Will there be a New Mac Pro?

[deconstruct60]

Yes, I'm aware with better cooling systems you can do it. But like I said, unsustainable in normal machines. This is from people I've talked to at Intel. It's what basically killed the 4 ghz Pentium 4.

Unsustainable isn't quite right. Ineffective (or inefficient ) is more to the point. Moore's Law doesn't "repeal" Amdahl's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdal's_law ). Simply put, you just can't crank up only one of the components. At some point you hit dimnishing returns.

What killed the Pentium 4 is that it chased GHz for GHz sake. The energy and thermal be damned, just crank the number higher as a myopically focus marketing gimmick. Real throughput performance on more balanced workloads hits barriers.

Intel and AMD could crank out single core CPUs at much higher "max" GHz rates. But it rather pointless after a while , besides "crotch grabbing", bragging right, if there isn't linear throughput gains to go along with it.
The other problem with ever shrinking single core CPUs is that they would get much cheaper. The revenues would drop if that is all they primarily sold.
Not only does Intel want to not knock AMD completely out of the game they also want to keep selling at roughly the same prices. At a certain point can't charge more for just GHz (if throw all other attributes under the bus), since it really doesn't add much value.

 

[xgman]

Sometimes this forum is just a pure fire hydrant of disinformation. Take gander in the "Turbo" column for these 2 models.

http://ark.intel.com/products/65725/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E3-1280V2-(8M-Cache-3_60-GHz)

http://ark.intel.com/products/65722/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E3-1290V2-(8M-Cache-3_70-GHz)




it isn't "odd". First, most of the time folks here in the forum discount the correlation between core count and max GHz which are coupled by power.
The other is the discount "could crank" and "efficiently crank". Ivy Bridge and the new 22nm 3D efficiency crumbles even faster than Sandy Bridge does.

On the PC side, 4 cores can run easily at 4gz on stock air with maybe a tiny voltage bump. It's been this way for years now. I have had many such systems. Obviously quite different for the Xeon world. My point was just that we really generally still are stuck in the 2-3ghz range and roughly at 4 cores for the last several years. Yes I know other improvements have been made, but I'm just saying. . . . No need to over analyze my point, which if we had some real news to talk about I wouldn't have even made.

Anyway, and this is not just directed at you, but there is no need to be so mean spirited. That takes the fun out of the forum. Don't take what everyone posts so seriously. So blast me for that too . . . .whatever . . just bored waiting . . .

 

[derbothaus]

Here is someones W3690 Xeon at 6.5GHz!!! Of course probably not doing Word drafts at that clock.

 

[MacsRgr8]

The company that invented the personal computer is now trying to systematically kill it off.

I would rather put it like this:
The company that invented the personal IT device is still going strong.

I understand the feelings that Apple isn't putting all the effort in the personal computers, as the attention is swayed towards smartphones and tablets.

But, look at it this way:
MacBook Pros, MacBook Airs and iMacs are getting enough attention. If they get their "Retina" updates along with Mountain Lion, it seems all is well regarding those Macs.
The Mac Pro is awaiting the new Xeons alongside new GPUs, USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt. The new Mac Pro seems to be launched with a bang. A complete Apple Workstation with all the specs required to be called a workstation.
If WWDC announces a new Mac Pro at a reasonable price with enough upgrade opportunities, I bet all is well in that department too.

My question is this: could Apple have done a minor update to the Mac Pro in the last year and a half or so? Was there an opportunity for Apple to "up" the CPUs (higher clocks, 12 core 3.33 GHz or so) or standard bigger hard drives, better grfx cards etc?
Apple hardly ever does this, though.
But it would have been an opportunity for Apple to create a better price / performance workstation. Keep up some good vibes.

 

[goMac]

On the PC side, 4 cores can run easily at 4gz on stock air with maybe a tiny voltage bump. It's been this way for years now. I have had many such systems.

Not reliably, that's the issue. Some chips can make it to 4 ghz on stock air. But it's also highly likely there will be some data corruption as the chip materials just weren't designed to handle that frequency of clock refresh.

Some chips can do it, but again, yields are not high. Non air cooling helps.

The honest truth is that it is way easier and less strain on power and heat to add another core to a chip design, which will give a better increase in performance. Trying to break the 4 ghz barrier instead of adding more cores just gives you a slower chip.

 

[Dustman]

Here is someones W3690 Xeon at 6.5GHz!!! Of course probably not doing Word drafts at that clock.

You'd need 6.5GHz to run that OS with any reasonable productivity.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Not reliably, that's the issue. Some chips can make it to 4 ghz on stock air. But it's also highly likely there will be some data corruption as the chip materials just weren't designed to handle that frequency of clock refresh.

Some chips can do it, but again, yields are not high. Non air cooling helps.

The honest truth is that it is way easier and less strain on power and heat to add another core to a chip design, which will give a better increase in performance. Trying to break the 4 ghz barrier instead of adding more cores just gives you a slower chip.

This is incorrect. Breaking 4ghz is easy and reliable. Don't spread false info. Go read some entries at Hardforum.

Adding more cores DOES NOT just universally increase performance, go look at 3930k vs 3770k benchmarks.

Where do you pull all this stuff from?

----------

You'd need 6.5GHz to run that OS with any reasonable productivity.

I know this is a joke, but Windows performs better than OSX on the same hardware.

 

[Blu Reel]

Here's my 2 cents...

Yes, there will be a new Mac Pro. Why? Apple is spending valuable time and resources and Final Cut Pro X...after their bungled launch of the new app. It is the only Apple Pro app that has a 30 day free trial that I know of currently. Final Cut Pro X is a CPU hog. The more cores it has to use, the faster it'll render. iMacs can "run" Final Cut Pro X, but that's like saying a Honda Accord can race in the Indianapolis 500. It can, but...

So, why the long delay since the last release? Well, 4 thoughts come to mind.

The first is Blu Ray. We all in the video production world expected that Blu Ray burners would replace DVD burners in the new Mac Pros. Steve Jobs' description of Blu Ray licensing made it clear what happened with this version of the Mac Pro.

The second thought is Intel. While the Blu Ray licensing issue stalled an incremental release of a new Mac Pro, the delay also revealed that Intel didn't have a new CPU to make a compelling new Mac Pro for sale either. So another reason not releasing a mediocre incremental improvement Mac Pro. Side note - heat is one of the biggest reasons if not the biggest that has stalled/slowed down the GHz growth in CPU development.

The third thought is the argument that many of the old "Pros" of Final Cut Pro have against Final Cut Pro X - "Apple dumbed down the pro app to sell it to the masses..."

And the fourth thought is Thunderbolt...

While I don't know for sure what reasons Apple had for not releasing any incremental improvements to the Mac Pro, I do believe, that during this extended period of time without a new Mac Pro model, technology has grown beyond what the Mac Pros used to cater to meaning the Mac Pros were built for "power" users like programmers, researchers, 3D renderers, video production, audio production, etc.

However, each of these power users have very different uses for the Mac Pro and spend additional time and resources to customize the Mac Pro to meet their specific needs.

What Apple has learned from their success with the iPod, iPhone, iPad, iOS and their "failure" with Final Cut Pro X, is that the power user is a consumer, too, and expects innovation out-of-the-box from Apple.

Thunderbolt is that innovation.

Why is another cable/plug such an innovation?

Yes, it's bandwidth surpasses USB, Firewire and Sata II. Yes, Apple combined it's video cable and power cable with the data cable. OOOOooo, I can keep my USB keyboard plugged into my Apple Display and attach my MacBook Pro to it with just one cable now. My Apple Display is now my laptop dock and Apple has found another way to reduce cable clutter. Yay.

But, let's go back to Thunderbolt is faster than Sata II.

My internal hard drives are connected to the motherboard by Sata II. That's 6 Gb/s.

Thunderbolt is 10 Gb/s...and it's an external connector...a 3 meter cable connection.

For the first time in history, my external hard drive will operate on a faster connection (bus) than my internal hard drives.

The traditional PC case is designed around the concept that the hard drives have to be close to the motherboard due to cable length restrictions of PATA and SATA.

Now those restrictions are gone...

So, the Mac Pro is a big metal tower. Why? When you open the side panel, you see a big empty space. For what? Air flow and heat dissipation.

Heat is generated by the CPU, the video card GPUs, hard drives and power supply.

Now, Apple has successfully made a fanless computer called the iMac. And Apple is rumored to be making an Apple TV that's a display.

Ever wonder why Apple didn't add an option for an extra hard drive slot in the iMac? Space is one consideration, but the additional heat is probably the bigger factor since there are no fans in the iMac.

Ever wonder why Apple didn't put the faster CPUs into the smaller display iMacs? heat dissipation. There's more surface area on the 27" iMac to dissipate the additional heat of the faster CPU.

I wonder just how much less heat there will be if Apple were able to separate the hard drives and the power supply from iMac display and made them an external attachment connected by a single Thunderbolt cable.

I wonder, if by doing so, Apple would be able to put a faster CPU (XEON chip) and a faster video card into that display.

I wonder if Apple's rumored Apple TV with it's rumored screen sizes of 32" to 55" would help allow for a faster CPU and video card in fanless computer display.

I wonder if Apple instead of doing all this for an iMac would make the new Mac Pro a revolution in case design.

I know as a video editor, I would love to be able to edit on a 55" display and I would love to be able to attach my hard drive array(s) to it with just a single cable...that would daisy chain to my other 55" display(s) without having giant Mac Pros cluttering up my small studio. After all, I'm a video production studio, not a data center.

Apple has got a brilliant industrial designer named Jonathan Ive. And if I can think of something like this based on what I see publicly, what is he thinking...

 

[goMac]

This is incorrect. Breaking 4ghz is easy and reliable. Don't spread false info. Go read some entries at Hardforum.

Yes, clearly I should talk to people at Hardforum instead of people who work at Intel. Don't really care if anyone believes me, and I've overclocked to 4 ghz myself. Just sayin, from people I've talked to at Intel, yields are not high, data corruption chances are higher. It's much more worthwhile to add cores than it is to go up to 4 ghz.

I didn't say anywhere ever it wasn't possible, I just said it's not commercially viable or something marketable to consumers.

The other thing I've repeatedly heard is that memory bandwidth is a bigger issue than chip speed these days. Intels had issues with their top end designs not being effective because the chips can't be feed fast enough. It made designs like the Core 2 Quad not very effective.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Yes, clearly I should talk to people at Hardforum instead of people who work at Intel. Don't really care if anyone believes me, and I've overclocked to 4 ghz myself. Just sayin, from people I've talked to at Intel, yields are not high, data corruption chances are higher. It's much more worthwhile to add cores than it is to go up to 4 ghz.

I didn't say anywhere ever it wasn't possible, I just said it's not commercially viable or something marketable to consumers.

The other thing I've repeatedly heard is that memory bandwidth is a bigger issue than chip speed these days. Intels had issues with their top end designs not being effective because the chips can't be feed fast enough. It made designs like the Core 2 Quad not very effective.

I have actually worked at Intel myself (worked in competitive chipset analysis in Folsom), and still know people that do.

The point about Hardforum is so you could see what people are hitting on their personal overclocks. Breaking 4ghz is a 15 second operation.

I am not even sure what the point is here, other than please do not spread false information.

 

[d-m-a-x]

Here's my 2 cents...

Yes, there will be a new Mac Pro. Why? Apple is spending valuable time and resources and Final Cut Pro X...after their bungled launch of the new app. It is the only Apple Pro app that has a 30 day free trial that I know of currently. Final Cut Pro X is a CPU hog. The more cores it has to use, the faster it'll render. iMacs can "run" Final Cut Pro X, but that's like saying a Honda Accord can race in the Indianapolis 500. It can, but...

So, why the long delay since the last release? Well, 4 thoughts come to mind.

The first is Blu Ray. We all in the video production world expected that Blu Ray burners would replace DVD burners in the new Mac Pros. Steve Jobs' description of Blu Ray licensing made it clear what happened with this version of the Mac Pro.

The second thought is Intel. While the Blu Ray licensing issue stalled an incremental release of a new Mac Pro, the delay also revealed that Intel didn't have a new CPU to make a compelling new Mac Pro for sale either. So another reason not releasing a mediocre incremental improvement Mac Pro. Side note - heat is one of the biggest reasons if not the biggest that has stalled/slowed down the GHz growth in CPU development.

The third thought is the argument that many of the old "Pros" of Final Cut Pro have against Final Cut Pro X - "Apple dumbed down the pro app to sell it to the masses..."

And the fourth thought is Thunderbolt...

While I don't know for sure what reasons Apple had for not releasing any incremental improvements to the Mac Pro, I do believe, that during this extended period of time without a new Mac Pro model, technology has grown beyond what the Mac Pros used to cater to meaning the Mac Pros were built for "power" users like programmers, researchers, 3D renderers, video production, audio production, etc.

However, each of these power users have very different uses for the Mac Pro and spend additional time and resources to customize the Mac Pro to meet their specific needs.

What Apple has learned from their success with the iPod, iPhone, iPad, iOS and their "failure" with Final Cut Pro X, is that the power user is a consumer, too, and expects innovation out-of-the-box from Apple.

Thunderbolt is that innovation.

Why is another cable/plug such an innovation?

Yes, it's bandwidth surpasses USB, Firewire and Sata II. Yes, Apple combined it's video cable and power cable with the data cable. OOOOooo, I can keep my USB keyboard plugged into my Apple Display and attach my MacBook Pro to it with just one cable now. My Apple Display is now my laptop dock and Apple has found another way to reduce cable clutter. Yay.

But, let's go back to Thunderbolt is faster than Sata II.

My internal hard drives are connected to the motherboard by Sata II. That's 6 Gb/s.

Thunderbolt is 10 Gb/s...and it's an external connector...a 3 meter cable connection.

For the first time in history, my external hard drive will operate on a faster connection (bus) than my internal hard drives.

The traditional PC case is designed around the concept that the hard drives have to be close to the motherboard due to cable length restrictions of PATA and SATA.

Now those restrictions are gone...

So, the Mac Pro is a big metal tower. Why? When you open the side panel, you see a big empty space. For what? Air flow and heat dissipation.

Heat is generated by the CPU, the video card GPUs, hard drives and power supply.

Now, Apple has successfully made a fanless computer called the iMac. And Apple is rumored to be making an Apple TV that's a display.

Ever wonder why Apple didn't add an option for an extra hard drive slot in the iMac? Space is one consideration, but the additional heat is probably the bigger factor since there are no fans in the iMac.

Ever wonder why Apple didn't put the faster CPUs into the smaller display iMacs? heat dissipation. There's more surface area on the 27" iMac to dissipate the additional heat of the faster CPU.

I wonder just how much less heat there will be if Apple were able to separate the hard drives and the power supply from iMac display and made them an external attachment connected by a single Thunderbolt cable.

I wonder, if by doing so, Apple would be able to put a faster CPU (XEON chip) and a faster video card into that display.

I wonder if Apple's rumored Apple TV with it's rumored screen sizes of 32" to 55" would help allow for a faster CPU and video card in fanless computer display.

I wonder if Apple instead of doing all this for an iMac would make the new Mac Pro a revolution in case design.

I know as a video editor, I would love to be able to edit on a 55" display and I would love to be able to attach my hard drive array(s) to it with just a single cable...that would daisy chain to my other 55" display(s) without having giant Mac Pros cluttering up my small studio. After all, I'm a video production studio, not a data center.

Apple has got a brilliant industrial designer named Jonathan Ive. And if I can think of something like this based on what I see publicly, what is he thinking...

Yup - I am very happy with my Mac Pro - 6 years and it is still a contender. Just bought an Ipad - it is frightening and limited. My MBP is on it's last legs because of heating issues, 4 years old. I really hope they do the right thing here

 

[James W Styles]

Yup - I am very happy with my Mac Pro - 6 years and it is still a contender. Just bought an Ipad - it is frightening and limited. My MBP is on it's last legs because of heating issues, 4 years old. I really hope they do the right thing here

I totally hear that!! .. My 20" imac core 2 duo (2006) just died last week. The G5 "Cypher" (2005) still going strong!!! However, need new MP and just can't bring myself to pay $3500 to start for something the current specs ain't making me drool.. If Apple drops a new MP or I do like the idea of a middle weight ($1500 low end-$4000 supped up) then I'll jump on it.

 

[xgman]

I will be so happy when we know something. At this point, either way will do. I just want this guessing to be over with and move on.

 

[ClassObject]

Here is someones W3690 Xeon at 6.5GHz!!! Of course probably not doing Word drafts at that clock.

Probably watching temps and fan speed at that rate. BFD. No way I'd put my work that I get paid for on that.

 

[goMac]

I have actually worked at Intel myself (worked in competitive chipset analysis in Folsom), and still know people that do.

The point about Hardforum is so you could see what people are hitting on their personal overclocks. Breaking 4ghz is a 15 second operation.

I am not even sure what the point is here, other than please do not spread false information.

Right, so how about you explain why Intel hasn't crossed 4 ghz then if it's so easy?

 

[theSeb]

This is incorrect. Breaking 4ghz is easy and reliable. Don't spread false info. Go read some entries at Hardforum.

Adding more cores DOES NOT just universally increase performance, go look at 3930k vs 3770k benchmarks.

Where do you pull all this stuff from?

What would that comparison prove? The 3930 is Sandy Bridge E. The 3770 is Ivy Bridge so it's not just a 3930 with two less cores. Regardless, the 3930 is faster in all of the benchmarks that matter to me.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/552?vs=551

 

[xgman]

Right, so how about you explain why Intel hasn't crossed 4 ghz then if it's so easy?

Because they don't need to . . . . yet.

 

[vohdoun]

Because they don't need to . . . . yet.

I thought it was the obsession with green peace, eco friendly and all that. Power consumption and adequate cooling. PC gamers don't care about that hence they have 5Ghz SandyBridge etc and most seem to be on watercooling loops. Probably something Apple doesn't want to know about again?

I also thought all the buzz nowadays is keeping wattage down, as well as temperatures while still having fast processors. Plus between all that didn't the Ghz race die by the mid 00's? hence now we can't get enough cores while saving wattage and temperatures.

 

[xgman]

I thought it was the obsession with green peace, eco friendly and all that. Power consumption and adequate cooling. PC gamers don't care about that hence they have 5Ghz SandyBridge etc and most seem to be on watercooling loops. Probably something Apple doesn't want to know about again?

I also thought all the buzz nowadays is keeping wattage down, as well as temperatures while still having fast processors. Plus between all that didn't the Ghz race die by the mid 00's? hence now we can't get enough cores while saving wattage and temperatures.

I don't know what it is but I kind of get the feeling we are sort of performance stalled. It's 2012 and we are still booting up and fast sizable SSD drives cost a fortune and Apple seems to be moving at a snails pace. I just thought we would be further along by now.

 

[dbit]

Interesting quote from Jonathan Ive's knighting today:

"And what preoccupies us is that sense of care, and what our products will not speak to is a schedule, what our products will not speak to is trying to respond to some corporate or competitive agenda. We’re very genuinely designing the best products that we can for people.”

Frustrating though!

 

[handygeek]

Day # 666

Would've been a pretty funny day to announce a new Mac Pro today.

 

[GermanyChris]

Yes, clearly I should talk to people at Hardforum instead of people who work at Intel. Don't really care if anyone believes me, and I've overclocked to 4 ghz myself. Just sayin, from people I've talked to at Intel, yields are not high, data corruption chances are higher. It's much more worthwhile to add cores than it is to go up to 4 ghz.

I didn't say anywhere ever it wasn't possible, I just said it's not commercially viable or something marketable to consumers.

The other thing I've repeatedly heard is that memory bandwidth is a bigger issue than chip speed these days. Intels had issues with their top end designs not being effective because the chips can't be feed fast enough. It made designs like the Core 2 Quad not very effective.

Nope not dependable at all and well running too hot TDP is what 90?

Down from 5ghz at 80 deg, and 4.8 in the mid 70's because 10.7.4 played with p states.

 

[Dustman]

----------

[/COLOR]

I know this is a joke, but Windows performs better than OSX on the same hardware.

XP and Win 7? With Aero toned down, Yes. However have you ever done file copying with a Vista machine? It chokes. I don't have an issue with it's general performance, but if you're going to copy a file from one machine to another, or even from the same HD to the same HD, you better go brew yourself a pot of coffee.

 

[xgman]

Well at least they are trying to keep this in the news. Getting kind of pathetic sounding though. Well they are over 3000 now on facebook. Still probably meaningless to Apple, but I have to think that Apple at least has wind of the discontent. Would it really be so hard for Apple to just say something like "hold on folks, it's coming"? Then again, maybe it's not.

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2012/05/24/mac-pro-users-launched-online-petition-to-pressure-apple

 

[dbit]

Apple is completely aware that people are pissed and hampering for a new Mac Pro, they just don't care about telling us anything. They do things their way, always have. It's one of the reasons why I won't be totally upset to leave them at this point. Over the past ten years I've had several rounds of this waiting and stressing. I think I'm too old for it at this point.

I just wish major application developers would start supporting linux or something. We have another freaking two party system here with windows and apple (linux being the libertarians with a small support base) and it just clogs up the works.