...
(Published in September 2017)
I know pretty much all that he discusses has been touched on in one form or another, but was curious on what others with more technical backgrounds think.
First and foremost his premise that Apple didn't define modular in any way is seriously weak. From the transcript of there session.
" ... As part of doing a new Mac Pro — it is, by definition, a modular system — we will be doing a pro display as well. ... "
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/t...-john-ternus-on-the-state-of-apples-pro-macs/
It is slightly implicit there but the display being decoupled from the rest of the system is enough to invoke 'modular'. Apple points to the discrete display being a characteristic of modular. The current Mac Pro is modular.
The second significant disconnect from his position that "upgrades are too intimidating theme" is this comment by Apple also.
"... and we want to architect it so that we can keep it fresh with regular improvements, and we’re committed to making it our highest-end, high throughput desktop system, designed for our demanding pro customers. ..."
Apple doesn't really need those boxes to do the upgrades themselves ( with regular improvements). His "stand on your head look at it sideways" is that Apple will happily take to building smaller lego bricks that users will snap in is quite odd. Taken to the extreme the Apple quote about would be Apple doing the upgrading.... which they aren't blocked by the current methods for doing this. Taken looser, where customers can do the upgrades themselves ... that's disconnected the his tagging users treating as an open box that they don't want to open.
In short, there is a big disconnect in the user base of those who need "more approachable" upgrades and what is being talked about. The folks for which upgrades aren't approachable is handled in large part by the iMac Pro. Want the memory updated? Take it to an Apple Authorized service provider and they'll do it for you. That is lots to indicate that Apple isn't aiming the Mac Pro to be a vast overlap with the iMac Pro when it comes to upgrades and regular updates.
(Basic video summary)
Three options for “modular” Mac Pro
1. External boxes connected via thunderbolt/thunderbolt like I/O
Technically flawed. One, Thunderbolt isn't meant to be a the core bus of a system. Thunderbolt like stripped completely of multiple protocol transport looks alot like PCI-e. So this is mainly Rube Goldberg.
I/O module. The PCH chipset that is pragmatically bundled with the Xeon chip ( or even embedded in some other offerings; AMD) makes no sense to put it in a separate box. There is USB provisioned in this chipset set so why would the I/O be out there? Properitary I/O to audio/video capture cards ... why would Apple make wrapper boxes for those?
OWC/Macsales sank some money in some MacBook Pro module that would screw onto the bottom of a MBP to provide more ports and connect with some Thunderbolt. It never really shipped. [ Yes that is partially because the MBP isn't a conducive form factor that latch onto but price was probably another issue. ]
eGPU isn't a signal o the 'future'. Every eGPU system out there so far the eGPU is the 2nd GPU. If you pull the TB plug what does the system fall back to ..... yep the primary GPU. So it is hardly signaling the absent of a GPU completely from the core system. That notion is just fundamentally flaw. Over longer time CPU and GPU are likely to get more coupled not looser. MMUs in CPU and GPUs sharing a flat, virtual memory space ... that is going to get tighter not looser.
eGPUs have a future because as much as the Mac Pro was partially inhibited by having two GPUs it turns out that having two asymmetrical GPUs is beneficial in many cases. One relatively low power GPU (on battery and mobile ) and another immobile, faster, plugged into the wall socket GPU. Docking stations that make your system faster is a market. [ Costs of the solution will put a cap on it but it is a clear market that really isn't the Mac Pro. ]
Storage. Over last couple of years all Apple storage introduced is connected by PCI-e via a derivative of the M.2 slot or directly coupled to the logic board.
Each box with its own cooler and perhaps power is a problem. You can't scale hugely with the same size power supply ( where are the power supply(s) ? Totally hand waved away in these videos )
2. Mac Pro “Cheesegrater Tower”
Probably took over a year to get the previous "cheesegrater Towers" out the door. So Apple saying it will take over a year shouldn't be a surprise if apple hadn't been working on it. Just because Apple corporation has cash doesn't mean there are resources assigned to getting a Mac Pro out the door. Most of 2016-7 was probably spent by a limited team in getting the iMac Pro out the door. There is zero concrete evidence that Apple has 7-12 teams working on Macs at all. Everything Apple has done over last four years or so indicated there are less teams than number of Mac products offered. ( in 2006 Apple refreshed every Mac product from PPC to Intel. I doubt they could do that now with the current resource assignments. )
The CPU/RAM tray was largely driven by merging the single and dual CPU concepts into one model ( probably for volume efficiency). There is less of a need for that now. Single CPU packages pack more cores than double did. ( just like transition from 2008 to 2009 models. ). Multiple chip modules like Intel's EMIB just reinforce that.
A display GPU "tray" could be driving by Thunderbolt integration needs but that doesn't necessarily cover the variety of PCI-e cards in the specialized pro market.
3. Hybrid between the two, where the case houses component boxes that can be adapted.
largely most of the exact same stuff for the lego blocks concept of #1. The decoupling of I/O ports makes little sense. snap in GPUs ..... would be different from towers approaches how? No cables to attach and snaps in too work?
The "cheesegrater Mac" had thermal zones. There could be separators that zone the air flow but fully enclosed box
*this is assuming Apple defines modular Mac Pro as being somewhat user upgradable via “boxes”. The debate is still (and likely will) continues until an official announcement is made as to whether it will be modular on user end or just Apple Assembly line.
Apple's assembly line isn't the issue. Apple doesn't want to make everything for everybody. So if they are having trouble getting 1-2 GPU upgrades out for the Mac Pro ( none from 2010 to 2013 , and then non from 2013 to 2018 ). Them being the sole source outlet would require radically different behaviour from the last 8 years. I think Apple could easily do better than that. ( perhaps average one every 10-18 months ) but I don't think that would make the target market happy. There are elements of the "AMD vs Nvidia" fan boy that apple probably doesn't want to cover.
