What are the chances of non Xeon non ECC i7/i9 CPU options in the new Modular Mac Pro?

[whitedragon101]

The standard options in a Mac Pro tend to be :

Xeon CPU
ECC RAM
FirePro/Quadro style GPU

These are all very expensive and a waste for 99.9% of even heavy computer use and for most cases slower than cheaper options. The following would be a dream config if they offered it. Not only would it be more affordable but perform better for most uses.

CPU : High end core i7/i9
RAM : Fast DDR4 up to 128GB
GPU : 1080/1080ti or equivalent

For just about everything a setup like above would be better. (My personal uses are below)


Unity Development, Unreal Development, VR development, xCode, Web Development, lots of other coding environments, Photography, Audio Production

 

[deconstruct60]

The standard options in a Mac Pro tend to be .
....
Xeon CPU
ECC RAM
FirePro/Quadro style GPU

These are all very expensive and a waste for 99.9% of even heavy computer use and for most cases slower than cheaper options. The following would be a dream config if they offered it. Not only would it be more affordable but perform better for most uses.

CPU : High end core i7/i9
RAM : Fast DDR4 up to 128GB
GPU : 1080/1080ti or equivalent

For just about everything a setup like above would be better. (My personal uses are below)

The chances are likely pretty close to zero. The second set up takes a gross inconsistency on PCI-e lanes from the CPU. Intel Xeon w and i9 (and highest end i7) all use the same die. It is just a matter of which features are turned off or turned on.

For i7 group Intel kneecaps the PCI-e bandwidth. Apple explicitly said they were looking for

"... we call ‘completely rethinking the Mac Pro.’ We’re working on it. We have a team working hard on it right now, and we want to architect it so that we can keep it fresh with regular improvements, and we’re committed to making it our highest-end, high throughput desktop system, designed for our demanding pro customers. '.


How do you maximize high throughput and while at the same not neuter by about 40-50% your PCI-e bandwidth throughput?

You have perhaps carefully chosen to omit that the RAM capacity is different. Xeon W is higher. bigger RAM SSD would lead to bigger throughput too.

In the past, the Xeon E5 and the high end Core i7 basically costs about the same. So "cost saving" was largely a myth. The differences are a bit bigger now, but the kneecapping is also bigger. AMD being competitive may bring Intel back into line of making these about the same or the gap will widened still. Depends upon how well the Threadripper is doing.

If Apple was primarily looking for cheaper they'd go with AMD and skip i7 (and Intel ) altogether. Apple isn't looking for overclockers either.

As far as the GPUs go there is little evidence Apple is going 100% completely off the shelf. The "off shelf " eGPUs are a short supported list which still doesn't do macOS recovey mode. ( so not a complete boot stack solution . ) . Apple probably needs to touch less now but they still need to touch some. And no the graphics driver stack isn't going to optimized toward games. It will probably more "pro app" balance.

 

[whitedragon101]

The chances are likely pretty close to zero. The second set up takes a gross inconsistency on PCI-e lanes from the CPU. Intel Xeon w and i9 (and highest end i7) all use the same die. It is just a matter of which features are turned off or turned on.

For i7 group Intel kneecaps the PCI-e bandwidth. Apple explicitly said they were looking for

"... we call ‘completely rethinking the Mac Pro.’ We’re working on it. We have a team working hard on it right now, and we want to architect it so that we can keep it fresh with regular improvements, and we’re committed to making it our highest-end, high throughput desktop system, designed for our demanding pro customers. '.


How do you maximize high throughput and while at the same not neuter by about 40-50% your PCI-e bandwidth throughput?

You have perhaps carefully chosen to omit that the RAM capacity is different. Xeon W is higher. bigger RAM SSD would lead to bigger throughput too.

In the past, the Xeon E5 and the high end Core i7 basically costs about the same. So "cost saving" was largely a myth. The differences are a bit bigger now, but the kneecapping is also bigger. AMD being competitive may bring Intel back into line of making these about the same or the gap will widened still. Depends upon how well the Threadripper is doing.

If Apple was primarily looking for cheaper they'd go with AMD and skip i7 (and Intel ) altogether. Apple isn't looking for overclockers either.

As far as the GPUs go there is little evidence Apple is going 100% completely off the shelf. The "off shelf " eGPUs are a short supported list which still doesn't do macOS recovey mode. ( so not a complete boot stack solution . ) . Apple probably needs to touch less now but they still need to touch some. And no the graphics driver stack isn't going to optimized toward games. It will probably more "pro app" balance.

Pro seems to have become shorthand at Apple for video encoding. There are many other professional uses out there.

They did a demo when they launched the iMac Pro saying they were focusing on VR development. That means Unity and Unreal. A Professional Unity or Unreal VR developer. All those developers have Core i7 CPUs, 16-32GB DDR4, and a high end 1080 type GPU.

Now offer those people expensive ECC memory they can't use with a Xeon processor which will be worse at equivalent price points than an i7 and crucially the Quadro/FirePro GPU which will be hugely expensive and perform worse than a 1080/1080ti type GPU.

Not a great incentive to do VR development on an iMac/ Mac Pro.

(before anyone says iMac, if you need a high performance machine the inability to slot in a new GPU makes it a no go....)

 

[deconstruct60]

Pro seems to have become shorthand at Apple for video encoding. There are many other professional uses out there.

I think audio is in there at least an equal level. If there is an open standard slot in audio most of them are probably more likely to fill that with a audio capture card than a 2nd GPU card (in some of the video space). Audio folks who have a $10K sunk cost in Avid Pro Tools or UA or RME toolchain that hooks to a PCI-e card then they would prioritize that slot to that. The GPUs don't make much of a difference.

They did a demo when they launched the iMac Pro saying they were focusing on VR development. That means Unity and Unreal. A Professional Unity or Unreal VR developer. All those developers have Core i7 CPUs, 16-32GB DDR4, and a high end 1080 type GPU.

That wasn't as much of a priority as a sore spot. The VR systems vendors had been yelping about Mac being a non option platform for breath of target systems. the iMac Pro is a start but it isn't the long term "end all" they had intended.

VR deployment matters more than VR development. If the target deploy system isn't matched up with the bulk of the Mac ecosystem then it isn't going to work either. There are multiple fronts Apple has to work on there. Just 87 boxes isn't going to solve it.

Now offer those people expensive ECC memory they can't use with a Xeon processor which will be worse at equivalent price points than an i7 and crucially the Quadro/FirePro GPU which will be hugely expensive and perform worse than a 1080/1080ti type GPU.

'expensive ECC memory" is grossly overblown difference. The real difference is in the non overclocking issue. The cost gap isn't that large. All the more so when Macs have an Apple mark up associated with them. They aren't priced in race to the bottom fashion. There is a huge echo chamber on these forums about ECC when it comes to the xMac argument. It really isn't a significant difference.

Full function Mac GPUs cost more. Switching CPUs doesn't nothing to lower that. Frankly as long as the cryptominers are inflating GPU prices the Mac GPU prices (through Apple) would actually get closer to the mainstream aftermarket prices.

Not a great incentive to do VR development on an iMac/ Mac Pro.

In most locations where Mac have a high developer buy in the developer costs ( salary , benefits , etc) are like 3-4x the equipment costs. if an extra $400-600 is going to completely blow up the development budget for the project, it probably wasn't a market that Apple was looking hard at anyway.

Alll these ex gaming platform folks who are moving over to VR as a market inflection point where they might get more traction I don't think moves Apple a whole lot. They really don't wake up every morning in a panic because there aren't more games on the Mac ecosystem.

(before anyone says iMac, if you need a high performance machine the inability to slot in a new GPU makes it a no go....)

so who going to sell the finished systems to in the Mac space if aftermarket GPU card is a requirement to run the finished VR ?

 

[usna92]

I am guessing somewhere between 0 and None. Just looking at the iMac Pro will tell you that if they intended a high end pro-sumer type model they would have done it there. The MacPro, whatever it’s going to be, is not going to be something they could serve with a version of the consumer iMac. Additionally, unless there is a thawing in the relationship with Apple and NVIDIA,while you will probably be able to add one after sale, there will not likely be a stock configuration with a 1080. Also, it’s functionality will solely depend on NVIDIA writing drivers. If you look at the what Apple has experimented with in the iMac Pro and External Development Chases for PCIe it has all been AMD. This thing is going to cost at a minimum of 5 grand, I am just hoping they don’t screw it up and give us trash can 2.0.

The standard options in a Mac Pro tend to be :

Xeon CPU
ECC RAM
FirePro/Quadro style GPU

These are all very expensive and a waste for 99.9% of even heavy computer use and for most cases slower than cheaper options. The following would be a dream config if they offered it. Not only would it be more affordable but perform better for most uses.

CPU : High end core i7/i9
RAM : Fast DDR4 up to 128GB
GPU : 1080/1080ti or equivalent

For just about everything a setup like above would be better. (My personal uses are below)


Unity Development, Unreal Development, VR development, xCode, Web Development, lots of other coding environments, Photography, Audio Production

 

[ActionableMango]

People who have never been responsible for pricing decisions have all kinds of incorrect ideas about how prices are supposed to be set. I have been involved in these discussions, and we basically charged what we thought the market would bear. Some items might have extremely high margins because of their perceived value, and some items would have near zero margin. Labor (Engineering and Support) are by far the largest costs. Component costs are one of the least relevant items--if they went up or down $20 in a multi-thousand dollar item, we won't change our price.

The small differences in component costs between an i7/Xeon and non-ECC/ECC don't amount to a millimousefart in Apple's MSRP. A perfect example of this is that most of Apple's lineup doesn't even include Xeons and ECC RAM, yet they still command large margins and high prices.

 

[whitedragon101]

'expensive ECC memory" is grossly overblown difference.

Actually looking on crucial the difference is about +20% which is not that bad. I looked at the iMac Pro memory pricing. I didn't factor in the staggeringly large apple tax.
So ECC memory doesn't cost that much more than regular memory. But Apple are charging through the nose for it... Both nostrils.

Full function Mac GPUs cost more.

Full function - There is no such thing as a full function GPU. That makes it sound like it has "more" functions as if more is better. There are Quadro/FirePro GPUs and there are the GTX/RX GPUs. The Quadro/FirePro GPUs perform better in a tiny number of incredibly specific cases like CAD and Maya. In all other cases the GTX/RX GPUs perform better and are massively cheaper.

Mac GPU - There is no such thing as a Mac GPU either. They buy from nVidia or AMD.

In most locations where Mac have a high developer buy in the developer costs ( salary , benefits , etc) are like 3-4x the equipment costs. if an extra $400-600 is going to completely blow up the development budget for the project, it probably wasn't a market that Apple was looking hard at anyway.

Its not $400-$600 that would actually be reasonable. The cost of a base model iMac Pro is £4500. For £2000 I could build a PC for 99% of people doing heavy lifting compute tasks would be as good. That's a problem.

Alll these ex gaming platform folks who are moving over to VR as a market inflection point where they might get more traction I don't think moves Apple a whole lot. They really don't wake up every morning in a panic because there aren't more games on the Mac ecosystem.

The Pro market isn't about consuming. Its about producing.
That's like saying why bother to make Macs to edit movies on because people don't watch movies on their Macs.

so who going to sell the finished systems to in the Mac space if aftermarket GPU card is a requirement to run the finished VR ?

Again see above answer. The Pro market is about producing.

The gaming market is larger than the film and music industry combined and every single professional who develops games does so on a PC. Why? Because Apple don't produce a powerful desktop system that even slightly makes sense to the majority of professionals that need a powerful desktop system.

 

[singhs.apps]

What you are asking for will most likely not happen on the Mac platform anytime soon, if at all.

The only way to run current gen Nvidia cards on Macs is through eGPU and the latest macOS version has locked even that one out.

If you don’t want to spend on Xeons and ECC ( even the PC side workstations are charging through the nose for such so it is isn’t just Apple ) but also do not want to consider iMacs ( the only possibility with i7/i9s ) or rMBPs, then well.. there is no option.

 

[AidenShaw]

The chances are likely pretty close to zero.

And you simply accept that without protest?

Look at the Z-series options for CPUs.

Z-240 Tower

Processor
A faster processor supports your computer's performance with more efficient operation.

1. Intel® Pentium® G4560 Processor (3.5 GHz, 3 MB cache, 2133 MHz, 2 core) + Intel® HD Graphics 610-$265.00
2. Intel® Core™ i3-6100 Processor (3.7 GHz, 3 MB cache, 2133 MHz, 2 core) + Intel® HD Graphics 530-$140.00
3. Intel® Core™ i3-7100 Processor (3.9 GHz, 3 MB cache, 2400 MHz, 2 core) + Intel® HD Graphics 630-$140.00
4. Intel® Core™ i5-7500 Processor (3.4 GHz, up to 3.8 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 6 MB cache, 2400 MHz, 4 core) + Intel HD Graphics 630+$0.00
5. Intel® Xeon® E3-1205 v6 Processor (3 GHz, 8 MB cache, 2400 MHz, 4 core, 65W) + Intel® HD Graphics P630+$15.00
6. Intel® Core™ i5-6500 Processor (3.2 GHz, up to 3.6 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 6 MB cache, 2133 MHz, 4 core) + Intel® HD Graphics 530Included in price
7. Intel® Xeon® E3-1225 v5 Processor (3.3 GHz, up to 3.7 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8 MB cache, 4 core, 80W) + Intel® HD Graphics P530+$35.00
8. Intel® Xeon® E3-1225 v6 Processor (3.3 GHz, up to 3.7 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8 MB cache, 4 core, 80W) + Intel® HD Graphics P630+$35.00
9. Intel® Core™ i5-6600 Processor (3.3 GHz, up to 3.9 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 6 MB cache, 2133 MHz, 4 core) + Intel® HD Graphics 530+$50.00
10. Intel® Core™ i5-7600 Processor (3.5 GHz, up to 4.1 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 6 MB cache, 2400 MHz, 4 core) + Intel® HD Graphics 630+$50.00
11. Intel® Xeon® E3-1230 v5 Processor (3.4 GHz, up to 3.8 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8 MB cache, 4 core, 80W)+$75.00
12. Intel® Xeon® E3-1230 v6 Processor (3.5 GHz, up to 3.9 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8 MB cache, 4 core, 80W)+$75.00
13. Intel® Xeon® E3-1240 v5 Processor (3.5 GHz, up to 3.9 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8 MB cache, 4 core, 80W)+$135.00
14. Intel® Xeon® E3-1240 v6 Processor (3.7 GHz, up to 4.1 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8 MB cache, 4 core, 80W)+$135.00
15. Intel® Xeon® E3-1245 v5 Processor (3.5 GHz, up to 3.9 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8 MB cache, 4 core, 80W) + Intel® HD Graphics P530+$185.00
16. Intel® Xeon® E3-1245 v6 Processor (3.7 GHz, up to 4.1 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8 MB cache, 4 core, 80W) + Intel® HD Graphics P630+$185.00
17. Intel® Core™ i7-7700 Processor (3.6 GHz, up to 4.2 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8 MB cache, 2400 MHz, 4 core) + Intel® HD Graphics 630+$210.00
18. Intel® Core™ i7-6700 Processor (3.4 GHz, up to 4 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8 MB cache, 2133 MHz, 4 core) + Intel® HD Graphics 530+$210.00
19. Intel® Core™ i7-7700K Processor (4.2 GHz, up to 4.5 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8 MB cache, 4 core) + Intel® HD Graphics 630+$260.00
20. Intel® Core™ i7-6700K Processor (4 GHz, up to 4.2 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8 MB cache, 4 core) + Intel® HD Graphics 530+$260.00
21. Intel® Xeon® E3-1270 v5 Processor (3.6 GHz, up to 4 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8 MB cache, 4 core, 80W)+$260.00
22. Intel® Xeon® E3-1270 v6 Processor (3.8 GHz, up to 4.2 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8 MB cache, 4 core, 80W)+$260.00
23. Intel® Xeon® E3-1280 v5 Processor (3.7 GHz, up to 4 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8 MB cache, 4 core, 80W)+$835.00

Z4

Processor
A faster processor supports your computer's performance with more efficient operation.

1. Intel® Xeon® W-2102 Processor (2.9 GHz, 8 MB cache, 4 core)Included in price
2. Intel® Xeon® W-2104 Processor (3.2 GHz, 8.25 MB cache, 4 core)+$90.00
3. Intel® Xeon® W-2123 Processor (3.6 GHz, up to 3.9 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8.25 MB cache, 4 core)+$175.00
4. Intel® Core™ i7-7800X Processor (3.5 GHz, up to 4 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8.25 MB cache, 6 core)+$355.00
5. Intel® Xeon® W-2125 Processor (4 GHz, up to 4.5 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8.25 MB cache, 4 core)+$475.00
6. Intel® Core™ i7-7820X Processor (3.6 GHz, up to 4.3 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 11 MB cache, 8 core)+$775.00
7. Intel® Xeon® W-2133 Processor (3.6 GHz, up to 3.9 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8.25 MB cache, 6 core)+$825.00
8. Intel® Xeon® W-2135 Processor (3.7 GHz, up to 4.5 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8.25 MB cache, 6 core)+$1265.00
9. Intel® Core™ i9-7900X Processor (3.3 GHz, up to 4.3 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 13.75 MB cache, 10 core)+$1575.00
10. Intel® Xeon® W-2145 Processor (3.7 GHz, up to 4.5 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8.25 MB cache, 8 core)+$1825.00
11. Intel® Core™ i9-7920X Processor (2.9 GHz, up to 4.3 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 16.5 MB cache, 12 core)+$1975.00
12. Intel® Core™ i9-7940X Processor (3.1 GHz, up to 4.3 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 19.25 MB cache, 14 core)+$2375.00
13. Intel® Core™ i9-7960X Processor (2.8 GHz, up to 4.2 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 22 MB cache, 16 core)+$2975.00
14. Intel® Xeon® W-2155 Processor (3.3 GHz, up to 4.5 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 13.75 MB cache, 10 core)+$2875.00
15. Intel® Xeon™ W-2175 Processor (2.5 GHz, up to 4.3 GHz, w/Turbo Boost, 19 MB, 14 core)+$3515.00
16. Intel® Core™ i9-7980XE Extreme Edition Processor (2.6 GHz, up to 4.2 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 24.75 MB cache, 18 core)+$3575.00
17. Intel® Xeon® W-2195 Processor (2.3 GHz, up to 4.3 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 24.75 MB cache, 18 core)+$5425.00

Z4 has 4 core to 18 core. i7, i9 or Xeon W. Up to 128 GiB RAM with i9, and 256 GiB ECC with Xeon. Choice of 465 watt, 750 or 1000 watt power supplies. Up to dual Quadro P6000 or dual WX 9100 GPUs. Dual M.2 slots, and dual 3.5" SATA bays. Starting price $1680

I won't show the options for the Z6 and Z8 - I don't want anyone to start crying.

Really, with Apple's megatons of cash they can't afford to offer some BTO options?

 

[h9826790]

Full function - There is no such thing as a full function GPU. That makes it sound like it has "more" functions as if more is better. There are Quadro/FirePro GPUs and there are the GTX/RX GPUs. The Quadro/FirePro GPUs perform better in a tiny number of incredibly specific cases like CAD and Maya. In all other cases the GTX/RX GPUs perform better and are massively cheaper.

Mac GPU - There is no such thing as a Mac GPU either. They buy from nVidia or AMD.

How about full function Mac graphic cards?

Yes, we know the GPU chip are from Nvidia or AMD, but once it's installed onto a card, and Apple gave it a Mac compatible firmware. It's a Mac graphic card. Without Mac EFI. There is no boot screen (NOT full function).

If because the chip is from Nvidia or AMD, then there is no Mac graphic card.

Then all Intel Mac's CPU are from Intel, therefore, no such thing as Mac on the world.

By definition. The Computer that released by Apple, and named as Mac is a Mac, regardless what component in it.

Same logic, as long as Apple license a graphic card to call itself Mac Edition card. It's a Mac graphic card regardless which GPU inside.

And so far, only Mac Edition card (or flashed card) can provide full function on the Mac Pro. No any graphic card can do the same thing. There is a fundamental difference between Mac graphic card, and non Mac graphic card. And it is clearly a functional difference. Not just naming.

 

[singhs.apps]

Really, with Apple's megatons of cash they can't afford to offer some BTO options?

They should, but that’s a ground well covered in the recent past.

Anyways.. when I had last spec’ced the z4, it was about 1400 USD more expensive than the iMac pro and didn’t include a 5k monitor to go with it, which pushes the price disparity even higher ( ok we get 2 years extra warranty built in (Apple offers 1 year warranty) so there is some money saved there..maybe 400-500 USD can be deducted from the difference )

So what do we really get for ~ 1400 USD extra ? Ability to upgrade almost at will..even there the options offered by HP are priced well beyond their suggested market rate...

If Apple wasn’t busy shooting itself in the foot on that front (+ the issues with Nvidia) and lying comatose on its desktop strategy, the iMac pro would be a steal in comparison. If only they had allowed three things : user upgradable RAM, user upgradable SSDs, and one or two Nvidia options, the iMac pro would have sounded like a good deal. Heck this would have driven the price of the entry level systems down even further.

P.S. the higher tier options in HP Z4s seem to be a means to push their buyer/s into the HP z6 segments.

 

[AidenShaw]

Ability to upgrade almost at will..even there the options offered by HP is priced well beyond their suggested market rate...

The options, however, are commodity parts that can be purchased at the market rate and added by the user.

Every manufacturer prices BTO options much higher than Newegg. What the BTO options give you is the full warranty and piece of mind.

 

[Naimfan]

The standard options in a Mac Pro tend to be :

Xeon CPU
ECC RAM
FirePro/Quadro style GPU

These are all very expensive and a waste for 99.9% of even heavy computer use and for most cases slower than cheaper options. The following would be a dream config if they offered it. Not only would it be more affordable but perform better for most uses.

CPU : High end core i7/i9
RAM : Fast DDR4 up to 128GB
GPU : 1080/1080ti or equivalent

For just about everything a setup like above would be better. (My personal uses are below)


Unity Development, Unreal Development, VR development, xCode, Web Development, lots of other coding environments, Photography, Audio Production

Zero.

There is no point in making a MP like that. What you're asking for is what lots of people want - a headless iMac, or a more substantial Mac Mini.

 

[whitedragon101]

Zero.

There is no point in making a MP like that. What you're asking for is what lots of people want - a headless iMac, or a more substantial Mac Mini.

A modular headless iMac level machine would be cool if you could have full size PCIE graphics cards that you could swap out. Although that wouldn't really be like an iMac as iMac has a mobile GPU.

What would be great is something to compete with a PC. Powerful enough for 99.9% of uses with modular components.

 

[singhs.apps]

What would be great is something to compete with a PC. Powerful enough for 99.9% of uses with modular components.

Like a macintosh and a macintosh Pro ? I like the sound of that.

 

[whitedragon101]

Like a mackintosh and a mackintosh Pro ? I like the sound of that.

Yeah perfect.

I suspect the Mackintosh would outsell the pro by a lot. Make it the same price as building a PC of the same spec plus up to £500 of apple tax and I'm sold.

 

[goMac]

The iMac Pro doesn't have an i7 option so...

Non-existant.

 

[singhs.apps]

The iMac Pro doesn't have an i7 option so...

Non-existant.

It could be more like the iMac and the iMac Pro, the MBs and MBPs.

 

[deconstruct60]

...
Full function - There is no such thing as a full function GPU.

If the GPU card in your Mac doesn't provide a boot screen then you don't have a "full func" system.

If the GPU card doesn't provide a way to boot into recovery mode then you don't have a "full function" system.

Full function essentially means you can do what normal Macs do. If can't then have a subset of Mac function. A Mac isn't just hardware. It isn't just software. It is both. If that system isn't complete then don't have a Mac. .

That makes it sound like it has "more" functions as if more is better.

Full function is the same as a complete Mac. if you want to switch the SIP or T2 security settings you need to get to Recovery mode. If you want to change those setting and Apple sold you a machine where you couldn't get to that screen do you thing that would be "better" or "worse" ?

There are Quadro/FirePro GPUs and there are the GTX/RX GPUs. The Quadro/FirePro GPUs perform better in a tiny number of incredibly specific cases like CAD and Maya. In all other cases the GTX/RX GPUs perform better and are massively cheaper.

The long standing issue has been that normal off-the-shelf GPU cards don't work in Macs. That is getting easier to make happen but the likelihood that Apple (and GPU vendors ) aren't going to need to put in specific work for the Mac is very small.

Mac GPU - There is no such thing as a Mac GPU either. They buy from nVidia or AMD.

Go back to see what "Full Feature". Their most certainly have been "Mac certified " GPU products in the past. Pretending they don't exist is just misdirection.

The Pro market isn't about consuming. Its about producing.
That's like saying why bother to make Macs to edit movies on because people don't watch movies on their Macs.

"... It's been almost a year now since Oculus announced that the consumer version of the Rift virtual reality headset would only support Windows PCs at launch—a turnaround from development kits that worked fine on Mac and Linux boxes. ... "
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016...to-mac-if-apple-ever-release-a-good-computer/

Funny how here were development kits way back in 2016.

"... Palmer Luckey, it "is up to Apple" to change that state of affairs. Specifically, "if they ever release a good computer, we will do it," ... "

"... "So if they prioritize higher-end GPUs like they used to for a while back in the day, we’d love to support Mac. But right now, there’s just not a single machine out there that supports it," he added. "Even if we can support on the software side, there's just no audience that could run the vast majority of software on it." ..."

Pretending that the deployment machines don't matter pure bunk. This is straight from a VR system developer. They do matter. And this is primarily what Apple has been short term addressing with iMac Pro and/or eGPUs. If there is no 'base' to sell into the developers aren't coming.

Using your video editing analogy if someone cut a 10K movie and distributed only in 10K format would it be a box office success if there are no theaters that can play the movie ?

Again see above answer. The Pro market is about producing.

No Pro is about doing something that produces revenues. It is not coming up with self absorbed, tech spec porn masturbation projects. If you make it and can't sell it in sufficient numbers to recover your costs then your not pro. Or at least, not a successful one.

The gaming market is larger than the film and music industry combined and every single professional who develops games does so on a PC. Why? Because Apple don't produce a powerful desktop system that even slightly makes sense to the majority of professionals that need a powerful desktop system.

Apple has a sizable and substantive revenue/profitable gaming market on the iOS machines. They didn't bend over backwards to build it ( not a sole #1 feature shooting for), but do have one because there is a large substantial, diverse base market to sell into. ( Metal isn't just useful for gaming. A more efficient graphics stack will extend out battery life too. Just about all apps get some benefit; gaming substantially more than others. )

The Mac Pro can't be both the development and deplolyment platform if talking large scale deployment.

Finally, if get out of the "move the goalpost' aspect here of moving into VR developer corner cases, this thread started off many targeting standard configurations. The "VR developer" isn't going to be a Mac Pro standard config. All Apple primarily needs to do is leave an open 2nd x16 slot. They some folks (like VR developers ) can fill that slot with whatever non-boot GPU they want that happens to work once the Mac is up and running and project onto some secondary screens for VR. Done. However, that has almost nothing to do with standard, supported, configurations that Apple ships with.
[doublepost=1523383701][/doublepost]

And you simply accept that without protest?
....

chuckles, probably because you data backs it up. The moaning and groaning this thread starts off with was how the i7 was going to save the Mac Pro cost problem because it is cheaper than the super duper expensive Xeon W options.

Well gee whiz let's take a look at the ton options of the Z4 you posted. 10

Z4

Processor
A faster processor supports your computer's performance with more efficient operation.

1. Intel® Xeon® W-2102 Processor (2.9 GHz, 8 MB cache, 4 core)Included in price
2. Intel® Xeon® W-2104 Processor (3.2 GHz, 8.25 MB cache, 4 core)+$90.00
3. Intel® Xeon® W-2123 Processor (3.6 GHz, up to 3.9 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8.25 MB cache, 4 core)+$175.00
4. Intel® Core™ i7-7800X Processor (3.5 GHz, up to 4 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8.25 MB cache, 6 core)+$355.00
5. Intel® Xeon® W-2125 Processor (4 GHz, up to 4.5 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8.25 MB cache, 4 core)+$475.00
6. Intel® Core™ i7-7820X Processor (3.6 GHz, up to 4.3 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 11 MB cache, 8 core)+$775.00
7. Intel® Xeon® W-2133 Processor (3.6 GHz, up to 3.9 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8.25 MB cache, 6 core)+$825.00
8. Intel® Xeon® W-2135 Processor (3.7 GHz, up to 4.5 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8.25 MB cache, 6 core)+$1265.00
9. Intel® Core™ i9-7900X Processor (3.3 GHz, up to 4.3 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 13.75 MB cache, 10 core)+$1575.00
10. Intel® Xeon® W-2145 Processor (3.7 GHz, up to 4.5 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 8.25 MB cache, 8 core)+$1825.00

As Gomer Pyle would put it. 'Surprise , Surprise, Surprise". Gall-lee Sgt. Carter the first three affordable options are Intel W. Not that Apple would use the 2102 or 2104 (keep the 48 lanes on CPU but 4 cores clocked way down) , but it is illustrative that there are a range of prices in the Xeon W line up. If Apple wanted to hit lower price point they could and not leave the Xeon W line up.

The other factor in this short chart is that giving up on base clock lowers the place. I know some folks plan on making up the gap by overclocking, but how likely is Apple is going to play overclocking as a basic feature? If not being delusional, that probably won't happen.


HP has in the ballpark range of 20% of overall classic PC market and ballpark range of 36% range of workstation market ( and Dell another around 32%. The two are more than half. ). Apple has less than 7% of overall classic PC markets and a none top 4 place in the workstation market. Apple isn't selling into the same pond as the other two are so the massive BTO fan out makes about zero business sense to duplication. The only thing that a "Monkey see , monkey do" strategy would do for Apple is very likely just drive the Mac Pro down closer to breakeven and thinner revenues/profits. So again, setting expectations that they are going to engage in a race-to-the-bottom is very misguided.



​

 

[whitedragon101]

Pretending that the deployment machines don't matter pure bunk. This is straight from a VR system developer. They do matter. And this is primarily what Apple has been short term addressing with iMac Pro and/or eGPUs. If there is no 'base' to sell into the developers aren't coming.

Using your video editing analogy if someone cut a 10K movie and distributed only in 10K format would it be a box office success if there are no theaters that can play the movie ?

No it really isn't. I mean wow. Ok, right succinct style. Here we go.

Movie audience in Cinema
Make Movie on special Mac
Sell Content in cinema
---------------------------------
Gaming Audience on PC
Make Content on special Mac
Sell content on PC


[doublepost=1523390457][/doublepost]

If the GPU card in your Mac doesn't provide a boot screen then you don't have a "full func" system.

Ah I see you define full function means the system turns on and you can see the screen. I do like those sort of advanced features. If only PC graphics cards had those sort of features.

Its possible that GPUs for Macs require deep architectural and expensive changes compared to PC.....
.... Unless of course people making hackintoshes are using PC graphics cards and that apple actually could allow people to use consumer grade cards. Or if people using the old Mac Pro were using standard PC 1080ti cards from nVidia in their systems just by using a driver hack.

 

[AidenShaw]

Anyways.. when I had last spec’ced the z4, it was about 1400 USD more expensive than the iMac pro and didn’t include a 5k monitor

So what exactly was your configuration that was $1400 more than the iMP?

Every one of these "Apple is cheaper" comparisons ignores the simple fact that maybe the richly configured Apple system is wasting a lot of money on stuff that *you* don't need.

For example, if you don't have 10 GbE Ethernet in your home or office, it's an utter waste of money to add the $500 for the 10 GbE card to the Z4. An utter waste.

If you don't need 8 cores, you can save hundreds of dollars with 4 core or 6 core CPUs (some of which are higher GHz than the iMP).

 

[singhs.apps]

So what exactly was your configuration that was $1400 more than the iMP?

Every one of these "Apple is cheaper" comparisons ignores the simple fact that maybe the richly configured Apple system is wasting a lot of money on stuff that *you* don't need.

For example, if you don't have 10 GbE Ethernet in your home or office, it's an utter waste of money to add the $500 for the 10 GbE card to the Z4. An utter waste.

If you don't need 8 cores, you can save hundreds of dollars with 4 core or 6 core CPUs (some of which are higher GHz than the iMP).

I configured it almost exactly as the base model iMac - Xeon w 8 core, 32 GB ram ( 8x4 ), 2 x 1TB nvme/SSD, some AMD 7000 card ( low enough to match the market rate of the vega 56 ) etc..

If we choose the top of the line 18 core ..that’s almost 3k xtra than apple’s own offering ( albeit un-throttled ) for the same upgrade for the CPU.

My work unfortunately has enough variety that I need fast storage, singlecore/multi core performance ( though for rendering I am mulling going pure GPU (which means multi GPU ) even though renderman/Arnold haven’t gone that route yet ), there is VR too that I am itching to jump into for concept art and modeling ( which is almost non existent on the Mac today )

Thinking of revamping the mobile+little+Big setup I have at present when I go windows ( if no word on nMPs specs by this WWDC )..with mobile+little being the main priority...

 

[AidenShaw]

I configured it almost exactly as the base model iMac

OK, let's go..

Xeon w 8 core

Apple downclocks the iMP 8 core to 3.2 GHz - HP offers a 3.8 GHz Xeon W or a 3.7 GHz i7 for $1000 less. Which did you choose, and what did you do to adjust for the much faster HP CPUs?

32 GB ram ( 8x4 )

ECC RAM? And why 4x8 when 2x16 ECC is cheaper. And non-ECC is even cheaper

2 x 1TB nvme/SSD

The base iMP is only 1TB, why inflate the HP price by quoting 2TB?

some AMD 7000 card ( low enough to match the market rate of the vega 56 ) etc..

Drop $800 and go for no dGPU, and pick up a 1080 from the web.

But all of this has the possibly fallacious assumption that I need exactly the base iMP specs.

 

[singhs.apps]

The base iMP is only 1TB, why inflate the HP price by quoting 2TB?

That 1TB was added to adjust for the non existence of a good quality 5k monitor and the TB ports. then I tried to match it spec for spec so that I could get an idea of just how much extra I would be spending ( no PCs aren’t necessarily cheaper. That’s a myth ) if I get all three systems from HP ( or chiefly the desktops )
[doublepost=1523401369][/doublepost]

ECC RAM? And why 4x8 when 2x16 ECC is cheaper. And non-ECC is even cheaper

Yes. As mentioned before, spec for spec where possible even if I discard ECC in the final configs. Also it was definitely the cheaper of the two options.. 16x2 ( to save slots for the 64/128 GB Upgrades )
[doublepost=1523401691][/doublepost]

Apple downclocks the iMP 8 core to 3.2 GHz - HP offers a 3.8 GHz Xeon W or a 3.7 GHz i7 for $1000 less. Which did you choose, and what did you do to adjust for the much faster HP CPUs?

HP Xeons from the same model are 3.7 GHz but I suppose it costs Apple the same even if it downclocks them. .. ( and I already mentioned that the Apple models were underclocked )

Reg i7s.. I am more interested in the i9s or Xeons..higher core counts..trying to find the sweet spot between single core performance and multi core..the i940x looks the best from that angle. Xeons.. around the 10-12 core mark. But this is a topic for another day.
[doublepost=1523401905][/doublepost]

Drop $800 and go for no dGPU, and pick up a 1080 from the web.

I would be adding the cards anyway ..and the 1080/tis would cost more .so irrelevant whether I chose a dummy card to match the specs .. I would still be spending that money. Nothing saved there.
[doublepost=1523402137][/doublepost]

But all of this has the possibly fallacious assumption that I need exactly the base iMP specs.

Not at all. The z4s and z6s were running away price wise when I specced them so the base iMac was chosen ( multi GPUs etc aren’t an option to check because they don’t exist on the iMac, nor did certain Xeon models ..z6s were out of the question...for similar reasons ) to see whether I am missing something while configuring.

 

[kwikdeth]

For i7 group Intel kneecaps the PCI-e bandwidth. Apple explicitly said they were looking for

"... we call ‘completely rethinking the Mac Pro.’ We’re working on it. We have a team working hard on it right now, and we want to architect it so that we can keep it fresh with regular improvements, and we’re committed to making it our highest-end, high throughput desktop system, designed for our demanding pro customers. '.


How do you maximize high throughput and while at the same not neuter by about 40-50% your PCI-e bandwidth throughput?

this is somewhat accurate, but not entirely. Intel has always sold "enthusiast" i7s in the larger package which are are built on the larger socket package... for example:
i7-3770 - LGA1155 - 16 PCI lanes (limited)
i7-3970 - LGA2011 - 40 PCI lanes (same as E5, but without ECC memory support)

however, for the cost difference between an E5 and the enthusiast i7s, its not really worth it. enthusiast i7s are really only intended for high-end gaming rigs where people have a bunch of video cards. They are more akin to the single-CPU Mac Pros with "W" series Xeons that used to be sold.


also there's really barely any reason for there to be "workstation" class cards in the mac. besides the extremely rare instances of apps that actually support the extra features of them, the drivers themselves are what set them apart in PC world... and in OSX land, Apple does all the driver development themselves.... and they dont really make it easy to take advantage of those said extra features. so ultimately its just a justification for pumped up price tag. say its a "workstation" class graphics card, but outside of the handful of high-end apps that use them, it literally makes zero difference in day to day use. take away the fancy "workstation" drivers and all that's left is the exact same GPU die that goes into the desktop gamer cards. Its been that way since the G5 days when you could reflash FireGL X3 cards (which were of note, CHEAPER than the Apple-specific X800 cards)