Yes but again, you can OC them to increase the performance.
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will there be a new Mac Pro in 2015?
- Thread starter Anto38x
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Yes but again, you can OC them to increase the performance.
Unless, because of Metal, Apple tries to enter the gaming market and releases HW that'll support this strategy. The old 27" could fit there, but with lower price.
Don't count on Apple going the gaming business, I don't think they'll go that way.
Newer displays are way over due, but it could be some time till we see new models, if ever. I'm hoping they're working on it but who knows.
I'd go for a 4K 27" myself if they ever come out.
However, res in El Cap for the iMac (?) is not standard 4K, strange!!
Newer displays are way over due, but it could be some time till we see new models, if ever. I'm hoping they're working on it but who knows.
I'd go for a 4K 27" myself if they ever come out.
However, res in El Cap for the iMac (?) is not standard 4K, strange!!
Confirmation from Intel that Broadwell-E will come in 1Q'16, so we can expect -EP later.
Too bad, long time still.
Too bad, long time still.
Just getting back from a lengthy vacation and catching up on recent events. Some good discussion and interesting GPU announcements from AMD.
In terms of what technology might trigger a nMP update... I think we can conclude that Apple is no longer following Intel's roadmap. The question is, are they now going to follow AMD's roadmap and use these newly announced AMD GPUs? If they do, it may still be several months before an update in order to get sufficient optimized binning of parts to meet the nMP thermal requirements.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mac Pro has become a low priority with a long refresh cycle that will only get updated every couple of years when everything is more than a minor incremental update.
In terms of TB3, I noticed this comment in the AnandTech article about lack of DP1.3 support... doesn't this essentially make TB3 DOA from Apple's perspective? I would think any interconnect without the ability to drive a 27" 5K retina display would be a non-starter for Apple.
In terms of what technology might trigger a nMP update... I think we can conclude that Apple is no longer following Intel's roadmap. The question is, are they now going to follow AMD's roadmap and use these newly announced AMD GPUs? If they do, it may still be several months before an update in order to get sufficient optimized binning of parts to meet the nMP thermal requirements.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mac Pro has become a low priority with a long refresh cycle that will only get updated every couple of years when everything is more than a minor incremental update.
In terms of TB3, I noticed this comment in the AnandTech article about lack of DP1.3 support... doesn't this essentially make TB3 DOA from Apple's perspective? I would think any interconnect without the ability to drive a 27" 5K retina display would be a non-starter for Apple.
Last edited:
Read an interesting thing on Apple's new "Metal" (link below):
http://streamcomputing.eu/blog/2015-06-08/apple-metal-versus-vulkan-opencl-2-1/
We'll see what happens with "Metal." Currently we have Multi Processor (unfortunately Windows) PC's that are 3 to 4 times faster than the newest Mac Pro right now and every time Apple says they're going to make changes to make it better, they seem to fall through. Reading this guys article really makes you think about the direction Apple is going...
http://streamcomputing.eu/blog/2015-06-08/apple-metal-versus-vulkan-opencl-2-1/
We'll see what happens with "Metal." Currently we have Multi Processor (unfortunately Windows) PC's that are 3 to 4 times faster than the newest Mac Pro right now and every time Apple says they're going to make changes to make it better, they seem to fall through. Reading this guys article really makes you think about the direction Apple is going...
The Mac Pro has always had long refresh cycles, even back in the "classic" mac pro days. The current Mac Pro has "only" been shipping for 1.5 years. Only is used because its not uncommon for Mac Pro refreshes to be >2 years.
Not exactly. Thunderbolt 3 can carry 2 displayport 1.2 signals over the same cable. Essentially it would splice together 2 separate signals to form one display. This is done internally on the retina iMac, and externally using 2 separate cables on Dell's 5k monitor. The fact that some Macs went from not supporting Dell's 5k display to supporting it in a yosemite update shows that Apple is putting effort into supporting these kinds of displays. This could be evidence that Apple could have their own display like this in the works. This is especially important if Apple wants to release an external retina display within the next year, as the current generation of video cards (from AMD and Nvidia) do not support displayport 1.3 and likely won't be updated for a year.
While this is somewhat out of my realm of knowledge, Apple doesn't like to give up control of their software and API's to other people. While Apple could probably use their weight to get Khronos to do what they want in terms of framework capabilities, its easier for them to release metal on OS X. Its possible metal is some kind of fork from Vulkan, or AMD helped them out with some of their development from mantle.
The benefit of metal for Apple is there are many game engines that support metal on iOS, so I assume that would make it easier to implement those same engines in OS X. Even better is it looks like metal is supported on every machine since 2012, so developers could just target metal and not worry about having to provide compatibility for openGL. Although it would be nice to see openGL get better support.
Except that Apple is not into gaming, meaning they do not have a gaming revenue stream. Apple has shown not to care about products that are not, or do not support, their revenue stream.
High-end, user configurable computers for enthusiasts, Blu-ray, DVDs, and FLAC are subjects Apple is just not concerned with. I just bought a powerful, user-configurable PC for about the price of a high-end i7 mini. Modern and well-made it is the first PC I have purchased in over a decade.
Sure, I still love my six-core MP 5,1 but it really is just on the edge of being a historical piece. I fully intend on being able to use it in three years however I do not plan on replacing it was an Apple product. Since the 5,1 there is no such thing as a real Mac Pro other than in name only.
True. I suppose Apple could offer a 27" 5K tiled MST display, but that seems inelegant and therefore un-Apple-like. Doesn't USB-C as per the new ultra-portable MacBook support DP1.3? If so, wouldn't that be the preferred interconnect for displays going forward?
A 5K MST display is still something of a hack, very un-Apple. Still, it's the only option right now, since no GPU (that apple uses) is able to drive an SST panel. No DP 1.3 cards in the horizon at the time, to be available soon.
I'm hoping for the 4K panel instead, but that could be considered a step back, once 5K went into the iMac.
I still don't understand why they had to go 5K at this time, the market wasn't really asking for it, and the proper tech is still unavailable. I guess just to make a point, to set a new trend...
I'm hoping for the 4K panel instead, but that could be considered a step back, once 5K went into the iMac.
I still don't understand why they had to go 5K at this time, the market wasn't really asking for it, and the proper tech is still unavailable. I guess just to make a point, to set a new trend...
... or perhaps because Apple OSX does pixel-doubling instead of real resolution independence?
Agreed. Perhaps Apple will embrace a MST 5K panel but hide the ugliness of driving it with TB3 which at least is a single cable solution.
As for why 5K? It's simply because that's the resolution you need at 27" for retina pixel density.
OK, I can't remember when you start considering Retina, ppi wise.
Can do the math and see if 4K in 27in fits the Retina specs...
Guess not, 5K gives you a bit over 200ppi and 4K below 160ppi.
I was under the impression that Retina was more like 220-230ppi though. Still, almost there...
Can do the math and see if 4K in 27in fits the Retina specs...
Guess not, 5K gives you a bit over 200ppi and 4K below 160ppi.
I was under the impression that Retina was more like 220-230ppi though. Still, almost there...
I'm not sure there is a strict definition, but it seems retina on the desktop requires >200 PPI. A retina 21.5" iMac will use a 4K display.
Retina or not I'd settle for a 27" 4K. Don't need 5K and requires hardware that's no up to the task yet.
good to the that AMD has addressed the Fury X pump noise, newer boards come with an improved pump. Too bad you can only tell which one is it with the removal of the plate, different CM sticker.
It seems you can have it exchanged if you got the noisy one.
good to the that AMD has addressed the Fury X pump noise, newer boards come with an improved pump. Too bad you can only tell which one is it with the removal of the plate, different CM sticker.
It seems you can have it exchanged if you got the noisy one.
I agree... 5K is well up the diminishing returns curve compared to 4K. I have a pair of 27" 4K displays which I run at a scaled setting of 3008x1692 which offers a great combination of retina-like sharpness with plenty of real-estate. 5K at 27" can really only increase sharpness - a benefit not easily appreciated when things are already incredibly sharp. And one thing I've found is that image editing apps like Capture One Pro struggle to update such a large amount of pixels, meaning 5K is likely a net detriment in many situations with worse performance and imperceptible sharpness improvements.
Having said all that, I don't think Apple agrees. For them, 5K is the perfect resolution for a 27" retina display so if they do decide to offer a stand-alone display at that size, it will be 5K, whether we like it or need it, or not.
I think we don't really fully know how DP 1.3 will work in relationship to Thunderbolt on future Macs. Most of the time, when Intel talks about DP in the context of TB, they're talking about the DP signal tunneled over TB the way it works on an Apple Thunderbolt Display, where TB displays and TB devices can be chained together in any order. With TB3 and the USB-C connector, it gets more complicated, because the USB-C connector can just talk DP 1.3 without TB involved at all. So 5K single cable DP 1.3 should be possible on a future Mac without contradicting anything we've heard about TB3, it just would mean that you wouldn't be able to chain TB3 devices on the same USB-C port you had a DP 1.3 device connected to, but if you do want to chain them, then it would only support DP 1.2.
Going to a future , faster than is currently transported DP mode is not new. The USB Type-C 'multimode' feature is old news from a TB perspective. Thunderbolt did that from day one. A different physical port, but a multiplexer for alternative modes support was there from the start. TB v3 just adds more "inputs" to the mux and adopts a new physical port but still a mux.
Intel did this over two years ago (circa time when Haswell shipped in volume. )
".... Redwood Ridge maintains feature compatibility, but you get official support for DisplayPort 1.2 (and 4K resolution) if you're using a DisplayPort monitor. This extension of DP 1.2 support does not apply to Thunderbolt displays or DP 1.2 displays connected to a Thunderbolt chain however. The explanation is simple. Redwood Ridge won't be sold for use in devices, only host computers, which is why you can't plug a 4K DP 1.2 display into a Thunderbolt chain and have it work (since none of the members of the chain will support 4K passthrough). ..."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7049/intel-thunderbolt-2-everything-you-need-to-know
So it isn't "more complicated..." in that a 2017 or perhaps even the "2016" TB controller could pass-through DP 1.3. Right now it largely a moot point because there are few DP 1.3 sources to pass through. That is going to be case for good deal of 2016. Before there is another TB bus speed increase there will probably be another controller update the explicitly supports DP v1.3 on the host systems when there are a widespread number of host systems with DP v1.3 out.
In terms of transport over TB , it was stuck with DP v1.1a until TB v2. However, the physical ports were not stuck at DP v1.1a until TB v2.
It's clearly more complicated if there are a bunch of preceding posts by people who think it won't be possible to plug a single cable 5K DP 1.3 monitor into a TB3 port and have it work. Yes, you're correct that confusing messaging about the multi-mode usage of the Thunderbolt ports is nothing new. You clearly study the Intel information more than most, so, just to clear up the issue, assuming a hypothetical 2016/2017 Mac has a USB Type-C port with alternate-mode support for USB/TB3/DP1.3, and that Mac has a 5K capable GPU with a DP 1.3 display pipe wired up to that port directly or through a mux, and you have a single-cable DP 1.3 5K monitor, then you should be able to plug that monitor into that port and have it work? And that this is all consistent with the specifications for USB Type-C, DP 1.3, and Thunderbolt 3 as they've been announced now?
VR, just out of curiosity, why use the custom resolution and not the native 4K?
Yes, 5K is quite a boost from 4K, a lot more pixels to drive and stress your GPU, while the benefit (visual) should hardly be noticeable for most. Performance wise, current hardware is not up to the task yet, at least in a comfortable manner.
But you're right, if Apple really feels that's the way to go, and I'm quite sure they do, they'll go for it.
Regarding TB3, DP1.3 and USB-C, it is in fact a mess for the common user. Information exists but is not always clear for everyone to understand fully.
People are already overclocking the Fury X, and Fury's specs are out.
GPUz shows no UEFI support on Fury, odd!!!
Yes, 5K is quite a boost from 4K, a lot more pixels to drive and stress your GPU, while the benefit (visual) should hardly be noticeable for most. Performance wise, current hardware is not up to the task yet, at least in a comfortable manner.
But you're right, if Apple really feels that's the way to go, and I'm quite sure they do, they'll go for it.
Regarding TB3, DP1.3 and USB-C, it is in fact a mess for the common user. Information exists but is not always clear for everyone to understand fully.
People are already overclocking the Fury X, and Fury's specs are out.
GPUz shows no UEFI support on Fury, odd!!!
Nano seems to be looking great for the nMP. Full Fiji core with lower clocks to fit the 175W target. It would have to be even lower for the nMP but if they kept the full core it would be awesome.
Not that I believe it will end up there, but it would be nice though.
DP performance capping and "old" display output options make it a not so good option, still as good as you can find at the moment.
Not that I believe it will end up there, but it would be nice though.
DP performance capping and "old" display output options make it a not so good option, still as good as you can find at the moment.
4K native offers the maximum desktop real-estate but text can be very uncomfortable to read (on a 27" display). Retina (2x) scaling offers maximum sharpness with a desktop equivalent to 1920x1080 which (on a 27" display) renders things way to large. 3008x1692 scaled to 4K via Apples scaling algorithm offers retina like sharpness with text that is still a good size on a 27" display with plenty of desktop real-estate.
- Status