Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Mago, May 31, 2016.

Tags:
  1. goMac, Oct 30, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2017

    goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #6651
    You're talking about the company that made the 2013 Mac Pro. I'm pretty sure they're ok with eGPU being the solution for the xMac.

    I'm not disputing that you want a Mac with a PCIe slot and space for a Bluray burner but... C'mon. Let's be real here.

    I don't know. I think Apple also knows they can't sit totally outside the price range of PC workstations. I would expect it to have a healthy margin but still be less than the iMac Pro. I doubt they're going to go into i7/i9 territory, but I think you'll see them offer a lower end 8 core SKU for less than the iMac Pro.

    People who really want an i7/i9 desktop can go down to the Mini, or go up to the Pro (or the iMac.)

    This shouldn't be a surprise. Apple is the master of creating an uncanny valley of specs. Look at the iPhone. They know 64 gigs isn't enough space for most people, so they're basically forcing you to the 256 gig model. More than you need, but a very good margin for Apple.

    They could bump the low end to 128 gig, or introduce a new 128 gig model in the middle, but why do that when you can just force people to buy the higher margin product?

    Same reason xMac won't happen.

    Gaming PCs are also very low margin, and honestly I hate to sound like a broken record but, Apple feels like they can attack that with MBP+eGPU. No reason for a new product now.

    They sell a huge amount of MBP's already, and now you can hook up a gaming GPU.

    Apple can create an entirely new product, with a lot of R&D expense, a new production line, with a huge amount of risk... Or they can bolt an eGPU to an existing highly popular product and get similar enough performance.

    Which option do you think Apple is going to go with?
     
  2. CWallace macrumors 603

    CWallace

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #6652
    And the games designed to run on those machines, with very, very few exceptions, are Windows-only (DirectX-based). So even if Apple did launch a gaming-oriented Mac, folks would still need Boot Camp. Hopefully Metal 2 will get those folks to port their games to macOS, but I have no idea how easy a DirectX to Metal2 transition is.
     
  3. Mago thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Location:
    Beyond the Thunderdome
    #6653
    I wont remember you nothing if I'm right and an all AMD Macintosh surfaces next year, I absolutely dont care about.
     
  4. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #6654
    This is very important too. It's a chicken and the egg problem I'm not sure Apple has solved yet, and they seem like in the past they've just been willing to throw their hands in the air and give up.

    I think on the software side they're starting to make another go at fixing Mac games, but all I've heard on the hardware side is they're all in on iMac and MBP (for consumers/prosumers) and eGPU.

    Which may be fine enough for most people honestly. And if it isn't, Apple plans to sell you a Mac that is good enough. Just for a nice healthy premium.

    (And I mentioned this earlier, but the other hint I've heard is that for people stuck in the middle, Apple is content with the Hackintosh status quo and people just doing that. Or honestly getting a console or a Windows PC.)
    --- Post Merged, Oct 30, 2017 ---
    I though it was this year?
     
  5. Mago, Oct 30, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2017

    Mago thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Location:
    Beyond the Thunderdome
    #6655
    It depends on when Apple's R&D where aware about this to happen before being official, and why Intel resigned on TB3 IP. (apple's announcement for a post 2017 nmMP was on April, and Intel's announcement about TB3 seems occurred a month later), Maybe Apple considered to develop it own TB3 alternative fully controlled by Apple and then Intel resigned on TB3 as final move to keep TB relevant.
    Maybe, this is DNG 'leak', I only speculated Apple will sneak-peek the mMP before the iMac Pro release, at some year end event, which could happen the next two week, if not will be at spring's event or finally at WWDC ( I don't beieve it will be that long).
     
  6. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #6656
    Apple's already said no more events this year.

    I don't think we'll see anything until WWDC, which is where we were already at before all the DNG nonsense.

    I think the FCPX summit was likely the closest we'll see to an iMac Pro event.
     
  7. Jaho101 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    #6657
    I think they'll give the iMac Pro a couple months to breathe and be the star computer, before they bring up the Mac Pro again.
     
  8. B3yondL macrumors member

    B3yondL

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    #6658
    Well it's a good thing an all AMD Macintosh won't surface next year then.
     
  9. pat500000 macrumors 604

    pat500000

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    #6659
    I can't believe this thread is over a year old.......
     
  10. Derived macrumors regular

    Derived

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Location:
    Midwest
    #6660
    You’re aware that HP, Dell, others will happily build you a workstation that costs more than a new BMW M3, correct? It’s a bit strange to see people whine about the cost of a system that contains a CPU that would cost thousands on its own if purchased that way, for example. And the same for the GPU. And possibly the RAM. Workstations are expensive, full stop. It’s not Apple’s fault. In fact, if I recall, every revision of the cMP was a crazy good deal when released, and so was the nMP. Obviously, it’s not now, but that’s not the point.

    To make a more general point, I also think the Mac Mini is going to be axed, in a sense, and in its place there will be simply “the Mac” - in one form or another. It makes sense, it would sell well, it wouldn’t canibalize, and it would probably draw at least a few away from the Windows world. And, yes, eGPU is your gaming solution. And that’s great, I don’t see a problem with that.
     
  11. vailr, Oct 30, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2017

    vailr macrumors member

    vailr

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    #6661
    "A solution" would be okay; "the solution" would not be okay.
    Hobbyists (and some professionals) that make Hackintosh machines can already do exactly that.
    Even if Apple charged a few hundred dollars more than what an equivalently specced desktop Windows PC costs from Dell, Lenovo or HP, I still think there'd be a lot of interest in owning a genuine Apple machine instead of one of the other brands. Especially if they revised the Mac motherboard bios firmware to make Windows or Linux as easily installable and run in a dual-boot configuration on it, as macOS is already.
    Bootcamp isn't all that great, so just get rid of it (after fixing the bios, to become the normal UEFI type).
     
  12. mattspace, Oct 31, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017

    mattspace macrumors 6502a

    mattspace

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Location:
    Australia
    #6662
    The cMP was a crazy good deal because they had lower specced versions that could be upgraded later on if a user's throughput requirements grew, and was priced competitively relative to other vendor's products that had similar capacity to grow and change.

    The nMP was a "good deal" on paper because Apple passed-off consumer gaming GPUs as "workstation parts", which from a reliability perspective they clearly weren't, and look how that turned out - one of the greatest lemons in computing history. It's entire value proposition requires arbitrarily discounting GPU upgrades from the equation.

    Apple were pretty upfront at the last WWDC about eGPU being a sub-optimal solution as compared to onboard graphics.

    The "xMac" of its day was just the low end cMP. If Apple offered that again - a machine that was at a similar performance range relative to the rest of its computers, with a similar degree of user-upgradable open high performance expansion options, not kludges like eGPU, they'd have a great product for their customers.

    Now, I don't think Apple will offer that product, or a meaningfully different strategy to their "buy a new car when the brake pads wear out" direction going forward. But then again, I think they're going to continue to lose the high end creative industries the way they lost the education sector to Chromebooks and Google Docs, where Apple's values simply didn't align with customers, for whom price, ubiquity and mass rollouts were more important than the marginal benefits of a more highly polished solution.
     
  13. ManuelGomes, Oct 31, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017

    ManuelGomes macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2014
    Location:
    Aveiro, Portugal
    #6663
    And FCPX was updated to 10.4
    HDR support, just in time for iMac Pro and mMP with the new Super Retina display.
    And VR.
     
  14. singhs.apps macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #6664
    Yep. Dell/Hp were quoting 30% more for one processor less than what the cMP 2008 was offering ( though they were offering a Quadro vs some amd card for the Mac that I don’t recall). It was a no brainer. And it has been macs all the way since...but that streak looks to be ending ..for me
     
  15. Derived macrumors regular

    Derived

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Location:
    Midwest
    #6666
    Well, I’d argue it ended sometime at the end of ‘14 or so when the nMP started to become out of date...but it may start back up again once the new model comes out.
     
  16. -hh macrumors 68020

    -hh

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2001
    Location:
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    #6667
    I think this is a good point to start to talk from.

    What I see in both the xMac as well as the { cMP / tcMP / mMP } conversations is that much of what has customers riled up is the hardware's ability to be flexible to accommodate different use cases and priorities.

    Thus, as a "starting point"...

    These two lines are effectively talking about a very similar paradigm, namely that the definition of "reasonably priced" only applies if it is something of value to the customer. Thus, if one doesn't need to buy a new monitor, having one included isn't worth as much to that consumer than his twin brother who does need a new monitor. Similarly, a workflow which doesn't need the horsepower of dual GPUs sees the tcMP as having an "unneeded" extra expense.

    And therein lies the crux and intersection of both the xMac and the 'modular': both are effectively identifying the paradigm that products which are extensively bundled with a high minimum buy-in cost are at risk of containing a significant "tax" consisting of hardware subsystems that they have to pay for which are not of particularly great value to them/their needs.

    That's why the iMac is considered "bad": you're buying a screen regardless of if you need one or not.

    Similarly, some bought the cMP because of its empty drive bays was better suited to their workflows which called for future capability growth, or for increased local data storage .. which in the iMac or tcMP would have incurred a similar addition, but in the form of an { ugly / ungainly / unreliable } stack of external drives.

    And this brings us back full circle to the Cube .. er, I mean the tcMac ... errr, the modular Mac:

    Historically, both the Cube and Trash Can were marketed by Apple as 'modular', with those that needed more data storage expansion capabilities doing this externally, etc (FW400 & TB2 respectfully). However, both of these 'add an external drive' solutions have failed in the marketplace. But was their failure really due to the "spaghetti mess" of these cables, the higher cost of the peripherals ... or perhaps it was because the minimum starting cost for both were set too damn high because of things like nothing-less-than-dual-GPUs?

    Finally, I suspect that there's still some ghosts of the Mac 7500/85/9500, where their degree of smart subsystem modularity did allow Apple to upgrade CPUs quickly, but they also had their product lines eaten alive from customers also able to upgrade (with aftermarket CPU daughtercards) rather than to buy new systems .. but was this then also not in part Apple's fault? I don't recall Apple actually selling Apple OEM upgrade CPU cards for their product lines - - and this points to a historical chronic weakness from Apple: once a product ships, Apple don't generally want to offer any hardware component upgrades for it to help their customers to extend their useful life.
     
  17. Derived macrumors regular

    Derived

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Location:
    Midwest
    #6668
    All workstation GPUs are basically just drivers, some better binning and ECC VRAM (sometimes not even that) away from their consumer counterparts...that’s another thing that people seem to keep purposely “forgetting” - it’s always been that way and if anything, Nvidia has only gotten worse with it...the prices they charge for the Pascal Quadros are out of control. But if you do mission-critical work, what other choice do you have? You can’t take a risk on a consumer part that’s even .1% less stable. Again, not Apple’s fault. At the least, AMD seems to charge a lower premium for their “workstation” stuff than Nvidia does.

    The reliability issue is another matter entirely, as it turns out the enclosure just wasn’t good enough at dealing with the heat if you were maxing out both D700s for long periods of time. Stupid, and, embarrassing. But not really due to “consumer grade” parts. Any piece of silicon will overheat and become problematic if it gets too hot and stays that way for too long. The D700s were purposely binned for lower power consumption and lower temps to avoid this, but that clearly wasn’t enough for some usage cases.

    eGPU is suboptimal for now, in the same way cars were suboptimal in 1890. I know, that’s a bit flippant but it’s also true. And, as I speculated above, I imagine the Mac Mini might actually be replaced by an xMac of some sort coming up, and of course you still have the iMac, the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro. Plus, even though the MBP isn’t exactly a gaming laptop, it’s not exactly a lightweight. It’s got plenty of GPU horsepower for a thin mobile workstation. Really just the 13” MBP and the MB need some help if they’re going to do something heavy duty...but then why the hell are you buying one of those if you need a beefy GPU? Seems a bit like buying a 320i to save fuel and then complaining that it’s slower than an M5.

    They’ve already lost big portions of those markets, that’s kind of why we’re having this discussion at this point I think. That’s why they’re going back to the drawing board. Everyone seems insistent that somehow they lied at that press coference earlier in the year and that they’re actually taking all this time to back and design another nMP. That’s just silly. There’s no reason at all for them to do that, it would be harmful to their sales, their brand and their customer base. All so they can supposedly milk a few extra dollars from people? Doubt it. They’ve already seen the hit they’ve taken having been unable to upgrade the current machine all these years, they’re not about to do the exact same thing again. And, of course, they’ve already said they won’t. There’s no reason to assume they’re lying.

    The Mac Pro is obviously a piece of “old” Apple and by extension, a piece of the “old” computer industry, in a sense. But still a very necessary one. And I think Tim, as well as others understand that. A company as rich and talented and well-stocked for resources as Apple can certainly afford to do everything they’re doing with phones, tablets, watches, portables and accessories *as well as* build a decent workstation without one side of the business compromising the other. After all, they didn’t build the nMP with the intent that it would fail, they did it because they truly thought the components and industry would catch up to it. They were wrong. And now they have to go back and try something else. But there’s no reason intrinsically that they shoudln’t be any good at it. And there’s certainly no reason to assume that they’d be bad at it, purposely or otherwise.
     
  18. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #6669
    Honestly, Apple doesn't sell enough desktops to justify that sort of development. They sell a lot of laptops, but not a lot of desktops. Even the iMac. So where they can they are moving as many use cases to the MBP as they can. And it's hard to form a coherent argument as to why eGPU on a MBP can't take the place of an xMac. Sure, you're losing a bit of performance. But if you want an i9, the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro are the answer. If you want an xMac with a i7 and a desktop GPU, MBP + eGPU is the answer.

    You can make arguments about losing 10% of GPU or whatever, but at that point, Apple's answer will just be that you should spend a lot more money on a Mac Pro or an iMac Pro, which they will gladly sell to you.

    The reason the iMac Pro and Mac Pro continue to exist it that Apple doesn't want to give up the creative industry, and they need those two machines to keep the creative industry. Sales of those boxes don't matter, if those boxes don't exist they lose a lot of customers that are probably also buying a lot of MBPs.

    But the xMac? Apple doesn't have interest in desktops really. And they sell a MBP that effectively has 4 PCIe slots. Why are they going to waste time with an xMac?

    The other honest truth is if you are not locked to the Mac and you want something cheaper, Apple is happy to lose you as a customer. They're not interested in going dollar to dollar with Dell or HP on i7 prosumer desktop towers. They'll always compete with that market from other directions (Mac mini, MBP w eGPU, and Mac Pro), but they're not interested in budget categories.

    To get an xMac you'd simply have to have entire industries saying they're going to leave the platform without an xMac, like with what happened with the Mac Pro. But I don't see Pixar yelling about how they want an xMac.
     
  19. vailr macrumors member

    vailr

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    #6670
    The earliest history of Apple's Mac computer was always marketed towards instilling a special kind of devotion for their non-conformist brand of desktop computer.
    Mr. Job's "Next" computer was another example of this kind of innovative thought process.
    Unfortunately, the lure of "filthy lucre" (about 10 years ago) shifted their corporate attention more towards portable electronics like the iPod, iPhone, and iPad.
    If Apple can ever hope to get some of their corporate "mojo" back, then they really need to spend some quality time re-focusing on their overall public perception.
    Do small (Chinese made) portable electronics devices make them a lot of money? : Yes
    Is their lack of attention in nimbly offering a wider assortment of desktop machine models, that are more consumer-focused, bad for their public image? : Yes, I think so.
    The current model MacMini is over 3 years old, and was a poorly thought-through "update" from it's earlier model.
    Does Apple have enough "pocket change" funds available, to actually try and recover from their ~10 years of desktop Mac lethargy? : Yes.
    And: if it were up to me, I'd deep-six making the iMac Pro before it even launches.
     
  20. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #6671
    But if they did that, the Amigos wouldn't be able to sit down with a few members of the Apple press in April and say that "the tremendous success of the iMac Pro made us realize that a modular Mac Pro won't be needed". :mad:
     
  21. singhs.apps macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #6672
    it kinda started to end the day they revealed the tCMP ! The moment I saw it, I realized it won’t truly replace the towers...never mind apple. And decided after looking at the features : this one is a dead end design.
     
  22. Biped macrumors newbie

    Biped

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2017
    Location:
    British Columbia
    #6673
    To avoid a GloatFest™, I suspect a number of us saw the shortcomings in the trashcan immediately and held out. The list of folks touting the 'I told you so' banner would be rather long.

    I think that makes the next macpro especially interesting. Will their management interpret the trashcan lifespan as a product failure, or a lack of market interest. The design choices on the next model will be telling in that regard.
     
  23. Aldaris macrumors 65816

    Aldaris

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Location:
    Salt Lake
    #6674
    I was holding out mainly to see what the bevy gen would offer. Right now I’m holding to see if the modular is going to work for me, if not it’s HPZ for me. My biggest concern wasn’t so much design as much as an external solution for cards or breakout box. There really wasn’t a whole lot of third party accessories available, and by the time they were we were still using 2013 components... with practically no rumor of updates, and here we are nearly 4 years from when it was first released into the wild.
     
  24. iPadified macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    #6675
    MP2013 was of course not suitable for those who need lots of expansion slots. iMac Pro is a natural evolution of the MP2013 workstation concept (no internal expansion). Do not trash this format just because it does not suit you personally, but instead complain that Apple lacks as WS with internal expansion (which may suit you but not necessarily everyone else).
     

Share This Page