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

[barmann]

Because “muh OS X” (myself included, sadly lol).

Damn straight .
Without OSX , there would be no point discussing the next MP, or any of them .

And yes, external solutions usually come with cables, but more importantly they come with high cost and extra noise .

 

[fendersrule]

And extra desk space.

 

[Chancha]

Chuckle. The "pro" series displays that Dell (Ultrasharp) , HP (Dreamcolor or UHD Z ) , Nec ( PA series ) , Ezio (colorEdge ) all have USB hubs in them. So the notion that most pro want monitors sitting on their desks that solely have video data capability is at serious odds with the reality of what the leading vendors in that market are selling. Nobody asked for but they are all doing it.

For example Eizo has a relatively new DCI 4K HDR monitor https://www.eizo.com/products/coloredge/cg3145/
Yes ... it has a 3 port uSB hub in it.

From what I have seen, the main use of USB hub on this class of display is to ensure a port is available in close proximity for plugging in hardware calibrators. And the second reason is these class of displays usually have built-in KVMs, since they most-def have multiple display inputs, a very likely use case is to hook up to multiple source machines where the user wants to share input devices with via multiple USB upstreams.

So I think some low bandwidth USB ports are welcome for most folks, but they probably won't trust critical stuff like a portable drive to be hooked via the display anyway. (I wouldn't). The TB3 single-cable solution is more appealing to portable docking users, for desk-bound scenarios it is not a must.

Yes cranking up the screen size up to 5K HDR or 8K ( and data hog HDR cherry on top of that) will push the solution out of a single TBv3 cable solution that doesn't involve compression. The market analysis problem there is how is that the market norm?

The reality here though is Apple hasn't introduced a new monitor that had no power providing features since 2004. That is 14 years ago. Apple started on the power providing monitor track in 2008: 10 years ago. In those ten the Mac market has grown considerably and the revenues and profits totals are way up. Apple is extreme unlikely going to reverse direction and optimize their product line up for the mix of Macs they sold in 2003-2004. Reality in 2018 is different. Mac Pro is going to be an even smaller portion of the Mac line that they were in 2008-2010 ( 2010 is when the last "display only" 30" product was discontinued). The iMac Pro is going to skim off even more.

Apple probably is going to continue to do the different track they have been on. A "Pro" monitor with a singular input on it. Probably almost no buttons ( configuration there software control panel) and yes Thunderbolt v3.

I do think that's what Apple will make, not particularly because the users need it, but more inline with the older display lineups where it spokes more with a design language. A headless Mac without the screen presence of an iMac, and without an even more elaborate presence of an Apple logo at the back of the MBs, needs some visual anchor to be identified with. Not saying folks who want this is any more or less important than a user of say an Eizo, but definitely when a cable-free solution is of importance to some usage then Apple has no problem delivering it. It is not like an actual specs-demanding user can't plug his own display anyway and forgets the Apple offer even exists altogether. That's exactly what most of the MP and PPM users did.

A much stronger case as noted by someone above is to tie into the rest of the Mac ecosystem. TB3 is a much more meaningful I/O for a portable where you want a single cable solution, on top of the extra bandwidth reserved for rest of the chain. As long as the rest of the Mac lineup still has TB3 as the main (if not sole...) I/O, then the Apple Display will almost definitely have it. The remaining question is if the mMP doesn't solve the TB loopback issue inherently, then it opens up a possibility for an extra DP on the display.

For folks who want something different a new Mac Pro with 4 TBv3 sockets , 2 HDMI and/or mDP sockets, and a open x16 slot could be hooked up almost every "pro" monitor out there. through some combination of configuration options.

Even 8K.
two TBv3 ports with type-C to DisplayPort cables ( or one of mDP sockets if present).
one TBv3 cable to desktop port dock for easy front facing I/O ports. ( not behind monitor either).

three cables up to desk.

If the internal AMD GPU doesn't pass Nvidia focus then a card in the 2nd GPU slot and nominal mainstream hook ups via cards mDP and the USB socket(s )off the box. Three cables up to desk.

For a 4K HDR Thunderbolt could have 1 cable up to desk and a USB controller bandwidth off the ports on the monitor ( and not sub 8 Gb/s USB hub).

The first goalpost Apple needs to reach is HDMI2.1 or DP1.4, which enables DCI-4K at HDR 10-bit 60Hz. This is needed to properly grade a HDR1000 source content. I don't know if the TBv3 spec can catch up to this in time, but either way this amount of bandwidth also enables high Hz dual screens for VR or multiples of 4k/5k extended setups. I personally am not sure about 8K. It is a proof of concept as of now, but the application is questionable for a desk bound display. The pixel pitch is way too high for typical desk viewing distance of 2-3 feet. It would need to be a 40" screen to match the 5K@27" PPI of approx. 220, which is deemed "dense enough" for human eyes. The bandwidth is better served on refresh rate or color depth etc.

The 4K UltraFine option pretty much sucks when it comes to the USB ports on the monitor. They are simply USB 2.0.

As far as disavow goes, that is hardly credible. Those two solutions have only video input. In the rest of LG's lineup at roughly similar price range ( > $540 ) can you find another model they sell that has one and only one video input?
For whatever reason it appears that Apple abandon the development of these monitors and made some deal with LG to finish pushing them out to market. ( Apple industiral design clogged up with other higher priority work? some bean counter went Scrooge McDuck and steve'd them. something along those lines.)

The initial quality issue I think Apple would avoid. I suspect they have learned a lesson that nobody but Apple wants to build something quite like that and so they should probably design it. Very likely it will have a Rip Van Winkle product cycle where they will disappear for 3-4 years at a time. ( 30" monitor took 6 years to replace/retire. )

Absolutely no display seller would want the product to be locked to just one specific brand of user. The rest of the specs are already self-limiting in positioning itself towards specific professional use cases, or cost-cutting thus feature-cutting for consumer products.

As for Apple, I am unsure if it is a (visual) design goal to keep as few ports as possible, or a sort of lockin to limit input choices on their displays. Historically, even with different generations of I/O standards on Macs, the corresponding display usually comes shipped with it ready to be plugged in by all Macs sold in the same window. But this was during the time when a mini-DVI to DVI dongle is bundled free in box for every MBP purchases, which as we know isn't the case anymore in the bean-counting era.

Apple's track record with discrete display has not been revolutionary at all. They had adopted changes as they appeared on the market ( LCD panels, hiDPI , 5K ), but there little to show where Apple was all outer their by their lonesome.

Yes, it is a wild misconception that Apple has ever been a leader in display business, in terms of features or even quality. The lack of hardware re-calibration, the lack of input choices, the lack of 360 degree stand, all standard if not necessary features on a professional display. In recent years they even started forcing glossy lamination without a BTO choice for matte. I am positive their positioning in display has not changed even this time around, they just got fed up
with the LG Ultrafine issues which hurts them much more than anticipated in a marketing perspective.

The only thing here is that it wouldn't be surprising to see Apple move their 120Hz iPad Pro work up to the display. It isn't 120Hz for gaming spec porn chasing sake. It would be more the smoothing out the screen for more normal, app display ( not necessarily 3D stuff. ).

Apple has some catch up to do in HDR compliant monitors... not particularly in the "unseen feature before" category

A 120 or even 144Hz display will be welcomed; creative arts, 3D, VR, or general interfacing is helped for various degrees. As for HDR it depends if Apple values their FCPX or even FX/grading audience greatly.

 

[ssgbryan]

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.

It won’t. The iMac Pro has the exact same limitations as the tcmp.

 

[fendersrule]

120Hz helps out all computing experience, even just down to the basics of moving a mouse cursor.

 

[goMac]

How many Mac users across the whole market are going to buy eGPUs. You folks seems to off lost in the weeds where 10-15% of total Mac new users run off and buy eGPUs. How likely is that?

Wrong question. The question is how many pro Mac users will buy eGPU and an Apple Pro Display.

Apple can't be off selling Apple Pro Displays to VR developers in one corner, and then be selling them incompatible eGPUs in another.
[doublepost=1522871534][/doublepost]

"... The best advice that we can give you is to render on the same GPU that's driving the display your app is on. I call this the golden rule of GPU selection. So, let's extend this and build a decision tree. ..."

Thanks. That's the guidance I had read before and was wondering if that's what was meant.
[doublepost=1522871630][/doublepost]

It won’t. The iMac Pro has the exact same limitations as the tcmp.

Oh, I didn't mean that the iMac Pro is a good substitute for everyone here. What I meant is that Apple will consider it a workable substitute, which is good enough for them. I understand that it doesn't really fix anything for what we're talking about, but Apple will think of the iMac Pro as at least something to keep their pro customers afloat.

The assumption seems to be that this should be a four alarm fire at Apple because their pro customers will leave them if they don't do a Mac Pro soon (which may be true) but what I'm saying is Apple won't see it that way with the iMac Pro out.
[doublepost=1522871939][/doublepost]

Yes, it is a wild misconception that Apple has ever been a leader in display business, in terms of features or even quality. The lack of hardware re-calibration, the lack of input choices, the lack of 360 degree stand, all standard if not necessary features on a professional display. In recent years they even started forcing glossy lamination without a BTO choice for matte. I am positive their positioning in display has not changed even this time around, they just got fed up
with the LG Ultrafine issues which hurts them much more than anticipated in a marketing perspective.

What I heard is that Apple was surprised with the backlash to the LG UltraFine because they didn't think anyone wanted to buy their displays anyway. They thought everyone would be happier with the third parties.

I think that Apple isn't likely to do 8k. 120hz or dynamic clock rate rebranded as ProMotion (maybe borrowing FreeSync) seems more likely to me.

But if Apple sees a lot of third party monitor usage, especially on the Mac Pro, I still see them pushing DisplayPort for external displays going forward. Apple knows that the Mac Pro usually goes into specialized work that a Apple Pro Display wouldn't be a great fit everywhere for. That's why they stopped doing their own display to being with.

Also without changes, I'm not even sure Thunderbolt 3 has enough bandwidth for 5k at 120hz.

 

[deconstruct60]

From what I have seen, the main use of USB hub on this class of display is to ensure a port is available in close proximity for plugging in hardware calibrators.
...

I'll get to some of the other stuff later when have more time. However, this following snippet is a cut-and-paste from an article I'm pretty sure has been posted in this thread before.

The first goalpost Apple needs to reach is HDMI2.1 or DP1.4, which enables DCI-4K at HDR 10-bit 60Hz. This is needed to properly grade a HDR1000 source content. I don't know if the TBv3 spec can catch up to this in time, but either way this amount of bandwidth also enables high Hz dual screens for VR or multiples of 4k/5k extended setups.

TBv3 spec doesn't have to "catch up". This has been released a couple of months ago.

"... Meanwhile, because DP 1.4 has greater bandwidth requirements, it's worth nothing that TB3 displays incorporating Titan Ridge and DP1.4 still cannot exceed 40 Gbps offered by TB3. Formally, one DP 1.4 stream can carry 25.92 gigabits of data per second (32.4 Gbps with overhead) and can support a 5Kp60/8Kp30 display without compression, or a 5Kp120/8Kp60 monitor when the Display Stream Compression 1.2 (DSC) technology is used. ..."
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12228/intel-titan-ridge-thunderbolt-3

Technically Thunderbolt (as in the thunderbolt data and protocol ) didn't need to catch up. The only thing that is needed is for the TB controllers that encode/decode the DP traffic for transport to correctly handle anything new in DP v1.4. Once encoded it is just transported and decoded on the other side.

DCI 4K is inside the bounds of 5K. ( DCI 4K HDR is in the 16-17 Gb/s range. ). That is way under 40 Gb/s. Two DCI 4K HDR on a single cable. would be an issue for a DP v1.4 cable too with no compression.

I'm assuming that when Intel says that can transmit DP v1.4 that they mean the whole spec including DSC (compression).

 

[mattspace]

"You have a choice, now, between using the (laughably weak) internal GPU with a high bandwidth link, or a (relative to the internal, but since it's AMD still not actually) high performance external GPU with a link at about a quarter the bandwidth. ..."

That, my friend, is known as a "s#%t sandwitch", or "sweet solution" in apple-speak. It's a decision no VR developer or user for Windows has to make, which is why 9 months after that talk:

As opposed to 162 non-game apps, for Windows.

Missing from that list of two - the "amazing" VR DJ app that was part of the iMac Pro launch - they're sitting out actually releasing a product until Godot arrives, or Apple puts GPUs in all their machines that are up to snuff, which given the state of the art is going to keep racing ahead, is probably going to be never.

Also missing from macOS options - HTC's Viveport.

 

[Ph.D.]

Concerning monitors:

I think Apple's use of a laminated 5k display - and a very good one at that - did raise the bar, and few companies are approaching it still. Raising the refresh rates in the highest-quality versions that Apple tends to use is almost the only thing left to accomplish in LCD's (and it would be very welcome!). To get much better still, oled or some other future technology will have to be chosen. Apple has people trained to expect high prices for premium quality, so they could go first if they wanted to.

And no, you don't want a "matte" display. Those just scatter light, leading to fuzziness. This was tolerable back when displays were low resolution, but times have changed. What you want is a "glossy" (non-scattering) antireflective display with a deeply-black substrate. My "glossy" oled TV is the blackest, least reflective, best display I've ever seen. I'd be delighted if a denser ("retina") version came to my desktop.

 

[CWallace]

I do not believe DP 1.4 can handle 5K at 120Hz (that seems to be something for DP 1.5), however 1.4 does add HDR so I could see Apple sticking with 60Hz (they would need LG to make a 27" 5K 120Hz panel, anyway, and Apple is the only company other than themselves that I think still offers a 5K 27" display) and adding HDR to the line.

 

[fuchsdh]

>60Hz is nice, but I can't think of any real use I'd have for it versus HDR or pixel density. I'm not putting out animations at 60fps, let alone higher rates, and unless you have beastly gaming rigs you're not getting high frame rates and high resolutions together. HFR video is also almost exclusively used for purposes other than outputting at those rates (slow motion, speed ramping, compositing.)

 

[deconstruct60]

I do not believe DP 1.4 can handle 5K at 120Hz

it does with a small caveat. It is a valid entry the Resolution and refresh frequency table here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Resolution_and_refresh_frequency_limits_for_DisplayPort

The caveat is that the GPU and the display has to support all of DP v1.4, not just the convenient parts. v1.4 includes Display Stream Compression (DSC.). DSC 1.2 allows 3:1 or 2:1 compression ratios depending upon the baseline encoding used RGB or YCbCr 4:2:0 . ( https://www.vesa.org/news/vesa-upda...-new-applications-and-richer-display-content/ )

The bigger problem is that the compression and decompression have to be in both sides. (and the stuff in between (DP switches , etc. ) needs to certify out too. ). At the same article linked above before get to the section with the resolution tables.

".. On displays which do not support DSC, the maximum limits are unchanged from DisplayPort 1.3 (4K 120 Hz, 5K 60 Hz, 8K 30 Hz).[23] ..."

there are lots of cards that are DP 1.3/1.4 capable. If do just enough to look like the complete 1.4 can pass.

Pro's who are "princess and the pea" about color aren't going to like compression.

(that seems to be something for DP 1.5),

Pragmatically that is going to be a long while. When HDMI 2.1 came out the DP folks did a reboot. So now need to come up with something. That will be followed by folks actually implementing that both in the GPU and in the display's controllers. It will take a long while to settle out. Most likely what going to see is two cords because it is a cheaper hack around the issue. No DSC in the monitor and glue two TCONs together..... what is the same hack that is currently being use to get DP 1.2 to drive 5K anyway.

Still have to get to the point where the TCON in most new displays is actual, full fledged DP v1.4 implementation.

however 1.4 does add HDR so I could see Apple sticking with 60Hz (they would need LG to make a 27" 5K 120Hz panel, anyway, and Apple is the only company other than themselves that I think still offers a 5K 27" display) and adding HDR to the line.

Apple only other than LG?

http://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop...18q/apd/210-amvp/monitors-monitor-accessories

Again this is an example of Apple being behind the curve. A fairly high amount of local dimming is required of an IPS panel to get to HDR standards.

 

[CWallace]

Apple only other than LG?

The Dell UP2718Q you linked to is a 4K display. They discontinued the UP2715K 5K display, as did HP with their Z27q.

 

[fuchsdh]

Here's the latest from the horse's mouth:

https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/05/apples-2019-imac-pro-will-be-shaped-by-workflows/

Good that they aren't leaving potential customers in the lurch here. Get your iMac Pro now if you need a machine, or wait the rest of the year. Hopefully we get that kind of transparency on update schedules as well.

Also relevant point:

Now, it’s a year later and Apple has created a team inside the building that houses its pro products group. It’s called the Pro Workflow Team and they haven’t talked about it publicly before today. The group is under John Ternus and works closely with the engineering organization.

 

[deconstruct60]

The Dell UP2718Q you linked to is a 4K display. They discontinued the UP2715K 5K display, as did HP with their Z27q.

OK. Thanks missed that. TV is driving HDR so 5K is an odd ball fit. So perhaps coming late.

The Dell appears to the a HDR1000 ( or maybe doesn't check all the required boxes on spec ... or just not worth paying to get it officially specd. ) . LG has some recent larger panels that are HDR600, so perhaps they are incrementing all of the various 4K releases until get to a new 5K. But so far haven't found a LG model either in the 5K range. At least "normal" 5K.

There is a 5K "wide" coming that is HDR600 http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/38.htm#lg_34wk95u



The above monitor and also this upcoming model have TBv3 and DP (and HDMI) inputs.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/39.htm#asus_pa32uc

This is one of those things where Apple could "paint themselves" into a corner with a new "Pro" monitor if they stick with the dogma that it has one singular input port. Yes it gets rid of the need to have a change input button on the monitor ( I can be button less) but illustrates that it wouldn't be the Mac Pro having video enabled TB ports being the problem but the display's dogma that is the issue with connecting to alternative GPU cards that don't have TBv3.

There are other monitors that do both (although with perhaps independent USB hubs or ports that don't work without TB ).

 

[macfanboy]

https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/05/apples-2019-imac-pro-will-be-shaped-by-workflows/

 

[Aldaris]

Here's the latest from the horse's mouth:

https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/05/apples-2019-imac-pro-will-be-shaped-by-workflows/

Good that they aren't leaving potential customers in the lurch here. Get your iMac Pro now if you need a machine, or wait the rest of the year. Hopefully we get that kind of transparency on update schedules as well.

Also relevant point:

Beat me to it. https://9to5mac.com/2018/04/05/mac-pro-2019/

MacRumors is late to the party (as usual).
[doublepost=1522946256][/doublepost]I guess it’s somewhat comforting knowing they are using actual workflows... here’s hoping they understand there are many of us with various workflows and realize they need to provide some options and not a one size fits all *cough sealed box cough* solution.

 

[fuchsdh]

Beat me to it. https://9to5mac.com/2018/04/05/mac-pro-2019/

MacRumors is late to the party (as usual).
[doublepost=1522946256][/doublepost]I guess it’s somewhat comforting knowing they are using actual workflows... here’s hoping they understand there are many of us with various workflows and realize they need to provide some options and not a one size fits all *cough sealed box cough* solution.

Presumably if they're dogfooding their testcases to all their pros as opposed to just certain categories those differences would get highlighted.

This for instance seems like a place where having a greater in-house ad team comes with fringe benefits because the shooters, editors, and finishers are all involved.

 

[Zarniwoop]

Those who don't jump ship now... Time to close this discussion and continue on Waiting for modular Mac Pro 2019...

---> https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/waiting-for-modular-mac-pro-2019.2113686/

 

[Mago]

Its time to say SAYONARA to Apple....

I cant wait this long, I moving full to linux now.

Sorry Apple, you are in the worst hands now, I'm leaving now before the damages extends into my business.

Because we want to provide complete pro solutions not just deliver big hardware which we’re doing and we did it with iMac Pro. But look at everything holistically.”

Ok, that's said everithing. Bye Apple
[doublepost=1522948304][/doublepost]We should create a Hastag #meLeavingAppleToo

 

[deconstruct60]

... I guess it’s somewhat comforting knowing they are using actual workflows... here’s hoping they understand there are many of us with various workflows and realize they need to provide some options and not a one size fits all *cough sealed box cough* solution.

There are various workflows with various Macs. If you carefully read through the article that group is looking for solutions for all Macs; not just some "magic bullet" singular Mac Pro product subgroup. It is a not one product fits all either.

It looks like the Mac Pro will be aimed at what the other Mac products can't do, but they aren't going to handicap what the other Mac products can do (e.g., the iMac Pro is not temporary and future ones will be even more capable). That is going to leave a bounded space to fit in.

The scary part in the article is where

"... But on Tuesday I also got a tour of the editing suites where Mac hardware and software is pushed to the limits, including extensive use of eGPU support, and a different vision emerges. ..."

I don't see how eGPUs should deeply relate back to the Mac Pro design at all in terms of physical design. If there is some high requirement for an eGPU to get most workflows down with a Mac Pro then it is a probably a fail. At some point the Mac Pro has to do something different that the rest of the line up.

They shouldn't still be at the point of pissing around whether can add a 2nd GPU to the system internally or not. Perhaps that is an attempt for an excuse as to why they are sliding into 2019 (and hopeful can make rest of Mac product line do more) , but if really that detached this is pretty bad.

 

[Mago]

Apple have been deliberately feckless about the Mac Pro, its time for this ****ty managemeny team to collect their bills, the Mac Pro is key for Apple Future ecosystem, the iMac Pro is not a panacea for a true Multi-GPU Workstation for thoose expecting to develop AI/VR and other HPC applications.

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple have been deliberately feckless about the Mac Pro, its time for this ****ty managemeny team to collect their bills, the Mac Pro is key for Apple Future ecosystem,

The Mac Pro isn't the single key to Apple's future. You need to cut down on whatever mind altering chemicals you are smoking/ingesting. That is simply just not true at all.

Repeating that wishful though over and over again just creates unnecessary angst.

the iMac Pro is not a panacea for a true Multi-GPU Workstation for thoose expecting to develop AI/VR and other HPC applications.

And those are not the priority Pro applications that Apple is looking at this year. (or last. ).

The iMac Pro doesn't have to be a panacea. It just as to be good enough to extend out the time for several other areas into the next year or so. ( and then a new iMac Pro will come that will cover much of the same ground.)

Apple sells over 12M macs a year. 1% of that is 120K. That group above is probably less than 40K a year. (not even half of one percent). It is a nice to have business that Apple doesn't want to completely loose but it isn't the highest priority.
[doublepost=1522951180][/doublepost]

But look at everything holistically.”

Ok, that's said everithing. Bye Apple

What rock have you been hiding under? Apple has numerously conveyed the notion that they are a system ( holistic) company when it comes to solution. It is all suppose to "just work". Take it out of the box, plug it in and have a working system you can trust that you don't have to screw around with much. That's been the primary goal since at least the first Macs and really the Apple II .

Apple isn't a software company (that tolerates hardware).
Apple isn't a hardware company ( that tolerates software).
They want to sell a completed system and for the boundaries they draw a set of solutions products.

The view of Apple as a container maker company. Or a discount hardware parts supplier has never been true. Folks have treated the Mac Pro like systems that way, but Apple has never been trying to be just that.

 

[Mago]

And those are not the priority Pro applications that Apple is looking at this year. (or last. ).

The worst is the message Apple is leaving, they dont build Macs for every user, only for those they like.

It wasn't as complicated to simple release a wide-flexible configurable Mac Pro, doesn't matter if every damm thing is proprietary, just provide what everyone needs, it doesn't needs 2 year in the fridge to design that Mac (which seems they actually do not want to build/sell).

Ever, if there is only market to sell 40.000 Mac Pros a year, its weight in Apple ecosystem (not in Users or Money) is Key, Apple has a series of flawed management decisions, as to dismiss h/w developments to shift to services, one thing doesn't exist w/o the other, period.

I'm seriously disappointed with Apple's management.

 

[goMac]

The worst is the message Apple is leaving, they dont build Macs for every user, only for those they like.

It wasn't as complicated to simple release a wide-flexible configurable Mac Pro, doesn't matter if every damm thing is proprietary, just provide what everyone needs, it doesn't needs 2 year in the fridge to design that Mac (which seems they actually do not want to build/sell).

Ever, if there is only market to sell 40.000 Mac Pros a year, its weight in Apple ecosystem (not in Users or Money) is Key, Apple has a series of flawed management decisions, as to dismiss h/w developments to shift to services, one thing doesn't exist w/o the other, period.

I'm seriously disappointed with Apple's management.

RIP Mythical 2017/2018 AMD Mac Pro
[doublepost=1522952023][/doublepost]

I don't see how eGPUs should deeply relate back to the Mac Pro design at all in terms of physical design. If there is some high requirement for an eGPU to get most workflows down with a Mac Pro then it is a probably a fail. At some point the Mac Pro has to do something different that the rest of the line up.

I'm hopeful if they are bringing pros in the building, not relying on eGPU will be a design goal.

The old Mac Pro team has been disbanded for a long time, but they were the most connected to what Mac Pro users need because it was their full time job.

Apple has been wandering aimlessly without a dedicated group just thinking about what pro desktop users want.

Forming a new team that once again is thinking about pro users full time is a good sign. If they have any power, they'll start pushing around the hardware design teams to deliver what people outside Apple actually need.

I still say Apple thinking about eGPUs as important means we won't see a Thunderbolt Apple Pro Display. It'll be DisplayPort.