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
There have been a few takes from chip experts thinking this is a negotiation tactic for getting a better price from Intel. The rumor itself said that Apple may still cancel or delay the project, which screams negotiation threat.
The other option is that Apple might do low end on ARM and high end on Intel. Of course people thought that's how PowerPC -> Intel would go, and Apple had everything moved over in a year. But some analysts today were nothing that there hasn't been any evidence that Apple's ARM chips could scale to the high end still, which could fit with Apple going dual architecture.
But trying to estimate where Apple is going to go based on them doing something both involving negotiations with Intel and prototype chip design, especially if we throw some unknown Mac Pro design in the mix, is going to be pretty difficult.
There is EFI support coming to generic ARM architectures, and Apple's T2 both manages proprietary boot and can handle EFI, so ARM doesn't even necessarily shift that discussion around. T2's boot loader would need some changes though as it's still built around interfacing their proprietary boot with the Intel chips support for EFI.
[doublepost=1522709182][/doublepost]
I don't think Apple will ever stop supporting Thunderbolt, but I'm starting to suspect their next display will not be a Thunderbolt display. You could use a DisplayPort display either directly with a Mac Pro's GPU's DisplayPort, or use an adapter with Thunderbolt.
But getting away from Thunderbolt as the primary supported link to a display get's them away from the bandwidth limitations USB-C and Thunderbolt place on DisplayPort, and the problems that arise when you talk about thinks like 8k displays, 120hz, or a larger number of 5k displays.
And with Thunderbolt docks, you don't really need to worry about making the display a dock anymore. You also don't have to worry about using the Apple Pro Display with eGPU, DisplayPort would make that work.
[doublepost=1522710115][/doublepost]
What are you talking about? I'm saying this is possible because the interface is full duplex. Where did I talk about converting to half duplex.
Dude. Who are you arguing with?
My entire point was that because PCIe is full duplex there is a huge chunk of upstream bandwidth that generally goes unused on GPUs.
Half duplex has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. That's the whole point.
All I'm talking about is sending DisplayPort 1's and 0's over the unused upstream PCIe bandwidth to a different chip on the system. Completely technically possible. But inconvenient to your pretty badly tarnished at this point Mac Pro prediction.
You're offered no evidence what I've suggested is impossible besides ranting about half duplex mode for no apparent reason and just saying "it's impossible" over and over again.
If you can send a HDMI signal over TCP/IP packets why can't you send DisplayPort over PCIe packets? I've yet to hear why the DisplayPort 1's and 0's can't be sent over a different medium than a DisplayPort cable besides you just rambling about half duplex.
Heck, if you have a problem with that, Intel could put a DisplayPort encoder on the Thunderbolt controller and let the GPU send frames to that over the PCIe bus. I'm not even suggesting a specific implementation. There are about a bajillion ways to do this. As others have said, Intel and AMD could even brute force it like others have said and just make internal cabling a standard.
My suspicion that it will be a standard is because this problem exists on all AMD and Intel workstations, and instead of Apple solving it themselves and having to commit resources to some proprietary thing, I think Apple is just likely to tell AMD and Intel to fix it across the board.
Which would sync up well to a long development cycle for a Mac Pro, that according to the latest rumors, won't ship until 2019.
Last edited:
Seems to be a classic negotiation tactic than anything else. It's a pointless news at this moment. There are no tangible benefits in the near future, barring running IOS apps on the mac.. which was always inevitable.
Negotiation threats can always turn real, but there are some problems with the rumor. Not only is the A series not necessarily proven to scale to workstation class chips, but a lot of pros use virtualization, and that would be gone. Boot Camp would be gone (which Apple cares less about.) And Apple would have to take on a whole lot of work that so far they've gotten Intel to do (Thunderbolt chipset integration and maintenance, more diverse controllers in general, etc.)
It would possibly endanger the pro market as well. Most pro software is specifically optimized in assembly for Intel, and Xcode can't take care of that. It's hard to see Apple keeping a workstation ARM chip updated for such a small slice of the market. And it throws another wrench at the upgrade question.
A leak this early is suspicious. But the thing about Apple making threats with Intel is in the end they have to be willing to carry it out if Intel doesn't bend.
Doing dual compiles for ARM and Intel isn't so bad for most applications if Apple wants their platforms closer together. So I feel like the rumor stating it was to bring everything closer together could also be more posturing.
Wasn't the PowerMac/MacPro transition last in the intel move? I would argue that Apple would need to demonstrate their ARM processors are better than intel or at least comparable first... either way I am intrigued, but also worried too. Until there is an official announcement/roadmap were all just as in the dark as we were yesterday.
Oh gawd. I don't even know if I want to buy a Mac Pro anymore. Now with ARM coming to Apple, say goodbyeto Windows. Say goodbye to supported software.
And before anyone tells me "hey, it's a few years out", let me just tell you that I've had my Mac Pro for 8 years. If I spend $4,000 on a computer, it's going to have to live a very long life.
Please, not this PPC **** again. I went through that transition and it killed PPCs requiring a new computer not after too long.
And before anyone tells me "hey, it's a few years out", let me just tell you that I've had my Mac Pro for 8 years. If I spend $4,000 on a computer, it's going to have to live a very long life.
Please, not this PPC **** again. I went through that transition and it killed PPCs requiring a new computer not after too long.
I think it is wiggle room into 2019. The quote is
"... and iMac Pro include the co-processors. Apple plans to add that chip to a new version of its Mac Pro, to be released by next year, and new Mac laptops this year, according to a person familiar with the matter. ..."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...an-move-from-intel-to-own-mac-chips-from-2020
I suspect that is playing with wandering into the Dec 15-31 deadline area so that by New Years Day done more so than trying to loop in all of 2019 to. When someone says "get me that report by next week". That tends to imply by Monday, not you have until the end of the next Saturday night.
The iMac Pro released in waves because didn't have the 12 and 18 cores. Apple may wait with the Mac Pro until have all of the options for CPU and GPU updates in late Fall until go. ( Intel W update might slip a bit... at least for across the board availability. If lots of folks swap out the initial W and SP chips for the Meltdown/Spectre hard fixed ones then there may be an initial run on them that Apple skips to get better pricing. )
If that wait to long into 2019 the number of folks left is going to be even smaller. The MP 2012 should be on Vintage list by then and even more coming out of MP 2013 on their normal upgrade cycle.
WWDC should see some clarification of this "iphone apps on mac" thing that I think the article is partially mangling. Other reports made this sound like a framework that enabled apps to port more easily between iOS and macOS. ( that the app would need refactoring to use the framework and then get two-for-one ). That is opposed to just running them in some emulator and very odd screen layout on a Mac. I suspect Apple will be going for something cleaner than the latter. But WWDC should clear that up.
if Apple is forced to follow through on the threat and the ARM can't hold up muster in the mid-upper range Apple would need an alternative x86 vendor. If AMD doesn't fumble the ball on delivery this year then maybe still a Plan B they hold in reserve.
I think Apple is beating on a couple of things. Windows on ARM is one of them. If that doesn't work and implodes that's gotta give them pause whether this works. It isn't an exact match but splitting your platform into two processor can be a dual edge sword.
Apple could separate Mac laptops from Mac desktops. Apple has nothing that is going to work for the iMac and up right now. They probably don't have anything in the queue right now that does either. If Apple does something it is far more likely to prune off the MacBook and MacBook Air class systems than the mid-upper range.
I don't think this is a new "aimed at broad spectrum Mac workloads" chip they commissioned. I'd bet it is a iPad chip that is more forked off from the iPhone targeted one. A clamshell iOS iBook would likely fit better.
[doublepost=1522716868][/doublepost]
Windows 10 runs on ARM. ( it is the apps you have to worry about).
https://www.thurrott.com/windows/wi...-finally-documents-limitations-windows-10-arm
Whether the virtualization programs would work well is probably an open question. I don't think they fit into the Win10 on arm model very well.
If Windows 10 on ARM takes off then Apple probably would want to follow it with a macOS on ARM move too. If it is a bust I'm not so sure Apple is really going to follow. The chip the article rumors to be commissioned probably works just as well for a future iPad Pro as it would for a lower end Mac laptop.
Last edited:
"Windows 10 on ARM" is 32-bit only.
MacOS is 64-bit only, at least for post-HighSierra.
So: until "Windows 10 on ARM" becomes capable of running 64-bit apps on a 64-bit ARM CPU, there also won't be macOS on ARM appearing anytime soon.
Could Apple make a modular MacPro that runs IOS on an ARM CPU, instead of macOS running on an Intel/AMD x86 CPU?
I suppose so, but seems kind of doubtful.
ARM's single core performance is reaching Intel's low end single core performance (64 bit mode) its matter of 2 years to reach the high end single core performance but I think still early to believe Apple could manufacture Viable Intel replacement CPU in about 2 years, at least not for the -PRO Macs.
Windows apps and macOS are two different things in two different operating systems. Windows 10 on ARM is 32bit only for x86 apps and ARM32 apps in the Microsoft Appstore. However, the baseline of Win10 on ARM is 64bit systems.
"...The built-in Windows 10 experiences such as Edge, Cortana, Start menu, and Explorer are all native and run as ARM64 (or ARM32). ..."
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/apps-on-arm
The temporary problem is the Windows Universal App is also aimed at stuff like IOT stuff like Rasberry Pi which makes the ARM32 priorities a bit skewed in the AppStore for now. For the moment Win10 on ARM has some of the same problems that Windows RT had. The core critical bundled apps are mostly fine ( ARM64 where Microsoft has finished the work). 3rd party stuff stumbles with as native as the core system.
macOS apps that come out out the Mac AppStore will be native. I don't think Apple is going to try to do it with an emulator.
Microsoft's emulator is not unsurprisingly limited. Typical Microsoft. version 1.0 kind of sucks. version 2.0 sucks less. 3.0 probably would version 1.0 should have been.
" ...The main issue appears to be poor performance with 32-bit x86 apps ... "
https://mspoweruser.com/first-review-of-windows-10-on-arm-worse-than-expected/
If can't emulate 32 bits well, not sure why would think 64 bits would not worsen the performance. Some of this is because they are using a phone target SoC, Snapdragon 835, to do the work. To be effective they'll need something not targeted to being a phone SoC.
Apple's SoC that many folks feel has parity with Intel's offering would probably also choke on trying to run x86 code. FAT binaries are just that fat (bloated).
Why a Mac Pro would run iOS I have no clue. None. iPad Pro sure, but iOS on a desktop machine with a detached, discrete screen is more than loopy. Apple has nothing to compete with Intel W or the mid-top Core i5-i7 on non single core drag racing workloads or in terms of I/O throughput.
[doublepost=1522728177][/doublepost]
It isn't pointless. Swap out the MacBook Intel CPU for an Apple A-series SoC and they probably could goose a hour or so more battery life out of it. That system still lack Thunderbolt and they could technically kill off alt-mode DisplayPort and still be inside the USB Type-C standards ( does A-series current even have external DP out ? ).
If battery life is the sole top priority it has a point. For systems that are plugged into the wall 100% of the time, yeah it is pretty close to pointless (battery life can't possibly be an issue).
[doublepost=1522729373][/doublepost]
They don't. With a run rate in something like the 100K's (if that quite likely underneath 100K). There is no way Apple could do a ARM replacement at Intel (or AMD's) prices for mid-high level solutions. No way.
Actually it is a bit suspect how they pull this off for the Apple watch S-series and it is orders of magnitude bigger in volume and orders of magnitude simpler in implementation. I think the bet has been that the Watch volume will grow big enough to support it over time. Additionally, that he same chip is used in all of the watches ( that will never happen on the Mac product line up ... unless it collapses as a product line. )
Even if Apple wanted to skim off the bottom ( cheapest and/or slowest) Mac laptops in 2 years, it would be another 2-3 iterations of spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave to get to something mid range. Another 4-6 years after 2020 is like 2026. If Apple did a Mac Pro this year and disappeared for another Rip Van Winkle 4 year span it still would have time before Apple was ready.
Because if they wait until 2020, there may not be any MacPro clientele left. I think if they don't introduce a new MacPro this year, they may as well pull out of the workstation market altogether.
Last edited:
Yeah but iMac Pro. They may be banking on the iMac Pro giving them more time.
Even if they launch next year, it’s still possible to announce at WWDC, just less likely now.
I also think they want to do the Mac Pro right and take the time to do it right. Which has both upsides and downsides.
Apple won’t move to pure ARMs on Macs ( which begs the question why keep macOS around if it is going to be all ARM based unless there are some limitations in iOS which would require macOS to do the heavy lifting ) until that strategy reaches a tipping point : when both softwares and hardware (read cpu, GPU, storage ram etc ) would be robust enough to handle all tasks that macOS applications do at present ( there is a whole lot of room to improve on desktop hardwares and softwares themselves but that’s a different story )
The news seems to be more of a PR/business strategy than anything else. If we had seen any significant move by any major application developer talking about or demonstrating their softwares running on ARM just as fast as their x86 ones then this news would have some credibility on the ‘its happening’ front. Only one I saw was a few weeks ago where the co-founder of OTOY demonstrated Octane running on iPhones and iPads (but it was proof of concept rather than something we would be using today and certainly not even close to what is possible using Octane on x86/GPU systems) but I haven’t seen any other vendor doing that yet.
Also it is telling that the article was focusing just as much on how much it is going to hurt Intel ( and even sneaked in how intel got to associate its brand with one of the best known tech company ) as it was on Apple testing ARM as an alternative.
Apple already has an option in AMD if it comes to Intel not playing ball at the negotiation table - which reminds me... what is the scope of Intel-Apple deal ? How long does the deal last before it comes up for renegotiation? 10 ? 15 ? Is it up for renewal around 2020 ?
Last edited:
It's been mentioned before - Apple has not and never had the infrastructure to support their hardware for professional users .
At least not in a timely fashion, such as on-site support or 24h return .
Some Apple authorized dealers might offer decent support , but you'd have to live in a major city to be so lucky.
And no official Apple store offers more than consumer grade service .
Moving to a professional support network would be a major investment for Apple, one that would dwarf the development costs for any future MP, if not those of their entire line of computers .
Hence, any sealed or otherwise non user upgradeable parts simply are not upgradeable at all, to all intents and purposes .
[doublepost=1522754103][/doublepost]
Will they come back with displays, though ?
The Mac market is not big enough to make it a viable product, and outside of that the appeal of the design has come and gone .
The hub capabilities became but a gimmick when Apple chose to leave TB peripherals to be done by 3rd party vendors only, and TB failed to become an industry standard .
To be competitive today, the range of monitors Apple would need to offer is not beyond their reach, but might be way beyond their outdated product philosophy .
Delaying the machine for an architecture change that may or may not happen isn't going to do Apple any favors, especially when people need machines now.
They updated the PowerMac G5 in late 2005 and it got full support for four years after that, even though it and other late PowerPCs missed Snow Leopard—it's not like even if Apple was going to go whole-hog on its own chips you would be making a bad decision buying now. Otherwise you'd be putting off hardware decisions forever.
Aren't both Intel and AMD x86 run on ARM processors, and then everything is translated to x86 inside the CPU? So, what Apple would need is the translator... but how much Intel wants money for the IP? Or could AMD have their hands in this custom chip, as I have predicted long time ago.
Last edited:
They are not. There is nothing to indicate that. The "Mac Pro" is primarily two large segments of folks currently. Those that though the MP 2013 was OK ( a good enough solution) and those who thought the MP 2013 was not a good enough solution.
iMac Pro address the first. It does not address the second. Apple has known that since 2014-15 time frame. The notion that they can kick the can for 6+ years and not loose a a critical portion of that sub-segment in customers is dubious. That Apple really hasn't done a major upgrade in that space since 2010, so have customers sitting on 10-12 year old stuff by 2020-21 is even more dubious.
Apple doesn't have to panic. But the notion they have 1.5-2 years to screw around after they tell folks they are going to end the drought, they'll loose what little credibility they have left. The major problem is that they have flaked twice in 8 years. At this point they have established their flakiness.
A "the dog ate my homework .... I need another whole year" pronouncement won't save them.
If it is component schedule slip then if they waited until they had solid schedule commitment from suppliers in (July/August) and then put a date on it. If this Apple abandoning x86 thing doesn't die down then Apple has alot more to talk about at WWDC then the Mac Pro.
Intel introducing their full 8th Gen line up today means that Apple can fill the Mac "hardware" slot at WWDC with very real 6 core MBP 15" and 6 core iMac (not Pro just 'regular) that are shipping ( as opposed to stuff they slacked on and still need another 6-10 months to fix).
I also think they are trying to do right and gave themselves the "normal" 12-18 months t0 get a new system up and out the door. But they should be well past the point of indecision about what they are going to do at this point. The issues now should be unexpected stuff that always pops up along the way to getting a complicated product down. That's why the schedule is soft at this point. What is going on with other products and future 2-3 years plans in the ARM design group should be totally tangential to the product at this point.
[doublepost=1522773229][/doublepost]
No. Completely off base.
AMD processors have an very small embedded ARM core/processor just to do security stuff. It doesn't run any x86 code. ( it is a separate processor that runs the security environment that x86 code interacts with (ask/give data ). )
Intel has no "ARM" code.
What both x86 implementations do inside Intel and AMD chips do is translate the x86 instruction into "micro operations". The later stages of the processor cores "execute" those operations. A lot of folks paint this as a CICS to RISC translation. Technically it really isn't. ARM is in the "RISC" camp of general processor design so that "CICS to RISC" translation is hand waved into RISC and ARM is RISC so therefore into ARM. That's isn'y a logic sequence.... it is grossly flawed inference. ARM is not RISC.
Eh? Apple would probably need a x86 emulation to ease the app migration stage, but that would just be a program that runs on top of the ARM based processor. It is particularly any different in that sense in running a regular program or any of the libraries that Apple provides like Cocoa/OPenGL/CoreAUDIO. Or the javascript complier in your web browser that ingests "javascript text' from the Internet and executes it.
I don't think Apple has the skilset to do a decent emulator for x86. Rosetta that was used for PPC->x86 was not Apple's technology. Apple didn't develop that. They licensed it and it really isn't for license anymore for what Apple might want to use it for.
Last edited:
Apple overtly said they were.... emphasis added.
"..
With regards to the Mac Pro, we are in the process of what we call ‘completely rethinking the Mac Pro.’Phil Schiller
As part of doing a new Mac Pro — it is, by definition, a modular system — we will be doing a pro display as well. Now you won’t see any of those products this year; we’re in the process of that. We think it’s really important to create something great for our pro customers who want a Mac Pro modular system, and that’ll take longer than this year to do. ..."
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/t...-john-ternus-on-the-state-of-apples-pro-macs/
Note that is "a display". They may not limit themselves to a singular one but it is not a range. Nor do they need a range.
The display return is in the same sentence as where they are coming back with the Mac Pro. If not coming back with Display then not coming back with the Mac Pro. I think it is a huge mistake though to think the displays are coming back only because the Mac Pro is coming back. Also on top of that the Mac Pro coming back will use the same set of I/O ports that were available in 2010.
The Mac Pro will be brought back in the current technology context. That is a context where the MBP is the dominate "Pro" system.
".. Across all of that, as we’ve said, we’re a more mobile than desktop company; of the people who use pro apps, and define themselves as pros, our largest product used by those customers are notebooks ... Second on the list is iMacs — used by pros ....
Third on the list is Mac Pro. Now, Mac Pro is actually a small percentage of our CPUs — just a single digit percent. However, we don’t look at it that way.
The way we look at it is that there is an ecosystem here that is related. ... "
[quote from same article as above. ]
That is all pretty clear. The Mac Pro is not the primary driver here. How all these systems get along with each other is an major issue. So when Apple brings back a display it would probably have features to enhance the MBP and iMac as at least much as the Mac Pro. Apple has lots of Pro users who have a MBP that could a bigger than laptop display also.
If include all of the Macs which have a run rate of 10-14M per year there is more than a viable display market there. Even if just sell displays to 1-2% to that market that is 100K-280K display. If Apple charges $750/display that is that is about $17M in profits for Apple if the mark-up is 30%. If "Pro" market price tag over $1000 that would be even fatter profit. For a budget of $7M ( as subset of those profits) can't get a couple of display out the door is kind of crazy
[ $750/ display would be a mix of something like the Apple versions of these two.
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKMY2VC/A/lg-ultrafine-4k-display?fnode=8a $699
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKN62LL/A/lg-ultrafine-5k-display?fnode=8a $1999
average $999 ]
Failed to be industry standard? It is standard alt-mode of USB Type C. Is USB not a standard?
The long time rant in this Mac Pro forum is that USB was going to "kill" Thunderbolt. It didn't. Thunderbolt merged in and is only increasing adaptation at this point. One of the major resistance from the system vendors was that Intel was the only implementor. That won't be true in the next year or so.
Apple needed to allow 3rd party to do a diverse set of peripherals. The major issue has been to get more system vendors to put the port on more systems. That is basically happening now in the > $1,200+ laptop market now ( and a lower rate in the next price tier down. ). The only place where USB has a almost absolute exclusive is the chromebook price zone. ( that will just take a couple more years. )
Apple doesn't have to build every possible monitor. They just need to make 1 or 2 to "return" to the monitor business. The vast majority of Mac Pros sold probably won't use one. That doesn't make a difference to viability if Apple sells just a minor sliver to the rest of the Mac market.
Apple doesn't need to come back with a super duper 8K HDR monitor or any other super low run rate one. A single 4K and 5K would do just fine. ( and the iMac volume would further viability since that would be the real volume driver for the panel component. )
Last edited:
I actually prefer 1440p monitors because I want to use them for gaming. It is the ideal "all in one" resolution. I hope Apple offers a 1440p 27-30" monitor @ 120Hz and HDR.
My fear (and most likely prediction) is that Apple will only offer 4k monitors when they refresh.
Gaming on 4k I'm sure is fun, but, it's also something that most computers cannot even attempt today, and you are trading off serious FPS at that point when you chose to do so, which works against fast response monitors which is the new tech that is staying. In other words, you cannot have 4k, and 100Hz, or even 120Hz today, even with the 1080Ti. 60Hz is your target @ 4k with a 1080Ti, and have fun paying for one!
1440p is the "sweet spot" resolution. I've been saying that for the past couple years, and it's finally nice to see 1440p benchmarks come up in almost every bench now. It's becoming the standard, and some may even argue it is the new standard. 1080p is quickly becoming the new "720p" when it comes to PC gaming. I quickly ignore 1080p benchmarks whenever I see them. Means zip to me.
4k will begin to replace 1440p probably in 4-6 years at best when it comes to gaming. And that's with the assumption that GPUs will fall far down in price (mining) as well as multiple generation revisions where we can see "budget" 4k cards.
I guess my point is that if Apple only offers 4k or 5k displays, they will be very niche for monitors. Believe it or not, Apple monitors are used quite a bit with Windows machines where I work. They have superb build quality and color accuracy.
My fear (and most likely prediction) is that Apple will only offer 4k monitors when they refresh.
Gaming on 4k I'm sure is fun, but, it's also something that most computers cannot even attempt today, and you are trading off serious FPS at that point when you chose to do so, which works against fast response monitors which is the new tech that is staying. In other words, you cannot have 4k, and 100Hz, or even 120Hz today, even with the 1080Ti. 60Hz is your target @ 4k with a 1080Ti, and have fun paying for one!
1440p is the "sweet spot" resolution. I've been saying that for the past couple years, and it's finally nice to see 1440p benchmarks come up in almost every bench now. It's becoming the standard, and some may even argue it is the new standard. 1080p is quickly becoming the new "720p" when it comes to PC gaming. I quickly ignore 1080p benchmarks whenever I see them. Means zip to me.
4k will begin to replace 1440p probably in 4-6 years at best when it comes to gaming. And that's with the assumption that GPUs will fall far down in price (mining) as well as multiple generation revisions where we can see "budget" 4k cards.
I guess my point is that if Apple only offers 4k or 5k displays, they will be very niche for monitors. Believe it or not, Apple monitors are used quite a bit with Windows machines where I work. They have superb build quality and color accuracy.
Last edited:
If Apple does just one screen it is more likely to be the iMac/iMac Pro 27" panel and at least as equally as good backlight / color gamut. Perhaps 5K HDR10 as the 'new' pro aspect to it. They may "move up" the 120Hz feature from the iPad Pro to their desktop monitor. ( I suspect that depends upon wither can get a newer but affordable TCON and DSC compression via DisplayPort 1.4 ), but yeah that would mean sliding back to 4K (or doing two monitors).
Gaming performance won't be a driver of the relatively narrowly focused monitor Apple would select. The monitor is modular for the Mac Pro so they don't have to fill that niche ( as long as not specifically looking for proprietary G-sync support in a standard config. ). The " pick your own monitor from someone else" property is what differentiates the Mac Pro.
[doublepost=1522779389][/doublepost]
Hmm, the day after this leak from Apple, Intel actually releases CPU packages that Apple can actually use in new Macs.
[doublepost=1522779431][/doublepost]
Even though in previous response I said Apple probably should use most of the Mac "hardware" time in WWDC keynote to talk about new 6 core MBPs and 6 core iMacs ...
... if they don't... this is extremely convenient for Apple who has nothing new for 6 core announcements, as opposed to their competitors who will have a very steady stream of announcements between now and Computek conference ( June 5-9 same time as WWDC). If Apple's mac development is constipated yet again and Apple nothing through July, this whole ARM thing is a very handy excuse for Mac rumor mills. "Apple doesn't have anything.... well that is OK because the chip oompa loompa are creating a new ARM chip that is better than sliced bread. " . At that point it would be more misdirection than negotiation.
Last edited:
4K (60 Hz) already replaced 1440p on my Mac and PC.
Of course with a water-cooled overclocked GTX 1080 Ti for gaming. For normal work a Maxwell Titan X/GTX 980 Ti is enough to provide 4K.