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

[goMac]

The NMP maxed out the pci-e lanes so they only had 1 PCI-e SSD.

If an new mac pro shows up there should be the pci-e lanes to do 2 with 1 cpu and 2 video cards + 2 TB 3.0 buses.

That's going to be the problem here. I'm not as familiar with the Xeon roadmap as others might be, but I don't think there were any dramatic expansions of PCIe lane bandwidth coming.

I honestly think we probably won't get any drive slots, even though I want M.2. T2 doesn't seem like it naturally lends itself to M.2 or removable storage. It's possible Apple backs off of some of the T2 features, but if they did it in the iMac Pro, I don't see why they wouldn't do it in the iMac Pro.

External storage that isn't protected by T2 might be enough to convince them to throw in a couple bonus M.2 slots, but I kind of doubt main storage will be M.2. Would love to be surprised though.
[doublepost=1535661675][/doublepost]

No, you pull the drives and stick them in your alternate Mac Pro and continue working.

So $400 is too expensive for a drive enclosure, but I have a backup $5000 workstation?

:-\

So, given your MP / MBP scenario...how do you continue working when the external enclosures power supply fails?

I continue working on the Mac Pro because what I was working on is still local on the SSD. I'm never working on something that's also not present on the local SSD. But if I was doing film work or something, my enclosure would have redundant power supplies because the more serious enclosures someone like a film studio would use would have redundant power supplies.

Why do you care? The cMP permits internal and external storage. Your use case is unaffected. Contrast this to the nMP where the internal option is not available. Why do you feel the latter is a better option than the former?

Because there are other features I'd rather have. 3.5" drive bays are a huge waste of space, and if Apple is going to cut something like a PCIe slot for 3.5" drive bays, I'll take the PCIe slot.

Also, if you're a person complaining that M.2 SSDs and external enclosures are too expensive, I don't think that's a person that's going to be buying a new Mac Pro anyway.

And I don't understand the cable mess argument. I'm already plugging in for network anyway. My storage is on the network. There is no extra cable. Even if I was direct connecting for higher bandwidth, I could daisy chain all my storage on a single Thunderbolt cable. And my storage isn't even at my desk, it's on a shelf elsewhere. Where is the cable mess?

 

[pl1984]

So $400 is too expensive for a drive enclosure, but I have a backup $5000 workstation?

:-\

You were the one who mentioned an alternate system. Why can't that system be a Mac Pro instead of a MacBook Pro?

I continue working on the Mac Pro because what I was working on is still local on the SSD. I'm never working on something that's also not present on the local SSD. But if I was doing film work or something, my enclosure would have redundant power supplies because the more serious enclosures someone like a film studio would use would have redundant power supplies.

??? Weren't we talking about data which is on external storage? Now you're moving the goal posts to internal storage? Likewise having a separate power supply for an external enclosure is not redundant. It's a second single point of failure.

Because there are other features I'd rather have. 3.5" drive bays are a huge waste of space, and if Apple is going to cut something like a PCIe slot for 3.5" drive bays, I'll take the PCIe slot.

Or, here's an idea, why not both?

Also, if you're a person complaining that M.2 SSDs and external enclosures are too expensive, I don't think that's a person that's going to be buying a new Mac Pro anyway.

The $400 was used as an example of an additional cost which was absent in the cMP.

And I don't understand the cable mess argument. I'm already plugging in for network anyway. My storage is on the network. There is no extra cable. Even if I was direct connecting for higher bandwidth, I could daisy chain all my storage on a single Thunderbolt cable. And my storage isn't even at my desk, it's on a shelf elsewhere. Where is the cable mess?

Obviously you do not have a 6,1 Mac Pro with a bunch of things connected off the back of it.

 

[Biped]

Obviously I know this, which is why I was pointing out that the limiting factor isn't the type of connector - it's the spinning platters.

And again, nobody is arguing that the MP7,1 shouldn't have M.2 NVMe slots.

Some use cases are more concerned with $ per TB, and TB per drive - than in GB per sec.

To be fair I think the limiting factor here is Intel's crusty PCH bandwidth allocation for storage lanes, and the VROC crippleware. If Apple has to play by the the same rules as other implementors, most of the recent discussions are moot anyways.

Oddly enough I just threw a few platinum spinners in my cheesegrater yesterday to help facilitate data recovery from a failed NAS, they will be removed once the task is done, flexibility has its benefits. I prefer this method rather than fumbling around with externals and cords and digging around for new outlets. The cable clutter is already a problem. Also as a side note, I've never been able get SMART working with consumer external enclosures, although ymmv.

But I harbour no illusions that the NMPA ( next macpro abortion ) will have anything in terms of 3.5 accommodation, although a few 2.5inch 'click latch' style slots would be funky, ala SD or bread slice toasters. But if I had to bet, it would be something probably soldered in, something t2 ish, encrypted, with no recovery port, so that if you suffer a hardware failure in an unrelated area of the machine, and the 'geniuses' at the bar can't figure it out, you've lost all your data unless you ran a timemachine or other such backup.

 

[goMac]

You were the one who mentioned an alternate system. Why can't that system be a Mac Pro instead of a MacBook Pro?

Sure. I'll just buy two of every computer I have.

??? Weren't we talking about data which is on external storage? Now you're moving the goal posts to internal storage? Likewise having a separate power supply for an external enclosure is not redundant. It's a second single point of failure.

I've clearly said internal SSDs are a good idea, and asked for M.2 slots.

I don't think you understand redundant power supplies. For the high end external drive enclosures, they will have two power supplies so if one fails, the array stays up and runs off the second power supply. Same is true of high end servers. One of the knocks against the Xserve was always that it had a single power supply and not two.

(Edit: Actually I see that on the 2009 Xserve a dual redundant power supply was a BTO option. Didn't know that!)

What I'm doing isn't that important. I have enough room on my SSD for a lot of my active work, and if my disk array goes down, well that's just backups and old projects. So while I like having that available, I'll survive until a new power supply or a replacement array comes in.

But for big pro shops, disk array vendors have already thought ahead of what you are thinking and included redundant power supplies on enclosures. Something that the Mac Pro itself does not have.

Or, here's an idea, why not both?

Because cases have limited space, motherboards have limited bandwidth, and people who complain about the price of storage probably won't be buying a Mac Pro anyway at the prices Apple will be selling it at.

The $400 was used as an example of an additional cost which was absent in the cMP..

It wasn't because the Mac Pro doesn't have hardware RAID, and it's a single point of failure.

If you wanted hardware RAID that was still another chunk of change, or completely unavailable from Apple. And if you needed >4 hard drives you had to buy an array anyway.

?Obviously you do not have a 6,1 Mac Pro with a bunch of things connected off the back of it.

Would it change anything? I currently access everything over a single ethernet cable. On a 6,1, I'd continue having that single ethernet cable.

I don't see the difference if I was on a 6,1.

(The only thing is at Gigabit ethernet I'm not tapping into the full speed of my disk array. But I'm in the process of rolling over to 10gige. Probably won't go all the way in on that until the next Mac Pro arrives.)

 

[pl1984]

Sure. I'll just buy two of every computer I have.

That didn't answer my question.

I've clearly said internal SSDs are a good idea, and asked for M.2 slots.

Irrelevant, you weren't talking about grabbing the internal SSD from your Mac Pro and installing it into your MacBook Pro.

I don't think you understand redundant power supplies. For the high end external drive enclosures, they will have two power supplies so if one fails, the array stays up and runs off the second power supply. Same is true of high end servers. One of the knocks against the Xserve was always that it had a single power supply and not two.

I understand it just fine. Please provide a link to a four drive, Thunderbolt enclosure which costs under $1,000 with redundant power supplies. Likewise no one is calling for a completely redundant Mac Pro. What we're saying is that increasing the number of power supplies increases the chances of failure.

What I'm doing isn't that important. I have enough room on my SSD for a lot of my active work, and if my disk array goes down, well that's just backups and old projects. So while I like having that available, I'll survive until a new power supply or a replacement array comes in.

So you're willing to increase your chances of a failure because of this?

But for big pro shops, disk array vendors have already thought ahead of what you are thinking and included redundant power supplies on enclosures. Something that the Mac Pro itself does not have.

No one, aside from you, is talking having such capacity in the Mac Pro (or any other workstation, AFAIK).

Because cases have limited space, motherboards have limited bandwidth, and people who complain about the price of storage probably won't be buying a Mac Pro anyway at the prices Apple will be selling it at.

They do when you turn them into a cylinder to emphasize form over function.

It wasn't because the Mac Pro doesn't have hardware RAID, and it's a single point of failure.

If you wanted hardware RAID that was still another chunk of change, or completely unavailable from Apple. And if you needed >4 hard drives you had to buy an array anyway.

Who said anything about hardware RAID?

Would it change anything? I currently access everything over a single ethernet cable. On a 6,1, I'd continue having that single ethernet cable.

I don't see the difference if I was on a 6,1.

(The only thing is at Gigabit ethernet I'm not tapping into the full speed of my disk array. But I'm in the process of rolling over to 10gige. Probably won't go all the way in on that until the next Mac Pro arrives.)

You said you couldn't see the cable mess argument. I merely responded with "Obviously you do not have a 6,1 Mac Pro with a bunch of things connected off the back of it." Just because you don't experience that problem only reinforces what I said.

 

[AidenShaw]

This still seems to be circling around some Prosumer case that I don't think Apple is going to target or care about.

The HP Z4 and Z6 support two M.2 x4 slots and four 3.5" drives. The HP Z8 supports two M.2 and five 3.5". They [the Z-series] also support PCIe storage cards.

It will be interesting to look for a burst of Z-series sales when Apple announces an MP7,1 that disappoints....

It seems like many on this thread actually want TrashCan ][ - rather than a configurable, expandable, flexible workstation.

 

[goMac]

That didn't answer my question.

I thought there was enough sarcasm implied to answer your question.

Irrelevant, you weren't talking about grabbing the internal SSD from your Mac Pro and installing it into your MacBook Pro.

...I'm still not? I don't really get where you are going with this.

I understand it just fine. Please provide a link to a four drive, Thunderbolt enclosure which costs under $1,000 with redundant power supplies.

Provide me a link to a Mac Pro with redundant power supplies?

I'm pretty sure I could find an enclosure with redundant power supplies cheaper than the backup $5000 Mac Pro idea...

So you're willing to increase your chances of a failure because of this?

I'm willing to take the risk that my disk array and my Mac Pro could both go down at the same time, yes. But honestly, with the way Apple support is going, I feel better about getting my disk array enclosure fixed/replaced than I do my Mac Pro.

Yes, not having a component reliant on Apple support is a feature these days. Yes, I know how stupid that sounds.

No one, aside from you, is talking having such capacity in the Mac Pro (or any other workstation, AFAIK).

People don't talk about it because either you're on a box with a standard power supply (not the Mac Pro), or your data is somewhere else where you can get to it. Like a disk array.

Who said anything about hardware RAID?

Pros?

You said you couldn't see the cable mess argument. I merely responded with "Obviously you do not have a 6,1 Mac Pro with a bunch of things connected off the back of it." Just because you don't experience that problem only reinforces what I said.

I'm not sure I understand this. I said "hey here is a way to solve the problem" and your response is "See you don't have the problem!"

Well no. I used a reasonable solution available to anyone to solve the problem. If you don't want to use that solution that's on you.
[doublepost=1535668595][/doublepost]

It will be interesting to look for a burst of Z-series sales when Apple announces an MP7,1 that disappoints....

It seems like many on this thread actually want TrashCan ][ - rather than a configurable, expandable, flexible workstation.

I'd be curious how many serious pro shops aren't using central storage and are actually storage large amounts of data locally on slow drives.

My guess is not many. The Z-Series includes parallel ports, and my guess is most aren't using those either. Just because the Z-Series has it, doesn't mean it's popular.

And, for better or worse, I don't think Apple is going to ship something like the Z-Series. It might be a tower, but it won't be a tower like that. Again, that's not me taking a position on that, just acknowledging the reality here.

My complaint with the 6,1 (for storage at least) is that there aren't replacement drives with good performance available. If I could drop an M.2 drive into the 6,1 I'd probably be just fine with one (again, just for the storage angle, GPUs are a whole different thing.)

 

[ssgbryan]

I'm not sure who you are arguing with. I haven't seen a single person in this thread argue that there is no longer a role for spinning platters when it comes to Pro or Prosumer data storage. There's clearly a strong case to be made for the economics of platter storage in a wide variety of workflows. It seems like everyone here agrees with this.

What I have seen is a lot of people who believe that there's no longer a compelling case to be made for locating those platters as internal storage in a workstation. A decade ago it was a technical necessity because external storage paid a performance penalty over internal. That's clearly no longer the situation. The downsides no longer outweigh the upsides when it comes to external hard disks and the market is moving in that direction.

Only the smallest shops are going to be satisfied with just four bays (cut that in half, logically, if you're mirroring the data with RAID10). I'd much rather have a box in another room with 10Gbit ethernet for shared access, hot swap bays, and RAID/filesystem options that aren't limited by my OS choice. Synology and QNAP and the rest can sell you a solution that's far more flexible, reliable, and useful than internal bays.

I have no idea why you thought this was worth mentioning in this thread. Literally nobody has said this here.

1a. To quote the person I was responding to:
That said, while reading this I've not really read many solid arguments for spinners other than "cheap", which too could be contested somewhat easily and the merits of doing other trade offs are unclear. That is just one of many.

1b. When the downside doesn't include the cost of enclosures, you are right. Have you shopped for Thunderbolt enclosures lately? Folks that have argued that there isn't a need for what the classic Mac Pro brings to the Apple community don't seem to grasp that the Mac Pro is the ONLY option for anyone that needs more than a laptop or a laptop on a stick. The cMP is the ONLY product that Apple sold that wasn't thermally throttled. Full Stop.

2. Cost - Cost is ALWAYS an issue whether the next MP is in a large shop, a small shop, or a 1 person shop. Replacing missing functionality is a cost that you and others are pretending doesn't exist.

2. (Re: Storage & Cloud) I'd suggest going back through this thread - it is kinda large, and this has come up multiple times, not only in this thread but others in this forum. Every single time I mention large amounts of data, I am 1st questioned on why I need that much space for my iTunes library and why I don't keep everything in the cloud.

Let me ask you a question. If the next Mac Pro came with capability of the cMP, would you refuse to buy it?

Those of you that argue against internal storage seem to believe that only large organizations need a Mac Pro. I am not even a "professional". I am a hobbyist, but I need more than a laptop, a laptop on a stick, or a mini. My hobby (3D art) needs cores, ram, and storage space, none of which are available in any other Apple product.

 

[AidenShaw]

The Z-Series includes parallel ports

Really? Where?

http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/..._us/en/psg/ws_desktops/products/z8-learn-more​

 

[pl1984]

I thought there was enough sarcasm implied to answer your question.

Sarcasm is not an answer.

...I'm still not? I don't really get where you are going with this.

Where I'm going with this is you moved the goal posts. First we were talking about external storage and then you moved to internal storage.

Provide me a link to a Mac Pro with redundant power supplies?

I'm pretty sure I could find an enclosure with redundant power supplies cheaper than the backup $5000 Mac Pro idea...

Don't forget to include the cost of the MBP on top of that.

I'm willing to take the risk that my disk array and my Mac Pro could both go down at the same time, yes. But honestly, with the way Apple support is going, I feel better about getting my disk array enclosure fixed/replaced than I do my Mac Pro.

Personally if you're that concerned about Apple support then I would recommend moving away from Apple.

People don't talk about it because either you're on a box with a standard power supply (not the Mac Pro), or your data is somewhere else where you can get to it. Like a disk array.

So why bring it up? It's irrelevant to the discussion.

Pros?

They did? Where?

I'm not sure I understand this. I said "hey here is a way to solve the problem" and your response is "See you don't have the problem!"

Well no. I used a reasonable solution available to anyone to solve the problem. If you don't want to use that solution that's on you.

BINGO! Your solution is not a solution for me. I think you're finally starting to see the light.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'd be curious how many serious pro shops aren't using central storage and are actually storage large amounts of data locally on slow drives.

Well - I do. I have a couple of PB of shared storage (on 10 GbE), but I typically configure systems with a few TB to a few dozen TB of local storage.

The reason? 10 GbE is slow - 1.25 GB/sec peak. I can easily get 2 GB/sec to 6 GB/sec from local drives (even spinners in a hardware RAID array are faster than 10GbE).

It's common to move data from the limited bandwidth, high latency shared storage to high bandwidth, low latency local storage for processing - and then move the final results back to the shared storage.

 

[Nugget]

So, given your MP / MBP scenario...how do you continue working when the external enclosures power supply fails?

If this worry keeps you up at night then you should just buy an external enclosure that has redundant power supplies. There are plenty to choose from.

Why do you care? The cMP permits internal and external storage. Your use case is unaffected. Contrast this to the nMP where the internal option is not available. Why do you feel the latter is a better option than the former?

The cMP also used to have an internal fax modem. Technology moves on and the market reacts accordingly.

 

[AidenShaw]

The NMP maxed out the pci-e lanes so they only had 1 PCI-e SSD.

The solution is PCIe switches - you can have as many lanes as you want.

The user has to make a decision as to whether to have:

• one NVMe disk that can run at full bandwidth (even though it's usually idle and the lanes are wasted)
• many NVMe disks
  • one will run at full bandwidth if the others are idle
  • if multiple disks are active - they run perfectly fine but share the bandwidth

I don't understand why so many people here on MacRumours see no problem with overcommitting network bandwidth (do you have a 1 GbE or 10 GbE ISP connection to your home router?), yet fail to see how wasteful it is to dedicate PCIe lanes to idle devices - rather than dynamically sharing the bandwidth with more devices.

 

[BlueTide]

Money is always a major factor, Blue Tide. If you had done a TCO analysis, you would understand why spinners aren't going away anytime soon.

Others have said that no one was arguing against spinners, and I certainly did not do so. I merely have stated that in this day and age having internal, 3.5" spinners is hardly a must and if Mac Pro comes without those, it's likely not a big deal for most of the target audience of such a machine. I dunno about cheap hobbyists, tho.

If you don't have much in the way of data, (and obviously you don't) then storage isn't hard to deal with. Problem is, a number of us have a lot of data - a lot more than can fit on 1 or 2 (or in my case, almost 2 dozen 1Tb) SSDs.

LOL. You're funny. I don't really want to go into a cyber-warrior pissing match, but your dataset is nothing, no need to worry about people not believing it. Same goes with the back-up comments - if you really worry about those, you need something better than internal drive bays anyhow. I thought we were talking about workstations here, which are not cheap, and having and external enclosure for 4 drives is not that much. I am sure you can find cheaper ones too if you look. Use that with soft raid and you're left with another box and some extra cables. Sure, it's not as clean as an internal storage, but this is about workstations and we're along about a non-optimal situation to begin with.

No, you pull the drives and stick them in your alternate Mac Pro and continue working.
...
So, given your MP / MBP scenario...how do you continue working when the external enclosures power supply fails

And with NAS you just move to that alternative computer, PC, Linux or MAC and continue from where you left off. And if the NAS reliability is a concern, you can set those to allow portability as well. Just pop out a drive and use a naked USB drive dock. 50$ or something. Or if that's not good enough, just use a dumb external enclosure with soft raid that is just as portable as internal disks would be and have 2 of those.

The last couple of pages about reliability was such a comedy. If that is such a concern and you don't want to have better NAS solutions, you can still set that dumb external box in ways that allows you to pop-out the drives if it fails. But really, that is just funny since the discussion is narrowing down further and further into edge cases.

 

[pl1984]

And with NAS you just move to that alternative computer, PC, Linux or MAC and continue from where you left off.

What happens when the NAS fails?

And if the NAS reliability is a concern, you can set those to allow portability as well. Just pop out a drive and use a naked USB drive dock. 50$ or something. Or if that's not good enough, just use a dumb external enclosure with soft raid that is just as portable as internal disks would be and have 2 of those.

Your solution is to buy even more parts?

The last couple of pages about reliability was such a comedy. If that is such a concern and you don't want to have better NAS solutions, you can still set that dumb external box in ways that allows you to pop-out the drives if it fails. But really, that is just funny since the discussion is narrowing down further and further into edge cases.

My argument has been that adding external devices increases the chances of experiencing a failure. It was not intended to be an argument in favor of full redundancy.

As I said, this happened to a friend of mine. His $400, four disk Thunderbolt enclosure power supply failed resulting in those disks being inaccessible until he was able to source a new one...at $120. Laugh all you want but it's not an edge case.
[doublepost=1535671928][/doublepost]

If this worry keeps you up at night then you should just buy an external enclosure that has redundant power supplies. There are plenty to choose from.

At even more additional cost.

The cMP also used to have an internal fax modem. Technology moves on and the market reacts accordingly.

The market hasn't moved on from internal hard disk capability. When SSDs approach the capacity and price of traditional hard disks then we can discuss the removal of traditional hard disk drive bays. Unfortunately SSD pricing has been too high for too long for the capacities available.

 

[BlueTide]

What happens when the NAS fails?

Answered already. You have multiple options, even ones that avoid NAS.

Your solution is to buy even more parts?

If people that value other things and there would need to make a call, yes, you might have to buy more parts. It might be inconvenient for you, but tough luck. Like said, world doesn't revolve around some random edge cases to which there are okay solutions for most people.

My argument has been that adding external devices increases the chances of experiencing a failure. It was not intended to be an argument in favor of full redundancy.

As I said, this happened to a friend of mine. His $400, four disk Thunderbolt enclosure power supply failed resulting in those disks being inaccessible until he was able to source a new one...at $120. Laugh all you want but it's not an edge case.

You are right, but that doesn't make the discussion any less ridiculous. Things can fail. They will fail. The fact that something fails somewhat more rarely/often doesn't really mean that for important data, you can't skip a back-up strategy anyhow. He would have been just as ****ed with a failed Mac (I leave cost aside since that would depend on warranties, Apple Cares etc).

 

[pl1984]

If people that value other things and there would need to make a call, yes, you might have to buy more parts. It might be inconvenient for you, but tough luck. Like said, world doesn't revolve around some random edge cases to which there are okay solutions for most people.

Saying it's an edge case doesn't make it so. There is a clear demand for internal storage. You might not want it, but others do. So stop pretending it doesn't exist.

You are right, but that doesn't make the discussion any less ridiculous. Things can fail. They will fail. The fact that something fails somewhat more rarely/often doesn't really mean that for important data, you can't skip a back-up strategy anyhow. He would have been just as ****ed with a failed Mac (I leave cost aside since that would depend on warranties, Apple Cares etc).

It's very simple: The more complex something is (say by adding more components) the higher the chances something fails. Reducing components tends to increase reliability, all else being equal. If this isn't self evident to you then no amount of explaining it to you is going to help you understand the reality.

 

[BlueTide]

Saying it's an edge case doesn't make it so. There is a clear demand for internal storage. You might not want it, but others do. So stop pretending it doesn't exist.

LOL. I also want to have a Porsche and many other people do. This is comedy club material as I still fail to see the droves of people who have this great demand for a few internal platters who could not get by via other, often better, solutions.

It's very simple: The more complex something is (say by adding more components) the higher the chances something fails. Reducing components tends to increase reliability, all else being equal. If this isn't self evident to you then no amount of explaining it to you is going to help you understand the reality.

Oh, I get it. Point was that you need to have a plan for failure no matter if your safety rating is, say, 90% or 75%.

 

[Nugget]

It's very simple: The more complex something is (say by adding more components) the higher the chances something fails.

Nonsense.

Dual power supplies are more complex and yet more reliable than a single power supply. RAID is more complex than a single drive, yet it is less likely to fail.

Complexity often yields better reliability and lower failure rates.

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" - H. L. Mencken

 

[pl1984]

LOL. I also want to have a Porsche and many other people do. This is comedy club material as I still fail to see the droves of people who have this great demand for a few internal platters who could not get by via other, often better, solutions.

Therefore they don't exist? I fail to see all the people demanding the removal of internal storage.

Oh, I get it. Point was that you need to have a plan for failure no matter if your safety rating is, say, 90% or 75%.

On this we agree. Unfortunately with external parts one needs more planning as more parts increase the chance of a failure.

 

[BlueTide]

Therefore they don't exist? I fail to see all the people demanding the removal of internal storage.

Feel free to list use cases that are common and rely on internal bays. Please do educate us idiots. I can't speak for others, but I am also not blindly advocating the removal of internal bays. I'm just saying that they're likely somewhere far down the wish list and if other compromises need to be made, so be it.

On this we agree. Unfortunately with external parts one needs more planning as more parts increase the chance of a failure.

LOL. Okay, I'll stop with this and just wait that use-case list.

 

[danwells]

Just wondering how people intend to use the new Mac Pro? I'll provide my questions first, then my own answers below...

1.) How many internal spinning disks do you need? Why? (I think most of us agree on something in the range of 2-4 M.2 SSD slots, but I get the feeling that the thoughts on spinners range from 0 to 8 or so?

2.) What would you put in your PCIe expansion slots? Why? Would an upgradeable (but incompatible with PC standards because it injects video onto TB3) AMD GPU with a range of options serve your video needs? Why or why not?

3.) What level of processor would you buy and why - assume that options range from the Xeon W 2140 in the 8 core iMac Pro up to 2x 28-core Xeon-SP (for a price, of course). Apple might offer anything in this range - although they won't offer everything in the range (it'll almost certainly be either Xeon-W or Xeon-SP, not both options).

4.)Why not an iMac Pro?

5.) What are you willing to pay? Obviously, we'd all like dual Xeon-SP for $5000, but it's not going to happen...

My own use case (photographer)

1.) 0 internal spinners - I have a Thunderbolt RAID that also features 10 Gb Ethernet, so plenty of ways to connect.

2.) Upgradeable AMD graphics are fine with me unless Adobe finally gets Photoshop and Lightroom using GPUs better, but it requires NVidia. No use for PCIe slots (other than graphics) now, but would like one in case of a new interface that makes sense (the way people have kept cheesegraters running by adding USB 3.0 and a variety of other ports.

3.) 8-12 core single processor - I'm at the lower end of the CPU range because most still photo software is not terribly well-threaded. It'll use 6 or so, then it's nice to have 2-4 extra cores for MacOS, Word, Mail, Safari, etc.

4.) I own an Eizo monitor that is far better color-calibrated than any Apple display has ever been. I don't want to pay for a monitor that I'll use for palettes and lightbox display (I have an old Dell monitor for that).

5.) $5000 or so (with 64 GB of RAM) - I think Apple is unlikely to support my use case because they want me to buy an iMac Pro. I want the Mac Pro to go down that low, but I think it's relatively unlikely, since Apple calls the shots and they really like iMacs.

I'll be really interested to see what others want, and what we all want to use them for?

 

[ssgbryan]

Just wondering how people intend to use the new Mac Pro? I'll provide my questions first, then my own answers below...

1.) How many internal spinning disks do you need? Why? (I think most of us agree on something in the range of 2-4 M.2 SSD slots, but I get the feeling that the thoughts on spinners range from 0 to 8 or so?

2.) What would you put in your PCIe expansion slots? Why? Would an upgradeable (but incompatible with PC standards because it injects video onto TB3) AMD GPU with a range of options serve your video needs? Why or why not?

3.) What level of processor would you buy and why - assume that options range from the Xeon W 2140 in the 8 core iMac Pro up to 2x 28-core Xeon-SP (for a price, of course). Apple might offer anything in this range - although they won't offer everything in the range (it'll almost certainly be either Xeon-W or Xeon-SP, not both options).

4.)Why not an iMac Pro?

5.) What are you willing to pay? Obviously, we'd all like dual Xeon-SP for $5000, but it's not going to happen...

My own use case (photographer)

1.) 0 internal spinners - I have a Thunderbolt RAID that also features 10 Gb Ethernet, so plenty of ways to connect.

2.) Upgradeable AMD graphics are fine with me unless Adobe finally gets Photoshop and Lightroom using GPUs better, but it requires NVidia. No use for PCIe slots (other than graphics) now, but would like one in case of a new interface that makes sense (the way people have kept cheesegraters running by adding USB 3.0 and a variety of other ports.

3.) 8-12 core single processor - I'm at the lower end of the CPU range because most still photo software is not terribly well-threaded. It'll use 6 or so, then it's nice to have 2-4 extra cores for MacOS, Word, Mail, Safari, etc.

4.) I own an Eizo monitor that is far better color-calibrated than any Apple display has ever been. I don't want to pay for a monitor that I'll use for palettes and lightbox display (I have an old Dell monitor for that).

5.) $5000 or so (with 64 GB of RAM) - I think Apple is unlikely to support my use case because they want me to buy an iMac Pro. I want the Mac Pro to go down that low, but I think it's relatively unlikely, since Apple calls the shots and they really like iMacs.

I'll be really interested to see what others want, and what we all want to use them for?

3D art Hobbyist.
1.) How many internal spinning disks do you need? Why?
It is time for me to replace my current collection of HDs. I've also relooked my computing setup; it has grown organically over the past decade or so, and it is time to restructure as follows:

Gaming Computer. HP 8300 w/8Gb of ram ($125 or so) a retired 2TB drive for data, a 120Gb SSD for OS, and an Nvidia 1030 low profile video card. Total cost, around $200. Added bonus - apparently, this makes a great hackintosh.

iTunes server (6.5TB currently) - I have a 1,1 Mac Pro for this. Replace the CPUs with a pair of 50 watt Woodcrests ($10). Add 6 3Tb ($326) drives in a RAID-Z2 (10.5Tb usable - I can lose 2 drives before the raid fails). These will fit in the 4 drive bays and in the optical drive bays. An Apricorn Solo ($50) will hold a 120Gb SSD ($30). Total Cost, around $426.

Once the 7,1 arrives, I can simply move the discs over to the 4,1.

Workstation (See sig for current configuration). I still have around 4TB of data at this point (mostly 3D assets). 5x3TB drives (another RAID-Z2 - 7.8Tb usable - I can lose 2 drives before the raid fails). Cost $280.

External Enclosures. 1 holds 4 3TB drives in a RAID-5. This will change based on how the 7.1 is configured. I have another one that holds 2 2Tb mirrored. The last one is a 1TB that holds 3D digital assets. I really don't like having a bunch of external enclosures scattered across my desk. I don't count the two that have already failed on me.

2.) What would you put in your PCIe expansion slots? Why? I suspect that there will be SSD storage - right now I need a minimum of 500Gb (that gives me room for growth), 1TB is better. AFA slots - video cards, plural, not singular. AMD WX 5100 (8Gb, 75 watt card, workstation counterpart of the RX 580, except the WX comes with a 10 year warranty).

Why? The AMD ProRender Engine. It will use all of the GPUs (Team Red or Team Green, it doesn't care), CPUs and RAM as 1 render engine. I'll be buying about 1 per quarter until all of my slots are filled. Plug-ins are already available for some of the software I use and I believe it will eventually be available for all of my rendering solutions.

3.) What level of processor would you buy? Why? It's the underwear answer - Depends. My workflow (3D rendering) is based around cores and ram, not single core performance. In a perfect world, it would be a 2nd generation threadripper. It has a MUCH better price/performance ratio than the Xeons. I don't think the "braintrust" that runs Apple is smart enough to do that however. They will overpay for Xeons that give about 1/2 the performance of 2nd generation Threadripper.

4.)Why not an iMac Pro? Just like the trashcan, both the GPU and CPU are thermally throttled. That means that the AMD ProRender Engine won't function that well. Like the trashcan, they have a very limited selection of video cards. After the disaster that was the AMD video cards in the trash can, the ability to replace a cooked GPU is a requirement. At the end of the day, the iMac "Pro" isn't designed for my workflow. I am sure it is good for FCPX, but I don't use that.

5.) What are you willing to pay? Again, it's the underwear answer. We don't know what they will give us. I would pay $4,000 for a 2990WX (32 cores/64 threads) Threadripper solution. I am not paying $4,000 for a 16 or 18 core Xeon solution.

If the 7,1 doesn't meet my needs, I'll join the exodus of creative types to Windows 10. It will only cost $100 to move my software from OSX to Windows. My media server will still be OSX because of ZFS, but otherwise, I am going to where the performance is.

 

[barmann]

Feel free to list use cases that are common and rely on internal bays. Please do educate us idiots. I can't speak for others, but I am also not blindly advocating the removal of internal bays. I'm just saying that they're likely somewhere far down the wish list and if other compromises need to be made, so be it.



LOL. Okay, I'll stop with this and just wait that use-case list.

Again, read the earlier postings ; not everything in a thread can be repeated endlessly because there is someone new joining the discussion .

 

[BlueTide]

Again, read the earlier postings ; not everything in a thread can be repeated endlessly because there is someone new joining the discussion .

What I found was just whining, but okay, so be it.