It'll support PCIe storage, so the T2 isn't as big an issue. Even if it only boots from the Apple drive, plenty of room f 48 TB worth of internal fast SSDs for large photo and video libraries without the Apple Tax.
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.
MP 7,1 For those who are buying mp 7.1, how would you customize your workstation?
- Thread starter Macpro2019
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The deal breaker for me is Apple putting proprietary tech in their 2019 systems they can stop supporting at any moment. I know Apple executives and BoD love it, but it’s not a rental they have to take back if it stops working.
Apple has been the least predictable vendor I’ve had over the past 20 years.
With an EDIT I'll add...
IF T2 can be disabled without negative affect, its not a big deal. But if it must be there, its definitely a big deal.
Apple has been the least predictable vendor I’ve had over the past 20 years.
With an EDIT I'll add...
IF T2 can be disabled without negative affect, its not a big deal. But if it must be there, its definitely a big deal.
Last edited:
So... all that questioned and said. We would likely go with a few 12c models if the T2 isn't an issue. One with more (24 or 28) if it makes the cut. Several things depend on how Apple does their AR since we want to leverage that "if and when." But for now, nVidia is our AI dev units running windows. I don't see Apple making any headway into AI with their concentration on consumer phones and tablets....
you guys will all cry if you see what apple charges for the upgrades.
a pc with 2x! 28-core, 768gb ram, 4x! titan rtx 24gb costs about $70'000 before taxes
i'm sure apple will go over $200'000 for a maxed out machine
for real world usage comparision :
a pc with 2x! 16-core, 32gb ram, 1x! titan rtx 24gb costs about $9'700 before taxes
i guess a mac pro 28core, 32gb ram, 1x mpx module will cost about $20'000
generally for the same money you'll get half the performance and an unsure support for the future
(no future upgrades for their mpx modules, no drivers for nvidia, etc etc)
for me a workstation doesn't have to be a "daily use" computer anymore...
i need it for specific work and software and it does not matter so much if i do that on win or mac
with windows i pay half the price and i am sure i can extend / change / upgrade at any point in time.
it is probably cheaper to buy a windows workstation and an additional imac pro than to buy a mac pro alone.
a pc with 2x! 28-core, 768gb ram, 4x! titan rtx 24gb costs about $70'000 before taxes
i'm sure apple will go over $200'000 for a maxed out machine
for real world usage comparision :
a pc with 2x! 16-core, 32gb ram, 1x! titan rtx 24gb costs about $9'700 before taxes
i guess a mac pro 28core, 32gb ram, 1x mpx module will cost about $20'000
generally for the same money you'll get half the performance and an unsure support for the future
(no future upgrades for their mpx modules, no drivers for nvidia, etc etc)
for me a workstation doesn't have to be a "daily use" computer anymore...
i need it for specific work and software and it does not matter so much if i do that on win or mac
with windows i pay half the price and i am sure i can extend / change / upgrade at any point in time.
it is probably cheaper to buy a windows workstation and an additional imac pro than to buy a mac pro alone.
Last edited:
If you’re happy with Windows and your pro apps works on Windows, it would be very questionable to get a Mac Pro if you’re after max performance for dollar. All IMHO, but Mac Pro only makes sense if you need/want macOS and Mac apps over Windows.
i'm not happy at all to work with windows, but the mac pro will be too expensive
and if i invest that much i want to be able to upgrade it in 5 years and with apple this is totally unsure.
(the lack of dual cpu configs and not having a support for nivida cards makes it inefficient / unusable for cg work anyway)
i'll probably go with a pc workstation for the main gc apps and have it in a network with a mac, because
everything else, mail, photoshop, app development etc can be done on a normal mac, without these specs and price
Sounds like a great plan! I have been thinking about a similar setup, but unfortunately I know I will try and stay in macOS as much as possible and just not use the Windows box as much as I should.
I do know some that stay with the Mac, do almost of their work there and just use the Windows box for rendering pretty much. Could be an option.
That’s great that you use window but This is about people who are planning to buy mac pro.
The "proprietary tech" is basically true of every SSD out there. All the higher performance SSDs consist of embedded CPUs and firmware that runs on them that the vendor can walk away from anytime sufficiently for enough down the road. Apple's subset in T2 isn't particularly any different.
Same thing for the System Management Controller ( SMC). embedded CPU and firmware which has no "will update for eternity" guarantee. BIOS/EFI same.
The notion that they can abort support for the core essential boot functionality the day after you buy it is simply just wild, ungrounded, conspiracy mania. If the Mac system won't boot at all then Apple has a very basic warranty issue. The notion they can willy nilly walk away from that has not basis in fact or the law.
Nor history; no real track record of Apple doing this at all (abandoning support on a willy nilly, relatively short timeframe).
If this is an attempt to map the T2 into the same support space as Shake or Aperture that's is largely just arm flapping. Pragmatically, the T2 is essentially coupled to the embedded firmware of the system. It is a a different grouping of the basic boot support environment elements, but other systems have much of the same stuff. Those vendors don't make a major marketing sales point about it, but it is still there and largely just as proprietary (few folks are swapping HP BiOS/UEFI fixes for Dell BIOS/UEFI fixes ) .
if the Mac stops booting at all then Apple would have to "take it back". It is broke. If still under warranty that isn't an option for them. If it is out of warranty then it isn't a "at any moment" issue.
In terms of the basic hardware? Their support policy is laid in very stable terms for the last 15+ years.
( Vintage and obsolete hardware )
The T2 can't be completely disable any more than the SMC in previous Macs could be completely disabled. If it is put into a 100% not working state then the Mac won't even boot. It is an essential core of the power on and boot subsystem.
Dear OP, please forgive me for my original question in this thread and the ensuing off topic posts it caused. You have my most humble apology.
Dual CPU is probably disappearing on the PC side as well, unless AMD does something that forces Intel to change their pricing policies (like dual-capable Threadripper)...
Two things have driven PC workstations away from dual CPUs (and almost certainly influenced Apple's decision to go single-CPU), and both will continue absent a huge shift in the market. One is a programming practicality while the other is Intel's choice about combinations of CPU features and prices.
The programming practicality is that most problems are not inherently parallel - more cores and threads are not easy to use (and don't give anything like a linear performance gain for most tasks), while the number of cores and threads per CPU continues to increase. Developers are already overwhelmed with threads they can't use all that efficiently, and fixing that would require (at least) a major rewrite of the applications we use - some could be rewritten to be more parallel, while others just inherently aren't. There are exceptions like 3D rendering, but those exceptions tend to run well on GPUs, clusters or both, which are cheaper than paying inflated prices for multiprocessor capable Xeons.
The second problem (Intel's choice) is that they no longer make dual-capable CPUS, except for a few Xeon Silver models with limited core counts and clock speeds. They see most of the market for more than one CPU per box as being in the datacenter (where parallelism is less of a problem - you're likely to have a lot of smaller tasks floating around instead of a few big ones), and they build their multiprocessor-capable CPUs with 8-way capability, not just 2-way.
A manufacturer could certainly use an 8-way capable CPU in a 2-way configuration, and HP does this in the Z8 - but Intel charges 3x as much for those 8-way CPUs as they do for a similar CPU without multiprocessor capability. It's probably cheaper to cluster two computers than to pay for those CPUs.
Two things have driven PC workstations away from dual CPUs (and almost certainly influenced Apple's decision to go single-CPU), and both will continue absent a huge shift in the market. One is a programming practicality while the other is Intel's choice about combinations of CPU features and prices.
The programming practicality is that most problems are not inherently parallel - more cores and threads are not easy to use (and don't give anything like a linear performance gain for most tasks), while the number of cores and threads per CPU continues to increase. Developers are already overwhelmed with threads they can't use all that efficiently, and fixing that would require (at least) a major rewrite of the applications we use - some could be rewritten to be more parallel, while others just inherently aren't. There are exceptions like 3D rendering, but those exceptions tend to run well on GPUs, clusters or both, which are cheaper than paying inflated prices for multiprocessor capable Xeons.
The second problem (Intel's choice) is that they no longer make dual-capable CPUS, except for a few Xeon Silver models with limited core counts and clock speeds. They see most of the market for more than one CPU per box as being in the datacenter (where parallelism is less of a problem - you're likely to have a lot of smaller tasks floating around instead of a few big ones), and they build their multiprocessor-capable CPUs with 8-way capability, not just 2-way.
A manufacturer could certainly use an 8-way capable CPU in a 2-way configuration, and HP does this in the Z8 - but Intel charges 3x as much for those 8-way CPUs as they do for a similar CPU without multiprocessor capability. It's probably cheaper to cluster two computers than to pay for those CPUs.