upgrade from Vega 56 to Vega 64 cost you 600$, while on the PC market the price disparity among Vega56/8GB and Vega64/16 GB is just 300$ (list price, not crypto poisoned demand)

You’ve already admitted that hardly anyone upgrades their Mac Pros. Now you’re trying to argue that Apple has a healthy GPU upgrade business.

You’re arguing in circles. Your posts don’t even make sense with each other. Now you’re trying to get your way out of your tangled posts by feinting to BTO prices. Nice try.

I doubt Apple has ever made any money on a single upgrade GPU for older Mac Pros. They’d gladly hand that market to third parties. They have nothing there they want to protect.

 

[Chancha]

If Apple does provide adaptor(s) for the proprietary port to various interfaces, and if Apple themselves make and sell those (probably some in enclosure form), then it may be as good as a full tower, at least as far as functionality is concerned. I think the key concern isn't whether PCIe cards have to be internal or not, but they have to be readily accessible without compromise like through TB3.

 

[Mago]

Biased Thinking Only has a Biased POV...

Now you’re trying to argue that Apple has a healthy GPU upgrade business.

Apple is in the GPU upgrade business at the BUILD phase, is where Apple makes money from the Upgrades, Proprietary Parts gives Apple control on that juicy BTO upgrades, otherwise DIYers will put what they want evading Apple's tax.

 

[goMac]

Biased Thinking Only has a Biased POV...

Apple is in the GPU upgrade business at the BUILD phase, is where Apple makes money from the Upgrades, Proprietary Parts gives Apple control on that juicy BTO upgrades, otherwise DIYers will put what they want evading Apple's tax.

Let's try a little thought experiment here. It might blow your mind, so buckle your seatbelt.

If I were to buy a Mac Pro without a Vega 64, how much would it cost be to buy my own Vega 64 at MSRP after purchase? Not the introductory price, the current MSRP. Assume you can just buy the standard PC version.

How much does Apple charge for a Vega 64 BTO upgrade?

No need to stress yourself out over the math. I'll wait.

 

[fuchsdh]

I wont spend my time replying to exhausted biased arguments, but this one:

LOL, The Truth its so Obvious, let me refresh your biased memory:

iMac Pro GPU Upgrade from Vega 56 to Vega 64 cost you 600$, while on the PC market the price disparity among Vega56/8GB and Vega64/16 GB is just 300$ (list price, not crypto poisoned demand)

What does that have to do with anything? PC makers charge a healthy premium over the DIY cost for any upgrade. HP asks more percentage-wise to upgrade the RAM in a Z tower than Apple does to max out the iMac Pro.

Could it simply be that if you have PCIe slots there is little need for T-Bolt?

And the solution is obvious - T-Bolt without DisplayPort.

Instead of the stupid bundling of T-Bolt with graphics - allow T-Bolt as an external PCIe connector (although low bandwidth) without the need to bastardize it to carry a display signal as well.

Because most people don't have PCIe slots. Towers are never going to go away completely, but a lot of pro work is done on mobile workstations and laptops these days, and those never will have slots for full-size PCIe cards.

There's also the portability aspect—easier to run a lot of peripherals and swap them between locations and computers if they're external.

While the USB-C migration is and will continue to be a PITA, especially because the consortium refused to come up with a baseline spec for clarity, there's still immense value in TB3 being the one connector you need that covers a far broader use case.

 

[goMac]

What does that have to do with anything? PC makers charge a healthy premium over the DIY cost for any upgrade. HP asks more percentage-wise to upgrade the RAM in a Z tower than Apple does to max out the iMac Pro.

I didn't even go there because I think he's just trying to derail the conversation. But yeah, if Apple's whole point was to preserve BTO pricing, they'd lock down the RAM, CPU and drives on the next Mac Pro so you couldn't upgrade those either.

And they technically could. There's nothing stopping them from rekeying the RAM. They have rekeyed the SSD, but they allow user upgrades to third party drives in the Can Mac Pro, but they could stop doing that too.

But my point that I keep making to Mago is that would be suicidal. The Mac Pro won't survive if they do that. Apple should know that.

The iMac Pro will cut the Mac Pro market down to the people who need upgradable machines. And if Apple doesn't make a machine for those people, then there is no point. And if Apple hates making aftermarket GPU upgrades and loses money on them, but they need to have them, it would be in there interest to just ceed that whole market to the GPU makers.

A "cartridge" based design might fly. But on paper cooling and power could still be a major problem. And if it's going to work Apple would really have to sell it and convince people that they will be able to get GPU upgrades in the future. And again, Apple tries to avoid selling upgrade GPUs because they don't make money, so if you want a reliable source of GPU upgrades, they'd need to get the third parties in on that, or convince themselves they're going to be making money losing upgrades available regularly for a while.

 

[Biped]

Because most people don't have PCIe slots.

To be honest I'd be a tad freaked out if someone came with a PCIe slot. Although the nerd in me would think it's a little hot.

 

[H2SO4]

I didn't even go there because I think he's just trying to derail the conversation. But yeah, if Apple's whole point was to preserve BTO pricing, they'd lock down the RAM, CPU and drives on the next Mac Pro so you couldn't upgrade those either.

And they technically could. There's nothing stopping them from rekeying the RAM. They have rekeyed the SSD, but they allow user upgrades to third party drives in the Can Mac Pro, but they could stop doing that too.

But my point that I keep making to Mago is that would be suicidal. The Mac Pro won't survive if they do that. Apple should know that.

The iMac Pro will cut the Mac Pro market down to the people who need upgradable machines. And if Apple doesn't make a machine for those people, then there is no point. And if Apple hates making aftermarket GPU upgrades and loses money on them, but they need to have them, it would be in there interest to just ceed that whole market to the GPU makers.

A "cartridge" based design might fly. But on paper cooling and power could still be a major problem. And if it's going to work Apple would really have to sell it and convince people that they will be able to get GPU upgrades in the future. And again, Apple tries to avoid selling upgrade GPUs because they don't make money, so if you want a reliable source of GPU upgrades, they'd need to get the third parties in on that, or convince themselves they're going to be making money losing upgrades available regularly for a while.

Not in the pro sector like you guys but why buy an iMac Pro if you don't want or need that display?

 

[iPadified]

The reality is that often the poorly optimized code of a certain software is not a matter of choice. If this piece of software is the only one available for a given task, or is already the best for it despite the shortcomings, then I find it an acceptable solution to use hardware with excessive headroom to accommodate the situation.

The problem is that macOS is unlike iOS, it is not a closed system, and even on iOS there are 3rd party apps with varying degree of optimization anyway. So unless Apple offers 1st party professional software where you use only their software for your workflow, otherwise it makes no excuse to offer limiting hardware that is "good enough if code is optimized".

I do not deny that powerful hardware is needed. I find it irritating that the fix to performance problem is almost one sided (the hardware side). As you point out there is no choice regarding the software. Naturally, the software will lag a generation behind but in reality it lags years if not a decade.
[doublepost=1516950975][/doublepost]

The reality is that often the poorly optimized code of a certain software is not a matter of choice. If this piece of software is the only one available for a given task, or is already the best for it despite the shortcomings, then I find it an acceptable solution to use hardware with excessive headroom to accommodate the situation.

The problem is that macOS is unlike iOS, it is not a closed system, and even on iOS there are 3rd party apps with varying degree of optimization anyway. So unless Apple offers 1st party professional software where you use only their software for your workflow, otherwise it makes no excuse to offer limiting hardware that is "good enough if code is optimized".

I know this fully well and I am not denying that powerful hardware is needed. However price sensitive freelancers should put equal pressure on the software developers to get more out of their hardware. It seem that we allow software developer some slack while the hardware developers are getting the heat.

 

[singhs.apps]

It seem that we allow software developer some slack while the hardware developers are getting the heat.

You should check Autodesk forums... or the foundry... no ones getting slack, esp if the issues are serious.

 

[vailr]

Another factor to consider: the Spectre/Meltdown CPU security issue. Apple may want to wait until a revised Intel CPU is available for the 2018 Mac Pro. And no, AMD doesn't seem (to me) to be a likely contender to replace Intel, although AMD CPU's would also require some revisioning for the Spectre/Meltdown issue.

 

[Mago]

Could it simply be that if you have PCIe slots there is little need for T-Bolt?

And the solution is obvious - T-Bolt without DisplayPort.

Instead of the stupid bundling of T-Bolt with graphics - allow T-Bolt as an external PCIe connector (although low bandwidth) without the need to bastardize it to carry a display signal as well.

Latest TB3 chipset supports DP1,4 Alt-Mode, I think what actually needs Thunderbolt is a companion PCIe Open STD for GPUs including the DP1.4 feedback required by the TB3/4/5/6 controller.

Not the introductory price, the current MSRP

Apple plan architectures for 4+ years, current GPU MSRP is accidental (as was with the Bitcoin mining rally, GPU mining Alt-coins also has its days numbered (congrats in less than a year the market will be oversaturate with 2nd hand GPUs)...

PC makers charge a healthy premium over the DIY cost

Thats the reason most Freelancers orders barely equipped systems and in parallel all the High Performance Components from Amz or eBay, Apple managed to avoid this making it proprietary, despite being impopular as long it provides Apple good-profits (bith direct, and indirect on compatibility support issues, MB damage due User Upgrades quite common with GPUs not so with RAM or SSD, blame PCIe edge connector for burned logic board), dont expect Apple to change its proceedings as easy.
[doublepost=1516984486][/doublepost]

Another factor to consider: the Spectre/Meltdown CPU security issue. Apple may want to wait until a revised Intel CPU is available for the 2018 Mac Pro. And no, AMD doesn't seem (to me) to be a likely contender to replace Intel, although AMD CPU's would also require some revisioning for the Spectre/Meltdown issue.

Meltdown is not an Issue on AMD or ARM, only Spectre (as on most von neuman SMT implementation).

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Another factor to consider: the Spectre/Meltdown CPU security issue. Apple may want to wait until a revised Intel CPU is available for the 2018 Mac Pro. And no, AMD doesn't seem (to me) to be a likely contender to replace Intel, although AMD CPU's would also require some revisioning for the Spectre/Meltdown issue.

I don't think Dell, HP, etc. are changing roadmaps due to Spectre / Meltdown, are they? People are still buying machines, the world hasn't stopped turning.

 

[fuchsdh]

I don't think Dell, HP, etc. are changing roadmaps due to Spectre / Meltdown, are they? People are still buying machines, the world hasn't stopped turning.

I doubt anything will happen unless there's large-scale malevolent exploits that sweep computing. The performance hits can suck, but it's going to be years until the flaw is totally eradicated and no one is going to stop buying hardware for an unclear timetable of new equipment.

 

[monokakata]

I doubt anything will happen unless there's large-scale malevolent exploits that sweep computing. The performance hits can suck, but it's going to be years until the flaw is totally eradicated and no one is going to stop buying hardware for an unclear timetable of new equipment.

For me, it's made my decision more complicated. I'm on a late 2014 5K i7 iMac (coming from a cMP 5,1 that died hard) and although it's served me well, it's slower than I'd like and my subjective take on slowdowns from the patch is that it's lost a step or two. Maybe four or five.

And I've been reading that the patches slow down earlier CPUs (like mine) more than the later ones.

Much of my working life (and nearly everything that I get paid to do) happens in Adobe CC.

So do I spring for an iMac Pro 10-core, which should take care of the perceived slowdown just because it's a lot faster to start with, or should I wait for the mMP (or whatever we're calling it these days) with (maybe) a silicon fix?

I'm really just pointing out that the possibility of silicon fixes changes the landscape for me -- makes it more uncertain. Not my favorite place to be when a lot of money's involved.

 

[singhs.apps]

Ok. So are things slow on your all systems ? I just upgraded to 10.3.3. I do notice a slowdown though wasn’t sure if it’s patch related.

 

[vailr]

Intel will release chips free from Meltdown and Spectre bugs this year
https://betanews.com/2018/01/26/meltdown-spectre-free-intel-chips/