I always thought the 2012 MP was supposed to be the answer for that but they gave up and made it a spec bump at the last minute.
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.
Any rumors for Mac Pro 2019 so far?
- Thread starter high heaven
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yeah that was plenty of time if they were actually working on it.
More likely they really weren't working on it much alt all in 2010-2011. Several aspects of the MP6,1 (MP 2013) were oriented around Thunderbolt 2. TB v2 was on track to ship in volume in 2014 so it is extremely unlikely that they were trying to create a MP6,1 in 2012. The TBv2 tech wasn't going to come until 1-2 years later. ( perhaps there was some rosey eyed Intel roadmap that had a shorter time frame that Apple hitched their wagon too. )
The high dependency on TBv2 was one of contributing factors of why it slid all the way to the end of 2013 for launch. Intel hadn't even ramped on TBv2 controllers and just filling the October MacBook Pros was probably most of the available supply.
The other issue about the 2012 model is that Apple did zero updates to the video cards. The exact same video cards shipped in 2010 were still the only configuration options in 2012 and all the way through end of 2013. Two 3rd party cards showed up in later in 2012, but if I recall correctly Apple never added them to the BTO options. ( They were in the Apple Store online, but Apple never committed to volume buying those).
If there was some mysterious 2012 model that was late at the very least Apple could have pulled the video card from that and turned it into something for the 2012. 2012 was primarily a stop gap. Largely a demo that they had not completely abandoned the Mac Pro space but pragmatically probably had and simply changed their minds. Apple put the tag "new" on the 2012 and some folks filed a FTC complaint and made Apple take it off the that 2012 model. ( because in a large extent is wasn't 'new'. tweaked firmware and some 'less old' stuff placed in the CPU sockets in most of the models. That was about it.).
2012 is much like the stop gap Apple has done with the 2010-2012 Mojave kludge they have put together. They had nothing suitable just keep the planes circling the airport and hope they wait.
I think the lack of any GPU upgrade at that point was more indicative there wan't anything substantive in flight in 2011 at all. I think they simply just completely ignored that EU deadline; at least for the Mac Pro product.
So there was probably nothing solid there. Maybe the were mucking around with some early prototype mules but it doesn't look like they were doing anything around the other aspects that they would have needed to working on if they were serious.
Another issue that perhaps stopped Apple if they had decided to shift down to single CPU offering is that they wouldn't have been able to transition from 12 core to 12 core at the "top end" with Xeon E5 v1. v2 and TBv2 were a close to sliding into 2014 kind of timeline. [ At one point Intel had Xeon E5 v1 coming in 2011 ... it slid to mid 2012. which in turn slid v2 out to end of 2013. if v2 would have come in end of 2012 then perhaps Apple would have 'reboot' Mac Pro work earlier, but I think other more brightly burning fires in the Mac space got resources reassigned to those and the Mac Pro stalled out for much, if not all of 2011. ]
[doublepost=1546068811][/doublepost]
The Mac Pro 2012 had the same basic case design as the Mac Pro 2009 which was probably designed in 2008 (the same year the rule was made ). There was a rumor in early 2012 from supposely from deep sources at Intel that Apple hadn't even touched the E5 v1 samples at all for macOS porting. If those were true there wasn't some shadow system coming that got aborted. Again if there was what happened to its GPU/video cards? Why did they disappear too?
The 2017 adjustments to the Mac Pro 2013 model (sliding the 4 core out of the rotation and moving 6 and 8 core down in price ) was very similar to the Mac Pro 2012 move. In both cases that is more "well we don't have anything move" . late 2018 and Apple ain't got jack. Late 2012 didn't have jack either.
Last edited:
And, the Mac Pro 2009 was a tweak over the Mac Pro 2008, aka MP3,1—which was the same chasis as the MP2,1 and MP1,1, released in 2006.
So…
- cMP1,1 (2006) – cMP3,1(2008), similar chasis/internal design
- cMP4,1(2009) – cMP5,1 (2010) / cMP5,1 (2012), similar chasis/internal design
- 2006 – 2012 Intel Mac Pro basically used the same chasis with slight tweaks.
- 2003 – 2005 Power Mac G5 – This chasis is even the same here^^^^
- 2003 – 2012 is basically the lifespan of the cheesegrate tower….
What we can deduce from this is that Apple doesn’t willy-nilly change the cases of its product.
We can even argue that the Macbook and MBP line doesn’t change much as well, except minor tweaks and minor shrinkage over the years.
So, whatever the 2019 Mac Pro will look like will be what the 2030 mac Pro will look like, if history is of any indication.
With that said, I think, the 2019 Mac Pro will not grow significantly in size from the 2013 nMP. Meaning, I don’t think it will be like a “tower.”
I think Apple will invent a new "connector" that literally connects TWO Mac Pro's together and gains 2x the performance right out of the box. So, 2x CPU and 2x GPU and 2x RAM and 2x Storage, etc.
I thought that the modular part would be a box with PCIe slots and that it will connect to the main Mac Pro via this proprietory connector that lets it have the same bandwidth as if it had internal PCIe slots.
But, that is not tech or innovative or cool enough, I think. I think connecting two Mac Pro's together to make it 2xMP's would be cooler and it's always been what computers were suppose to be, which is modularity/expandibility. But, never really took off beyond putting multiple GPU's in a box, either in SLI/Crossfire or for data mining or CG Effects whatever.
What is cooler is if there's a way for two distinct computers to just melt into one. I think this is what I would expect the modular part of the mMP would mean.
Not your typical pre-2018 modular notion and/or slots idea.
Thank you!
Completely disagree - they took the courageous step of changing the color.
I would really love for it to keep the same exact form factor if possible. It is ingenius (if working right).
If it does need to be modified from a circle, then a sqircle (a rounded off square, like the shape of an app icon) would be interesting.... Like a taller mac mini
If it does need to be modified from a circle, then a sqircle (a rounded off square, like the shape of an app icon) would be interesting.... Like a taller mac mini
Yeh, a mac mini cube. Adding another cube on top to make a tall cube would be the modular part.
The top of the cube could expose this connector that when two Mac Mini Pro cubes are connected will harvest 2xCPU, 2xGPU, etc. Possible 3 x Mac Mini Pro cubes or 4 x can be stacked on top of each other.
There could be a solution in which multiple mac pro mini cubes are in one room can be stacked 5x high in one corner and can be used individually or combined as 5 x mac mini pro cubes with the 5xcpu's and 5xgpu's for heavy duty tasks.
The T3 chip along with this proprietory connector and software makes this possible.
So, it could be useful in an institution where in the day, 5x mac pro mini cubes are used as 5 individual macs and then at night, can be combined into one mac with 5xcpus, 5xgpu's, 5xRAM, etc for night time super computing needs.
Not sure if it's possible to have 5xCPU's in today's tech. But, 5x and beyond number of GPU's aren't uncommon.
PS--Yeah, yeah, this scenario is very logical but somehow not realistic. Thats not how it works.
PSS--Computers have always been modular even Macs that aren't.
PSSS--In essence, or inherit of what a computer is, is modularity.
PSSSS--So, Computers are modular in the hardware level. But, what's not modular and what has dogged computers is the unmodularity of software.
PSSSSS--Software is the modular-resistent....
Last edited:
The cube has already been made and rejected. It came out in 2000 and lasted 6 months.
Both the Cube and the Cylinder shaped 2013 Mac Pro prove that 'boxes that attach to boxes' are not the solution that most people want, so if apple go that route again it'll meet the same fate.
If the upcoming 'modular' Mac Pro is a re-invention of the 2013 model with some kind of bespoke external expansion then it has already failed.
A reinvention and modernising of the classic Mac Pro would meet far more users requirements and if Apple have chosen this path then they are already half way to satisfying many of their users.
If they haven't....well they've only themselves to blame for what happens next!
Both the Cube and the Cylinder shaped 2013 Mac Pro prove that 'boxes that attach to boxes' are not the solution that most people want, so if apple go that route again it'll meet the same fate.
If the upcoming 'modular' Mac Pro is a re-invention of the 2013 model with some kind of bespoke external expansion then it has already failed.
A reinvention and modernising of the classic Mac Pro would meet far more users requirements and if Apple have chosen this path then they are already half way to satisfying many of their users.
If they haven't....well they've only themselves to blame for what happens next!
What product does Apple develop not secretly? That isn't in the "guess" category.
The big difference between the Mac Pro and a couple of other products is twofold.
1. There aren't 1,000's of contractors involved in the product production development ramp. 2 people can keep a secret far more easily than 200 and those far more easily than 2,000 . The Mac Pro doesn't need hundreds or thousands of contractors.
Apple is also serious about non disclosure agreements so if there are only 10 folks with all the details there is a relatively small set of folks to do a investigation on. If there are 2,000 folks then a few will get bolder that they just won't get caught (or simply don't want to work as an Apple partner anymore. )
2. The Mac Pro makes no significant impact on Apple's overall financials. So folks paid (and who sometimes 'pay' informants) to ferret out info about Apple's future products in order to gain an edge in tracking the stock (and other companies condition ) into the future care enough to extract that info. Since there is no upside in finding out there is exceedingly little pay off in chasing that info.
3. For the tech porn media and rumor sites a huge vacuum on Mac Pro info actually probably "pays" more in click bait potential than real solid info.
case in point. The reference Apple made in terms of modular was coupled to a reference to them doing a monitor that could be paired with the Mac Pro. That is two subsystems that each plug in and are connected. Where as a high fraction of discussions on forums like these invariably use "modularity" to springboard into a discussion of internal component parts of the Mac Pro. The springboards into a cornucopia of tangents generate way clocks and ad views than "Super news flash! Hey the next Mac Pro is going to use monitor(s) you plug in just last all the previous ones going back to the ancestor Mac II in the 80s. " )
Apple has not talked at all in specifics about the next Mac Pro.
In sometimes in the past some info has leaked out through the beta macOS builds. But at this point a new Intel W ( also in a iMac Pro) or a new GPU card ( could be next eGPU enablement ) means there are fewer 100% unique to the Mac Pro product that can show up and be definitive. The side effect is the Mac Pro now has an even bigger cloak that most other Apple products.
If nothing surfaces sooner, then April 2019 is highly likely to be the next breadcrumb that Apple dribbles out.
Well, one can allude and argue that the 2013 nMP was an ode to the 2000 G4 Cube. This is Apple's obligation to computer is to not just make a computer like HP, or Dell, but to make a creative product that transcends computing without making 90% style, 10% substance like the G4 Cube. But, make it 100% Substance, 100% style like 2013 nMP.
The shape of the nMP is the substrate (substance) in which the rest of the components are built upon. Apple even references this by calling the center of it, "The Thermal Core." As, if an ode to the actual fruit.
This is why the 2013 nMP is the sliding of the scale of style and substance to the full 100% at both ends.
But, going forward, it is hard to see Apple doing another cylinder.
With that said, there are so many creative ways to make a computer "box." And the idea of internal/external PCIe slots for "expansion."
A "box" or "cube" is easier than a "cylinder."
I also don't buy into the whole "boxes that attach to boxes" as something to outrightly disqualify since the only thing inferior that a 'box' that attaches to another 'box' that we know of is the bandwidth limitation of thunderbolt 3.
But, what if there was a way to connect one "box" into another "box" without using thunderbolt, thereby, not limiting its bandwidth? Like, a new connector that offers full bandwidth as if it were internally slotted?
Apple has more motivation to invent this connector since they do not make empty boxes like the Windows PC world and PCIe slots.
The only thing I can think of that they haven't done this is time. It takes time to invent something like this.
Could the time be now?
I think so. Apple going forward has two choices, invent this connector, or bring back PCIe slots. The latter is sooo circa 2012.
So, I would imagine that the urgency is on in Apple to get this connector out the door and bring it into the world sooner rather than never.
Last edited:
I just picked up a Imac Pro 10 core. I gave up and can’t wait anymore. My cMP from 2010 still works fine but I need to move on and I don’t believe that the good mac god will bring a new mac pro until 2020. Cube or not.
I used to be a huge fan of the modular boxes idea .
Until it dawned on me what the prices for individual modules would be like .
Not to mention how Apple doesn't do externals, but rather leaves it to third party manufacturers to come up with something - eGPUs being just one example .
Or how Apple doesn't really innovate ( my a*** ) , and certainly doesn't invent industry wide standards .
As for PCIe slots, that's still kind of a thing today ; it is Apple that is stuck with a solution from 2012 that never caught on .
Even if they got everything you propose right, and the prices weren’t exorbitant, there would still be the issue of trust. I don’t trust apple to keep the modules up to date. Who’s to say that they won’t let the cpu module stagnate for a couple of years before issuing an updated module?
I really don’t get why it has to be different just for the sake of being different, if the cMP ticked all the boxes but sir Ive’s ego, let the man out of the equation. It’s that simple.