2016 nMP

[AidenShaw]

Unlikely, further the nMP wants an imminent update to Broadwell-EP/AMD Polaris 10/Fiji, later next year a full move to AMD ZEN is the next steps. Also the Mac mini should receive again quad core cpu on all its line. While Apple didn't choose the most stellar performance line actually products are delayed or constrain due Intel schedule and delays.

Can I have a toke from your joint? That's some powerful weed that you're smoking.

Haswell-EP and T-Bolt 3 have been out for a *long* time, and Nvidia has brought out a full range of Maxwell GPUs at various power points. (Haswell-EP was released a year and a half ago!)

You can't blame Apple's lack of interest in the MP on "Intel's delays". Apple just doesn't care.

I liked the comment earlier that "people didn't realize that when Apple said the nMP was the architecture for the next 10 years, what they meant was that it wouldn't be updated for 10 years".

 

[Melodist]

Unlikely, further the nMP wants an imminent update to Broadwell-EP/AMD Polaris 10/Fiji, later next year a full move to AMD ZEN is the next steps. Also, the Mac mini should receive again quad core CPU on all its line. While Apple didn't choose the most stellar performance line actually products are delayed or constrain due Intel schedule and delays.

Well if they had wanted to push the current model forward, they would've cut the price half by now. I understand why they would hold out for future tech upgrades, but the nMP was already outdated when it came out on the hardware side. Having kept it at that price for so long relates to a lack of interest and reluctance towards the model's customer base.

It looks like they've given up on the Mac Pro and keep the same old model for the same price on the Apple Store for as long as there are still machines to be sold while thinking about a model that sits between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro; something that's more attractive to the average consumer and doesn't cost as much = better market, more potential customers and easier to upgrade on a yearly basis.

 

[AidenShaw]

Well if they had wanted to push the current model forward, they would've cut the price half by now. I understand why they would hold out for future tech upgrades, but the nMP was already outdated when it came out on the hardware side. Having kept it at that price for so long relates to a lack of interest and reluctance towards the model's customer base.

It looks like they've given up on the Mac Pro and keep the same old model for the same price on the Apple Store for as long as there are still machines to be sold people still buy them.

Fixed it for you.

Apple will stop building them when sales drop from slow to almost nothing.

 

[Melodist]

Fixed it for you.

Apple will stop building them when sales drop from slow to almost nothing.

Whoever dares to buy a Mac Pro right now should be seriously ashamed themselves. Though this is either a case of financial abundance or outright lunacy, hardcore fans cultivate both fields. I understand that we should all exercise neighbourly love and charity more often, but the Apple community has taken this a little too far. Sometimes, I feel like a lot of alleged "Pros" around here turn Apple's lackluster attention towards the Mac Pro into an unsubstantiated mud fight about who loves the brand more, regardless of what they do. It's almost like a game: try to defend the respective brand as hard as you can.

 

[AidenShaw]

Whoever dares to buy a Mac Pro right now should be seriously ashamed themselves. Though this is either a case of financial abundance or outright lunacy, hardcore fans cultivate both fields.

I resisted the temptation to use a word other than "people" in "people still buy them"....

 

[Melodist]

I resisted the temptation to use a word other than "people" in "people still buy them"....

Though my firm intention is not to offend anyone at ALL; I've bluntly targeted a specific group only unless some count themselves under my expressively dubious distinction; I'm entitled to my own opinion and chief concern about this specific model.

I did swing out a couple of months back and found myself lucky to calm down again, but there is only so much disappointment one can take.

It's not like Apple is Da Vinci who'd be happy enough to sell a painting once a year and ideally doesn't care what people would think of him.

Contemplating a model between the Mini and Pro would appear most plausible / working on something entirely new for Apple's Pro Market niche.

 

[AidenShaw]

Contemplating a model between the Mini and Pro would appear most plausible / working on something entirely new for Apple's Pro Market niche.

I would consider the MP6,1 to be that "model between the Mini and Pro".

Apple should keep the MP6,1 'Mini Pro' (although an upgrade is about 2 years overdue), and bring back a real dual socket Pro workstation. It could be much smaller than the enormous MP5,1 - yet still have a couple of PCIe 3.0 x16 slots for GPUs and slots for 4 or more PCIe NVMe blades. OK to move "infinite" storage expansion out to T-Bolt 3 expansion - but 64 GiB RAM and 1TB disk max is ludicrous for a pro machine.

And give it a power supply and cooling so that the answer to every question about "can they add 'X'" isn't "there's no power or cooling budget in the MP6,1 for that". (Also note that a dual socket system would have 80 PCIe 3.0 lanes, so all of the "no PCIe lanes for that" answers would disappear.)

And stop forcing dual GPUs (especially desktop Radeon GPUs rebranded as workstation FirePro GPUs) on everyone - let the buyer decide if her workflow benefits from dual GPUs, and whether they should be Nvidia or ATI GPUs.

ps: A charge for eight more Titan-X GPUs posted to my AmEx today - so you can guess my stand on Nvidia vs. ATI.

 

[Mago]

Can I have a toke from your joint? That's some powerful weed that you're smoking.

Haswell-EP and T-Bolt 3 have been out for a *long* time, and Nvidia has brought out a full range of Maxwell GPUs at various power points. (Haswell-EP was released a year and a half ago!)

You can't blame Apple's lack of interest in the MP on "Intel's delays". Apple just doesn't care.

I liked the comment earlier that "people didn't realize that when Apple said the nMP was the architecture for the next 10 years, what they meant was that it wouldn't be updated for 10 years".

Apple is engaged to AMD gpus, discard nvidia, past year there wasnt new GPU good enough (also with TDP to fit the nMP), also IPC gains from Xeon E5v2 (nMP) to Haswell-EP where Dismal, also TB3 wasn't complete since intel decided to wait until USB-C to adopt a definitive interface for TB3.

Finally Intel Delayed Broadwel-EP at least 6mo from schedeule.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple is engaged to AMD gpus, discard nvidia, past year there wasnt new GPU good enough (also with TDP to fit the nMP), also IPC gains from Xeon E5v2 (nMP) to Haswell-EP where Dismal, also TB3 wasn't complete since intel decided to wait until USB-C to adopt a definitive interface for TB3.

Finally Intel Delayed Broadwel-EP at least 6mo from schedeule.

You really aren't in touch with reality, are you?

> Apple is engaged to AMD gpus

If so, Apple is simply stupid and ignoring the needs of their customers over some petty pride issues. Nvidia is killing ATI in the wider market, and Maxwell kills ATI in the performance per watt category. (Maybe ATI will be on top for a short while until Pascal-based GPUs ship.)

ATI is on shaky financial foundations, Apple should keep its options open.

> IPC gains from Xeon E5v2 (nMP) to Haswell-EP where Dismal

But, you choose to ignore the fact that Haswell-EP has 50% more cores than E5v2. Surely a minor IPC improvement is good, but 50% more cores is useful.

You also ignore the instruction set improvements in Haswell, like AVX 2.0. Code recompiled to use the new instructions gets more than a "dismal" improvement. (Apple was more than happy to compare non-Altivec apps on the G3 to Altivec apps on the G4 - so Apple has taken the position that not adopting to processor improvements is an application deficit.)

> TB3 wasn't complete since intel decided to wait until USB-C to adopt a definitive interface for TB3

How is this relevant? T-Bolt 3 is available today, and shipping from non-Apple vendors. Why is Apple missing from the list of T-Bolt 3 vendors? T-Bolt is not a CPU feature.

> Finally Intel Delayed Broadwel-EP at least 6mo from schedeule.

Completely irrelevant since the question is "why isn't Apple shipping systems with Haswell-EP" which has been shipping for 1 1/2 years.

Apple simply doesn't care about the Mac Pro, that's the only reasonable conclusion.
[doublepost=1459131021][/doublepost]

Also the Mac mini should receive again quad core cpu on all its line.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

The quad mini was dropped because it was as fast (for a significant number of applications) as the quad MP6,1, for a small fraction of the price. A new, much faster nnMP needs to be announced before Apple makes a quad Mini again.

A friend hit a number of Apple stores here in Silicon Valley to buy six of the quad minis as soon as the dual "upgrade" was announced.

 

[Mago]

You really aren't in touch with reality, are you?

> Apple is engaged to AMD gpus

If so, Apple is simply stupid and ignoring the needs of their customers over some petty pride issues. Nvidia is killing ATI in the wider market, and Maxwell kills ATI in the performance per watt category. (Maybe ATI will be on top for a short while until Pascal-based GPUs ship.)

Apple is a Business, the engagement with AMD was on with the nMP redesign, GPU battle is never over, this year AMD will lead few mothns then nVidia, next year AMD agan, and so on..

> IPC gains from Xeon E5v2 (nMP) to Haswell-EP where Dismal

But, you choose to ignore the fact that Haswell-EP has 50% more cores than E5v2. Surely a minor IPC improvement is good, but 50% more cores is useful.

You also ignore the instruction set improvements in Haswell, like AVX 2.0. Code recompiled to use the new instructions gets more than a "dismal" improvement. (Apple was more than happy to compare non-Altivec apps on the G3 to Altivec apps on the G4 - so Apple takes the position that not adopting to processor improvements is an application deficit.)

1st no app (if any or just few) in osx really needs more than 12c/24t and really had some gains, in fact Apple offered only 12cores as top configuration while having 16cores available at that time, Apple/OSX isnt selling what you dont need, same on AVX 2, Xcode dont compile optimized code by defult (a for Xcode 5.0 you gent llvm-gcc installed by yourself ), 2nd the single thread execution is slower on e5v3 this worth a lot for some apps, too many Pro apps will not speed up just adding cores to the system, many Lightroom OPs has 6 logical thread as limit.

> TB3 wasn't complete since intel decided to wait until USB-C to adopt a definitive interface for TB3

How is this relevant? T-Bolt 3 is available today, and shipping from non-Apple vendors. Why is Apple missing from the list of T-Bolt 3 vendors? T-Bolt is not a CPU feature.

i don't understand your fallacy here (as most your answer you follows the fallacy handbook), 1st you admit TB3 is complete just now (just later December started to ship (on a lenovo laptop), so impossible for apple add it to a nMP on E5v3 9 month earlier as you claim, and is pointless to start selling a nMP on December just because they have TB3 and e5v3 when e5v4 adn new gpu with significative processing gains are at few months to launch)
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

> Finally Intel Delayed Broadwel-EP at least 6mo from schedeule.

Completely irrelevant since the question is "why isn't Apple shipping systems with Haswell-EP" which has been shipping for 1 1/2 years.

another Fallacy as answer, i stated Apple didnt upgrade to Haswell-EP since obliviously (and for good) they skipped it, then intel's trap delayed further the nMP as the BroadwelEP delayed from schedule by long shot.

AND FINALLY WHAT'S THE HELL THESE FALLACIES HAS TO DO WITH APPLE WILLING TO UPGRADE OR NOT THE NMP TO BROADWELL-EP/Polaris-Fiji/TB3 ?
[doublepost=1459132476][/doublepost]

Well if they had wanted to push the current model forward, they would've cut the price half by now.

Historically Apple only cuts prices when they have a new product available to replace the older (except when its an disaster as the Watch).

 

[goMac]

If so, Apple is simply stupid and ignoring the needs of their customers over some petty pride issues. Nvidia is killing ATI in the wider market, and Maxwell kills ATI in the performance per watt category. (Maybe ATI will be on top for a short while until Pascal-based GPUs ship.)

Uhhhh really needs citation. If you're looking at DX12, that flips. And if you're looking at the raw gigaflops/watt number, they're pretty close.

Everything points to software being the issue, not hardware. When you use low overhead APIs, AMD pulls ahead. And Apple is fully investing in low overhead APIs right now. Why bundle hardware that sucks with Metal?

 

[Derpage]

Apple is a Business, the engagement with AMD was on with the nMP redesign, GPU battle is never over, this year AMD will lead few mothns then nVidia, next year AMD agan, and so on..


1st no app (if any or just few) in osx really needs more than 12c/24t and really had some gains, in fact Apple offered only 12cores as top configuration while having 16cores available at that time, Apple/OSX isnt selling what you dont need, same on AVX 2, Xcode dont compile optimized code by defult (a for Xcode 5.0 you gent llvm-gcc installed by yourself ), 2nd the single thread execution is slower on e5v3 this worth a lot for some apps, too many Pro apps will not speed up just adding cores to the system, many Lightroom OPs has 6 logical thread as limit.



i don't understand your fallacy here (as most your answer you follows the fallacy handbook), 1st you admit TB3 is complete just now (just later December started to ship (on a lenovo laptop), so impossible for apple add it to a nMP on E5v3 9 month earlier as you claim, and is pointless to start selling a nMP on December just because they have TB3 and e5v3 when e5v4 adn new gpu with significative processing gains are at few months to launch)
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/


another Fallacy as answer, i stated Apple didnt upgrade to Haswell-EP since obliviously (and for good) they skipped it, then intel's trap delayed further the nMP as the BroadwelEP delayed from schedule by long shot.

AND FINALLY WHAT'S THE HELL THESE FALLACIES HAS TO DO WITH APPLE WILLING TO UPGRADE OR NOT THE NMP TO BROADWELL-EP/Polaris-Fiji/TB3 ?
[doublepost=1459132476][/doublepost]

Historically Apple only cuts prices when they have a new product available to replace the older (except when its an disaster as the Watch).

Basic debate structure dictates that you need to counter fallacious discourse with some sort of counter-points. Hitting the whammy button and crying fallacy is just silly. Presenting fallacious fallacies as a form of rebuttal is a fallacy in it's self. Sure the guy wrote it on a whim, probably while organizing his HUGE collection of adult films, but being sloppy does not equate to contributing fallacies to a conversation. I'm sure you both have something to say, but trying to deconstruct arguments ad infinitum without meaningful discourse doesn't do much for the conversation.

 

[ManuelGomes]

I know WCCFtech is not dear to many but still...

http://wccftech.com/amd-vega-10-gpu-4096-stream-processors/

 

[Zarniwoop]

You really aren't in touch with reality, are you?

You must be new here (in this thread)? During these debates here - at least on three threads, (two were closed thanks to an uncivilized manners of some) these things you mentioned have been looked over many times:

• Haswell EP = 7% increase on performance AND heat generation. Both went up same 7%. For nMP, no benefit. Zero. Thanks to the design with a 450w PSU and one thermal dispatch solution. I am sure Apple knew Intel's roadmap very well and was going to skip Haswell-EP... but Intel failed to deliver Broadwell-EP.
• AMD failed and canceled 20nm. So yet again, for GPGPU markets, AMD has brought NOTHING since 2013 that could fit to nMP. Fiji had just 4GB of memory, and nMP could house only one with its limitations.
• Nvidia was sacked for what ever reason; Apple didn't like Cuda, Nvidia showed Apple middle finger in court room, Nvidia's GPGPU didn't match with Apple's requirements or AMD and Apple are cooking together a product that we're going to see in near future and in their contract agreement Apple gets AMD parts with a good price.. on some other forums there were rumors that bridges were burnt between Apple and Nvidia... but I don't believe that post-Steve Apple is run by emotions. There were cold business facts not to use Nvidia. And we can only guess what.

Apple put its money on nMP design because AMD's and Intel's roadmaps looked good. Both failed, and nMP update is late. Apple is waiting for Polaris and Broadwell-EP for next update.

I didn't like it either, that Apple went to proprietary GPU cards with nMP. They really don't want people to change these cards... is this part of the presumed war against Cuda?

WWDC 2016 would be the most logical place to introduce nMP v2, because I think it is the only Pro happening these days in Apple world. Everything else is about consumption devices. AMD's and Intel's current roadmaps support my theory of nMP v2 to be released in WWDC.

 

[Mago]

... but I don't believe that post-Steve Apple is run by emotions. There were cold business facts not to use Nvidia. And we can only guess what.

I only disagree on this statement, while most Apple actions seem ruled but commercial logic, there are thousands cases where simple they expose being ruled by employees comfort instead to deliver the best possible hardware, evidence is on many products semi abandoned as the Mac mini server (while new rumours post at Apple reactivation of its server R&D mostly due internal requirements at least), what about the Thunderbolt Display and the airport extreme timecapsule?

 

[AidenShaw]

• Haswell EP = 7% increase on performance AND heat generation. Both went up same 7%. For nMP, no benefit. Zero.

Yes, the 18 core v3 has a TDP 11% more than the 12 core v2.

The 2.3 GHz 16 core v3 uses 4% more than the 12 core v2, and the 2.3 GHz 14 core v3 uses 7% *less* than the 12 core v2.

More cores != no benefit.

ps: don't forget support for 256 GiB of DDR4 RAM....

• Thanks to the design with a 450w PSU and one thermal dispatch solution.

One would have to question a design that is so inflexible that it does not have 5 watts of headroom.

1st no app (if any or just few) in osx really needs more than 12c/24t and really had some gains, in fact Apple offered only 12cores as top configuration while having 16cores available at that time.

There were no 16 core processors available in the E5-x6xx v2 series - twelve is the maximum.

If you have a workflow that does not need a lot of cores, then buy a CPU with fewer cores and higher GHz. That's not an argument for Apple not to offer the high core count CPUs for those who want them.

 

[Mago]

One would have to question a design that is so inflexible that it does not have 5 watts of headroom.



There were no 16 core processors available in the E5-x6xx v2 series - twelve is the maximum..

Ok I give up on max core count on E5v2 I miss that.

But on nMP max TDP (a theme on which I'm more familiar since friends running long process on the nMP have found its weakness in this regard).

I've see 1000w psu for 1U rack mount chasis smaller than the nMP psu, also given the relative low speed in the nMPs fan increasing airflow for a higher TDP isn't rocket science also assuming the thermal core can't cool down quick enough, isnt rocket science switching an aluminum heat sink for another on copper, so the nMP form factor isn't a restriction.

So Apple could quickly upscale the nMP TDP from 400W to 750W w/o meaning modifications, just an beefier psu an faster fan and maybe an copper based thermal core.

 

[Zarniwoop]

One would have to question a design that is so inflexible that it does not have 5 watts of headroom.

It is not just a matter of 5W increase in TDP, but in general desktop Haswell runs hotter. In average use, it generates more heat than the 5W figure will tell. Perf/watt is even, or sometimes worse than Ivy Bridge's.

http://www.alphr.com/news/382267/intel-haswell-hotter-and-slower-than-expected
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2013/06/06/haswell-heat/

Quote from the latter link: "Another manufacturer claims that retail Haswell parts are proving too hot to handle, stating that even while running at stock speeds the chips reach higher temperatures than the pre-production engineering samples - by around 15 degrees Celsius, according to the unnamed company's tests - or even the retail models of Intel's last-generation Ivy Bridge chips."

UPDATE: I think this is one of the reason why first gen 5k iMac was running hotter than second, although Skylake's TDP is higher..

Top E5-1600 v3 is an 8-core processor. TDP 140W. That's 10W above the Ivy Bridges 130W. For more cores there is the 2600 series. But because Apple didn't see a point to update the basic 4 to 8 cores models, they didn't bother to update the high-end just for those few hundred customers who could afford to buy them.

 

[lowendlinux]

It is not just a matter of 5W increase in TDP, but in general desktop Haswell runs hotter. In average use, it generates more heat than the 5W figure will tell. Perf/watt is even, or sometimes worse than Ivy Bridge's.

http://www.alphr.com/news/382267/intel-haswell-hotter-and-slower-than-expected
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2013/06/06/haswell-heat/

Quote from latter link: "Another manufacturer claims that retail Haswell parts are proving too hot to handle, stating that even while running at stock speeds the chips reach higher temperatures than the pre-production engineering samples - by around 15 degrees Celsius, according to the unnamed company's tests - or even the retail models of Intel's last-generation Ivy Bridge chips."

And the top E5-1600 v3 is a 10-core processor. TDP 160W. That's 30W above the Ivy Bridges 130W.

That was mainly due to the TIM but I think* Xeons were/are still soldered.

*google gave me no answers

 

[AidenShaw]

It is not just a matter of 5W increase in TDP, but in general desktop Haswell runs hotter. In average use, it generates more heat than the 5W figure will tell. Perf/watt is even, or sometimes worse than Ivy Bridge's.

http://www.alphr.com/news/382267/intel-haswell-hotter-and-slower-than-expected
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2013/06/06/haswell-heat/

Those stories are for desktop Core I-Series CPUs from June 2013 - almost three years ago....

 

[Zarniwoop]

Those stories are for desktop Core I-Series CPUs from June 2013 - almost three years ago....

Are we talking about Intel Haswell or are we not? Same architecture, Xeon stamp wont change it.

 

[AidenShaw]

Are we talking about Intel Haswell or are we not? Same architecture, Xeon stamp wont change it.

But a year and a half of process improvements can make a big difference....

 

[wallysb01]

It is not just a matter of 5W increase in TDP, but in general desktop Haswell runs hotter. In average use, it generates more heat than the 5W figure will tell. Perf/watt is even, or sometimes worse than Ivy Bridge's.

http://www.alphr.com/news/382267/intel-haswell-hotter-and-slower-than-expected
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2013/06/06/haswell-heat/

Quote from the latter link: "Another manufacturer claims that retail Haswell parts are proving too hot to handle, stating that even while running at stock speeds the chips reach higher temperatures than the pre-production engineering samples - by around 15 degrees Celsius, according to the unnamed company's tests - or even the retail models of Intel's last-generation Ivy Bridge chips."

Right, but to completely pass the blame to intel is silly. Generally, desktop and workstation components are not so sensitive to small marginal increases in wattage. Certainly some of the fault here is on Apple for making a workstation with such specific heat constraints, right?

Top E5-1600 v3 is an 8-core processor. TDP 140W. That's 10W above the Ivy Bridges 130W. For more cores there is the 2600 series. But because Apple didn't see a point to update the basic 4 to 8 cores models, they didn't bother to update the high-end just for those few hundred customers who could afford to buy them.

Which is all very understandable. If you have to down clock the CPU so much that you give up on the performance gains over Ivy Bridge just to get Haswell into the Mac Pro, then why bother? But then again, from Apple's design perspective why open yourself up to this possibility? What is the fundamental size constraint this redesigned mac pro was working with that required having zero flexibility for future CPU/GPUs?

 

[Melodist]

For 1.7 grand, I can get an HP Workstation with 2 X 8C XEON E5-2670 (2 x 8 cores) with 32 GB of RAM. And yet, people still buy the current nMP from the Apple Store, what a blessing...

 

[Stacc]

For 1.7 grand, I can get an HP Workstation with 2 X 8C XEON E5-2670 (2 x 8 cores) with 32 GB of RAM. And yet, people still buy the current nMP from the Apple Store, what a blessing...

This can't be true or at least can't be a modern HP workstation. The Intel Xeon 2670v3 is a 12 core processor that retails for $1600 each. If you want to bash apple on price at least quote real prices.