From Facebook's "We Want a New Mac Pro"

[deconstruct60]

What is the whole point of calling it a MP if it has no internal expandability? You may as well just call it an iMac at that point.

LOL. In numerous thread you and other xMac fans have clamoured that all you need is a headless iMac. Along comes what is largely a headless iMac and all of sudden it is bad.

All the folks that have been pounding the table about how the new Mac Pro "has to have TB or won't buy" and "too expensive ... want smaller, more affordable box" .... well looks like here it comes. Don't complain now.

For all the hype about SSDs the HDD is still better for data drives, time machine, and system snapshots. For the system drive I would prefer to use a Viper SSD from OWC.

There is absolutely zero in the outline that doesn't overrule there being a default config of a fusion drive. All the drive bays filled doesn't necessarily mean that they are no 3.5" bays.

There are presently no Macs with non removable drives. It extremely unlikely that Apple is going to compose non-removable drives in the upcoming Mac Pro. 2.5 or 3.5" drive bays either way a HDD will fit if open the box and replace with what you want. That is not expandability.

 

[ScottishCaptain]

So my current Mac Pro has:

- A PCI-e 2.0 16x slot
- A PCI-e 2.0 16x slot
- A PCI-e 2.0 4x slot
- A PCI-e 2.0 4x slot

Thunderbolt essentially comes with the bandwidth of a single PCI-e 4x slot.

This is very, very simple math. Can someone tell me how I'm supposed to cram two 16x slots and two 4x slots through the equivalent bandwidth of a single 4x slot? Do the laws of physics begin to meld and warp around when you're drinking the Thunderbolt kool-aid or what?

Just because someone may or may not make a dock that accepts a 16x card mechanically plus the ability to chain 7 of these together... Does not mean you're getting the equivalent of 7*16x slots worth of bandwidth.

-SC

 

[KaraH]

So buy an external box and fill it with whatever you want. Apple isn't stopping you from adding hard drives, they're just not putting internal bays in the machine itself.

Why in the world should I have a cable going from the case to yet another box on my desk when that thing in the box could just as easily go into the primary case? Maybe desk space is always free and clutter mess does not exist in some universes but in this one ...

Even if thunderbolt were as fast as internal connections (and it is not, at least not yet) I will NEVER regularly boot a machine from a drive not in the same case. While that is something you sometimes have to do in an emergency situation it is yet another point of failure. Data drives when you need to go external, sure, but their being disconnected at the wrong time does not crash the entire system.

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple isn't stopping you from adding hard drives, they're just not putting internal bays in the machine itself.

That is an utterly bozo design given the base infrastructure that Intel gives them to build the system on. Both the Series 8 or C600 IOHubs that Intel offers with either path of CPU Apple could choose ( Xeon E5 or E3 or iMac class mainstream class Core i variants ) provide for several SATA connections. To just put a proprietary mSATA blade in there just boot the OS and that wave all principled storage off to external devices is a bonehead design for this class of system.

That is great for a Thin-client Xterm/ Windows RDC / VNC client box, but it makes no sense at all for individual oriented computers which host the above average storage volumes full of data that needs to be processed.

Apple's mSATA blades are physically too small to go high (for SSD space) storage capacities. Sure Apple has their crackhead priced 700GB stick for rMBP 15" but they're smoking lots of drugs if think that is actually going mainstream.

Not even the iMac is on that kind of crack. Sure there are mSATA blades to implement Fusion drives, but there are still 3.5 and 2.5" bays in the design.

 

[KaraH]

LOL. In numerous thread you and other xMac fans have clamoured that all you need is a headless iMac. Along comes what is largely a headless iMac and all of sudden it is bad.

Do you have me confused with someone else? I have said I do not need more power than the iMac but I want it headless AND that my main gripe about the 2012 iMac was that it did not have expandability (well, memory and an SSD card). So for those two reasons I was going for the MP.

 

[deconstruct60]

So my current Mac Pro has:

- A PCI-e 2.0 16x slot
- A PCI-e 2.0 16x slot
- A PCI-e 2.0 4x slot
- A PCI-e 2.0 4x slot

Thunderbolt essentially comes with the bandwidth of a single PCI-e 4x slot.

Actually those two 4x are sitting in front of a 4x PCI-e switch. They are the same bandwidth; they amount to just x4 worth of bandwidth being time shared.

This is very, very simple math. Can someone tell me how I'm supposed to cram two 16x slots and two 4x slots through the equivalent bandwidth of a single 4x slot?

If Apple provided two x16 slots and TB it would be the same. Actually it would be more bandwidth because the two x16's would be PCI-e v3 (not v2). ( but that is presuming using an Xeon E5 )

However, yeah if this is powered by an E3 ( or iMac class Core i7) there really yet another switch in there and what really have is two x8's (but they are v3.0 which is double v2.0 ) and TB. At that point it basically a wash. Same bandwidth as what you have now. No progress in how may years but it isn't backsliding.

If there is a belief by Apple that users bandwidth needs are plateuing.... that may go this route. Relatively flat bandwidth grow leading to a smaller, more affordable box to cover "most" of the old Mac Pro user base.

 

[MatthewAMEL]

They likely aren't enough PCI-e lanes to support 3 TB controllers ... and whether multiple TB controllers work in a single box anyway.

Each controller gives you up to 2 physical ports. The whole wide breath of ports so can slap on several chain enders is very effective use of TB. It pretty bad actually. Any "need" for 6 TB ports to make an effective box is extremely indicative that that system is a grossly flawed design.




Falcon Ridge isn't going to "solve" TB's orientation toward daisy chaining.

There is nothing in the Thunderbolt spec that precludes multiple controllers on a MB.

My understanding is the L4510 has a 4/2 config. 4 channels/2 ports. Doesn't that mean each channel is a 'full speed' lane?

Right or not, it sounds like Apple decided external user-configurable space is better than fixed internal user space.

Using 6+ TB ports to add external expansion and replace a slew of older, legacy ports (ethernet, FW, USB, display) is exactly what I would expect from Apple.

You would endorse a design that maintained 6 port types on the chassis?
Ok. Here. Your Mac is ready.
http://www.apple.com/mac-mini/specs.html

Why would I want valuable real estate (and more importantly bandwidth) allocated to a port I would never use?

There will be no IGP on the Mac Pro.

 

[crjackson2134]

Allow me to do the honors then:

- It will have no Thunderbolt at all.
- There will be 1.5 times more internal expandability.
- It will have support for four GPU's with 16 monitor support.
- There will be FW800 and dual Optical drives.
- It will be released in the fall (of 2014).
- It will look identical to the current MacPro.​

There, now you can be like everyone else on the planet having "been told" conflicting and even opposite information about Apple's 2014 MacPro 6,1.

I like this config

 

[davidb367]

My 0.02

I'm going with others and guessing that the MP will have 2 v3 PCI-E slots for graphics cards and 2- 4 thunderbolt ports for storage expansion. There will be no integrated graphics on the motherboard.

 

[badlydrawnboy]

Thing that sucks about this for me is I don't use Apple's Thunderbolt displays. I much prefer NEC displays (I have a PA271w and PA241w hooked up to my 3,1 Mac Pro) for their wider color gamut, superior color fidelity and lack of gloss. If Apple does do what this rumor suggests, it seems heavily dependent on the idea that people will use the Thunderbolt display as the primary hub for peripherals like external storage, etc. My NEC monitors only have two USB 2.0 ports. Ouch.

Also, I hate the idea of being forced to pay Apple's ridiculously marked up prices for storage, etc. when I can get great deals at OWC for this stuff, as I've done for years with my 3,1 MP.

Oh well, it's not like they care what I think. I'll have to adapt one way or the other.

 

[portishead]

- It will be heavily reliant on Thunderbolt.
- There will be no internal expandability.
- It will have support for Dual GPU's with three monitor support right out of the box.
- No FW800 or Optical drive
- It will be released in the fall
- It will be a completely new design

Thunderbolt 2.0
it WILL for sure be expandable. Not a Pro machine without this.
FW800 and Optical can be added with TB adapter and externally for Optical drive so who cares.
It should be before fall. Maybe md-late Summer.
Of course it will be a new design.

 

[ctucci]

Ah yes, facebook. Up there with fox news in terms of reliability.

What have they lied about?

 

[goMac]

Why in the world should I have a cable going from the case to yet another box on my desk when that thing in the box could just as easily go into the primary case? Maybe desk space is always free and clutter mess does not exist in some universes but in this one ...

So don't put a box on your desk? If the chassis is smaller I'm sure someone will do something stackable.

Even if thunderbolt were as fast as internal connections (and it is not, at least not yet)

Well, Thunderbolt can support both more drives than internal mounts could, and any speed difference would be tiny.

I will NEVER regularly boot a machine from a drive not in the same case.

Boot drive would still be internal.

While that is something you sometimes have to do in an emergency situation it is yet another point of failure. Data drives when you need to go external, sure, but their being disconnected at the wrong time does not crash the entire system.

I think we're still saying that there would be a single internal boot drive in the Mac Pro, no? We're not talking about a machine that won't boot without an external drive. You'd just see no bay 2, 3 or 4.

 

[IceMacMac]

What have they lied about?

Methinks Kissagri must might have meant the Justice Department or the IRS in terms of disparaged credibility.

But clearly Kissagri is confused about most everything: He describes "Facebook" as the source for this rumor?

Uh...ok. For the record Lou Borella is an admittedly faux-reporter. On his facebook page he dished on what he had heard. The facebook mothership has nothing to do with this reporting.

As for Lou's credibility...and that of his source...they enjoy enough veritas to have been picked up by CNET, MacDaily and others.

But yes...it's still a rumor.

And dear Kissagri...As for Fox News..ABC...CNN...PBS and the others...yes they report the news, often through an overt agenda that doesn't belong in any of this discussion. Unless you want to continue embarrassing yourself in fumbling away the facts.

 

[IceMacMac]

My biggest issue is power (lots of it) and expandability (lots of it).

If there is an option for a Thunderbolt chassis that isn't hamstrung... then I'm still willing to further the dialog with Apple about my next Pro workstation.

I'm not crazy about this so far but I'll continue listening.

 

[SamuraiArtGuy]

As I Commented on Facebook...

As rumor mongering goes, Lou is barley into misdemeanor territory. I have gotten a bit hostile with the sites and so-called tech journalists that seem intent on saying anything for either page views or the blatant manipulation of Apple's stock price.

That said, all of the possible thoughts certainly seem well within Apple's current playbook. Apple is ALL IN with Thunderbolt, and clearly done with FW and optical media. No, don't even mention blu-ray, Apple is just not into it. So just stop it. Let it go.

I did raise my eyebrow at "no internal expandability" though that would likely suit Apple fine and dismay the likes of us. It does possibly solve the video connectivity problems that supporting 3rd party PCI cards - overwhelmingly for video - as Thunderbolt, a motherboard level protocol, is Apple's video connectivity preference, and may not play nice with video cards.

Yes, an expansion chassis would be a way out, but that's not Apple's style. I am willing to bet that Apple will leave that to 3rd party providers as well. Likewise they have no interest in E-SATA either. However, without the ability to expand storage, RAM, configure RAID storage, etc. is likely to be a "no sale" for a lot of pro users.

Seriously, expandability is why I purchased my current Mac Pro!

Apple has been positioning the higher end iMacs and MacBook Pros as the machines for the Creative community of pro users, as everyone becomes more mobile focused. So I have every expectation that the next pro machine will be more like the rest of Apple's line, even at the cost of some of the Mac Pro's traditional strengths, if Apple deems them too "legacy". Apple's opinion of "something really great" may not sync with professionals expectations, we all recall the rude surprise that was FCPX.

But honestly I really don't expect an announcement, much less a "one more thing" reveal at WWDC. It may much more likely be a "no-event" release quietly rolled out in the fall sometime on Apple's website. Remember, December still counts as "sometime in 2013."

* passes a 100 kilo salt lick... *

----------

Uh...ok. For the record Lou Borella is an admittedly faux-reporter. On his facebook page he dished on what he had heard. The facebook mothership has nothing to do with this reporting

Lou does own up to the relative tenuousness of this rumor... so with a 100 kilogram salt lick. I've some thoughts on this as well, see my own post.

The only remotely real-world collaborating detail is the drying up of competents and Mac Pro models in the supply chain. That typically either means a new model, or EOL. I'm expecting the worst or at the very least frakkin' awful. So that improves my chances of being pleasantly surprised, versus soul crushing disappointment.

 

[scottsjack]

I'm here to change that. Here is my first foray as a true Apple "rumor-monger".

If you've been following my posts . . .

OK, so even though this is yet another one of the countless, meaningless "yeah Mac Pro" threads it's really all about you. Nice

 

[JesterJJZ]

I will laugh if it's just the same box with Thunderbolt ports!

Laugh...then rejoice and buy one!!!

 

[monkeybagel]

If this is true... I really feel sorry for Apple. They skyrocketed to the top of the world after almost going out, now they heading down hill again.

No a product I would be interested in. At all. Assuming it is as described.

 

[jeanlain]

I suppose that "no internal expandability" doesn't include RAM.
I'd like a couple of drive bays, but if there' s none, I could do without. At least I'd like to be able to install a 2.5" drive in it, even if it's not officially supported (like you can still change the HD of the Mac mini, using some tools).
I hardly ever use the optical drive, so removing it is not a bad move, as far as I'm concerned.
I need just one PCIe for the GPU. 2 slots would be better.

But most important is the price. If they make it a mini-tower, they'd better not sell the base config for 2500€.

 

[Simon R.]

You can use Firewire 800 devices over Thunderbolt. Not the end of the world.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD464ZM/A/apple-thunderbolt-to-firewire-adaptor

Most Thunderbolt expansion boxes have Firewire 800 as well.

Why would you want to go external on everything? It's a really messy and UN-PRO solution. So now I need external storage, external DSP, external audio card, external video-to-monitor card instead of having it all in a box? Even Apple won't be so stupid, just because of some future vision they come up with.

----------

This makes a lot of sense to me... I see it being a Mac Mini on steroids.

BTO options will likely include one or two CPUs, RAM (probably combos of up to 4 sticks), an Intel integrated GPU with optional PCIe GPU, and your choice of one or two 2.5" drives (SSDs).

A small cube is probably about the right for this and the necessary airflow for cooling it. I'm guessing it will probably be designed so you can easily swap the drives and RAM but that's about it.

Any other expansion will have to be done via TB and USB3 with new TB Cinema Displays (possibly 30" 4K retina panels) probably launching around the same time with TB docking stations built in (although I think FW is dead).

I think the cool thing is that an entry level QUAD system could start at $1500 in this kind of offering.

It just doesn't make sense to professionals.

 

[blanka]

I don't want a double slot PCI videocard. That is so PC and so outdated!
Just give us a GTX680 with Apple-style cooler, directly on the memory bus and make the machine silent and compact. A bit like with the top of the line iMac.
If you see how the GTX980M on the Imac is integrated, it would fit on a single slot, short length PCI card, yet no videocard maker offers it this tiny. Even de dumbest cards come out in double slot full length models. Lazy attitude!

 

[ValSalva]

I will laugh if it's just the same box with Thunderbolt ports!

Laugh...then rejoice and buy one!!!

With rumors like the one at the top of this thread going around, Apple releasing the same old enclosure but with SATA-III, Ivy Bridge Xeons, and TB would be the best possible outcome.

 

[Simon R.]

With rumors like the one at the top of this thread going around, Apple releasing the same old enclosure but with SATA-III, Ivy Bridge Xeons, and TB would be the best possible outcome.

That really is all I am asking for, as a professional: Update the Mac Pro with the same stuff they have put into their other machines: USB3, Thunderbolt, keep FW800, SATA3 and yes, new CPU's. I would buy that at once.

I wouldn't mind if they made it smaller - they could save some space by having, say, two bays for 3.5" drives and 4 for 2.5" SSD's. Only one optical (do anyone need more than that these days?).

 

[.:Aleph:.]

How much will it cost?