Professionals don't need a compact machine. We need raw power, everything else is secondary. I wouldn't care if it was twice the size and cost, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
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.
From Facebook's "We Want a New Mac Pro"
- Thread starter 5050
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Professionals don't need a compact machine. We need raw power, everything else is secondary. I wouldn't care if it was twice the size and cost, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
They do seem to be missing the point that attracts a lot of folks to the Mac Pro, and which is keeping a lot of people (like myself) from buying a new Mac - flexibility around storage & GPU (and maybe even CPU) upgrades.
I'm a PC user who's been (for the last 5 months or so) running a Hackintosh at home. I had a prior foray with an iMac several years ago and did enjoy it but as I was also a gamer, I got fed up with how quickly the graphics card got out of date - so I ditched the iMac and got back to a Windows PC again.
I've always, always wanted a Mac Pro and with the rumour mill churning about a forthcoming overhaul, I'm pretty keen on seeing what Apple have up their sleeve as I've really enjoyed getting back into using OSX again and could easily see myself ditching Windows at home again now.
However the whole reason for wanting a Mac Pro is the expandability or the option to change - SSD's come down in price and go up in capacity, GPU's get quicker.. I'd even consider it an acceptable compromise if Apple sold these as verified upgrades for the new Mac Pro (despite the tax that this would incur!).
I've been wanting Apple to make a Mac Pro Jr for some time - a system with BYODKM, and some limited upgrade options.. maybe that time is finally going to come? A revisit to the G4 cube would a pretty welcome thing for me too.. I always loved that system. Hell, they could just re-release the cube with modern internals and I'd buy it in a heartbeat!
I'm a PC user who's been (for the last 5 months or so) running a Hackintosh at home. I had a prior foray with an iMac several years ago and did enjoy it but as I was also a gamer, I got fed up with how quickly the graphics card got out of date - so I ditched the iMac and got back to a Windows PC again.
I've always, always wanted a Mac Pro and with the rumour mill churning about a forthcoming overhaul, I'm pretty keen on seeing what Apple have up their sleeve as I've really enjoyed getting back into using OSX again and could easily see myself ditching Windows at home again now.
However the whole reason for wanting a Mac Pro is the expandability or the option to change - SSD's come down in price and go up in capacity, GPU's get quicker.. I'd even consider it an acceptable compromise if Apple sold these as verified upgrades for the new Mac Pro (despite the tax that this would incur!).
I've been wanting Apple to make a Mac Pro Jr for some time - a system with BYODKM, and some limited upgrade options.. maybe that time is finally going to come? A revisit to the G4 cube would a pretty welcome thing for me too.. I always loved that system. Hell, they could just re-release the cube with modern internals and I'd buy it in a heartbeat!
Why have it external at all? No matter which way you slice it it takes up volume outside of the case and needs cables running to it. Not to mention its own power supply and fans, making it bigger than if the components were in the main case in the first place.
IF it is a HDD in a user-accessible bay. I would swap it out immediately for the SDD of MY choice. Even better would be an apple 'boot' HDD and a spare bay as a BTO. Best would be the current configuration.
Which is what I want. Basically a 1990s desktop/tower but with modern specs.
I would be surprised if it was not the same price points or at least not much of a variance. While the MP market is less price-sensitive than the iMac market things like new computers need to be budgeted for in advance.
Exactly. While many in the iMac market were perfectly fine with the 2012 lack of options MP users have systems that are all over the map.
I'd buy that machine too. I'd have to think long and hard about the one described at the top of this post. Thunderbolt is good to a point but I have no interest in several boxes hanging off containing components that should be internal for a desktop workstation.
As someone who's been reliant on Thunderbolt expansion for a year, I'm not thrilled about this prospect but not TOO upset about it either. Most of what's been a pain about it (for me) has been due to the fact that (A)I run it off a MBP and don't like powering the TB enclosure up and down all the time and (B) with one TB port having every single device daisy-chained SUUUUCKS, which would be a non-issue on a fixed machine with multiple ports.
What I do REALLY care about is what hasn't been talked about (or speculated on); what kind of processors would end up in this scenario? If they're not a significant leap from the current then nothing else matters.
I would be fairly content for now with some of the faster XEONs available, 64GB of RAM, at least 2 2.5" bays, 2 Titan GPUs and at least 4 TB ports.
What I do REALLY care about is what hasn't been talked about (or speculated on); what kind of processors would end up in this scenario? If they're not a significant leap from the current then nothing else matters.
I would be fairly content for now with some of the faster XEONs available, 64GB of RAM, at least 2 2.5" bays, 2 Titan GPUs and at least 4 TB ports.
Not really. It means that folks have purchased some Thunderbolt docking station device, but not necessarily Apple's TB display. Folks who need the Apple logo in their face to be happy sure.... it is the TB display. But you aren't in that camp. Frankly, right now the Belkin TB docking station is better because it has USB 3.0 and Apple is still stuck on USB 2.0. There is a small tradeoff in that have to also plug-in the Belkin device but as TB docking station heats up it is extremely doubtful that Apple is going to have the docking stations that best fits as wider diversity of users with specialized needs. The process will be the same way they dropped out of the higher end monitor business.
It is skewed toward displays that will accept DisplayPort output. ( that is the easiest connection), but that isn't new. Apple has promoted mini-DisplayPort for many years now. That shouldn't be a shocker for either users or display vendors.
If Apple is only leaving 1-2 filled bays inside the device again this really isn't new. You can't buy a 'bare bones' Mac. There is always at least enough RAM in each DIMM slot to cover each memory controller and at least one storage device installed.
The base configs will have the smallest, sensible device installed. There is no "force" to buy the other storage options on BTO. I doubt they'd make "Fusion Drive" standard ( so had to buy two drives minimum), but even if so it fundamentally isn't really "new" if that is the new normal.
The problem with limited internal expansion (i.e., no empty storage bays) is that will have to buy yet another SATA controller to go to more than 1-2 drives. That box will also likely have its own power supply. All of that additional stuff will drive up the cost of having more than 1-2 drives in the deployed system. All of that additional overhead isn't necessarily going to paid to Apple. In fact it likely won't. Apple is highly likely not going to get into TB storage expansion business.
Thunderbolts primary purpose is not storage expansion. It is primary purpose is a multiplex transport of legacy protocols and video .
Thunderbolt requires that there is a Display Port signal integrated into the motherboard. So the likelihood that there is no DP on the motherboard is zero. That won't pass TB certification tests.
That signal could be delivered with an embedded discrete GPU or by an iGPU, but one of the two is going to be on the motherboard. Either way there is a fixed GPU that isn't user swappable effectively required by Thunderbolt.
To date every system that has passed TB certification has an iGPU. All of them. It is the easiest path to passing the requirements.
If users demand Thunderbolt as a feature, then users are basically demanding a fixed GPU. It doesn't have to be the only GPU but at least one is fixed (e.g., the mention of "dual GPU" in this particular rumor is indicative two may move to the "normal" for workstations over the next couple of years. It is probably true since both Intel and AMD are already well into the process of making that true. It is happening and not going to stop and reverse. )
Door # 1 or Door #2
I get the impression from the majority of the posts here that if Tim Cook stood on stage and asked us to choose between:
Door # 1 - Updated, current Mac Pro
or
Door # 2 - Something wonderful for everyone
most of the posters would choose Door # 1.
I get the impression from the majority of the posts here that if Tim Cook stood on stage and asked us to choose between:
Door # 1 - Updated, current Mac Pro
or
Door # 2 - Something wonderful for everyone
most of the posters would choose Door # 1.
Well that's a bit vague, if not naive. What exactly is something wonderful for "everyone?"
I'm not surprised by the description of the potential upcoming Mac Pro.
I have been hearing a lot of buzz about how surprised people will be with the size and function of the new mac pro.
The rumor about the 1TB SSD being built for the mac pro now makes sense if you will not have any additional drive bay expansion, then the drives its ships with will have to be optimal in size and speed.
I also believe this is very Apple in its approach. Their philosophy has alway been giving the consumer something they didn't know they wanted.
It may also be apples way of saving their pro market by making a system more digestible to the masses and having the expandability to go from consumer to prosumer to professional based on your config, GPU and TB peripherals.
I have been preparing myself for something radically different, and I think at first its going to be a tough pill to swallow but in the long run I have a feeling it will work out great???
Just my 2 cents.
I have been hearing a lot of buzz about how surprised people will be with the size and function of the new mac pro.
The rumor about the 1TB SSD being built for the mac pro now makes sense if you will not have any additional drive bay expansion, then the drives its ships with will have to be optimal in size and speed.
I also believe this is very Apple in its approach. Their philosophy has alway been giving the consumer something they didn't know they wanted.
It may also be apples way of saving their pro market by making a system more digestible to the masses and having the expandability to go from consumer to prosumer to professional based on your config, GPU and TB peripherals.
I have been preparing myself for something radically different, and I think at first its going to be a tough pill to swallow but in the long run I have a feeling it will work out great???
Just my 2 cents.
Something that isn't this:
"Which is what I want. Basically a 1990s desktop/tower but with modern specs."
"Which is what I want. Basically a 1990s desktop/tower but with modern specs."
Leaked SKUs possibly for Mac Pro
After having read through this thread carefully, and wondering myself if the new Mac Pro would be released in the Fall rather than next week. I started trying to figure out the meaning of the leaked SKU numbers reportedly for notebooks as reported by 9to5mac.com.
Here is what I have found. Please take it as mere speculation, looking for correspondences, reasonable conjectures, etc.
Looking at the SKUs reported by 9to5mac, it seems more likely they correspond with SKUs for Mac Pros.
MD711LL/A Better USA
MD712LL/A Best USA
MD760LL/A Better USA
MD761LL/A Best USA
The only time I have seen "MD7..." has appeared is in The 2012 Mac Pro line-up, which had these SKUs:
Mac Pro "Quad Core" 3.2 (2012/Nehalem)MD770LL/A1
Mac Pro "Six Core" 3.33 (2012/Westmere)BTO/CTO1
Mac Pro "Twelve Core" 2.4 (2012/Westmere)MD771LL/A1
Mac Pro "Twelve Core" 2.66 (2012/Westmere)BTO/CTO1
Mac Pro "Twelve Core" 3.06 (2012/Westmere)BTO/CTO1
Mac Pro "Quad Core" 3.2 (Server 2012)MD772LL/A
Additionally, The SKUs beginning with ME correspond with the 2013 Retina Macbook Pros.
After having read through this thread carefully, and wondering myself if the new Mac Pro would be released in the Fall rather than next week. I started trying to figure out the meaning of the leaked SKU numbers reportedly for notebooks as reported by 9to5mac.com.
Here is what I have found. Please take it as mere speculation, looking for correspondences, reasonable conjectures, etc.
Looking at the SKUs reported by 9to5mac, it seems more likely they correspond with SKUs for Mac Pros.
MD711LL/A Better USA
MD712LL/A Best USA
MD760LL/A Better USA
MD761LL/A Best USA
The only time I have seen "MD7..." has appeared is in The 2012 Mac Pro line-up, which had these SKUs:
Mac Pro "Quad Core" 3.2 (2012/Nehalem)MD770LL/A1
Mac Pro "Six Core" 3.33 (2012/Westmere)BTO/CTO1
Mac Pro "Twelve Core" 2.4 (2012/Westmere)MD771LL/A1
Mac Pro "Twelve Core" 2.66 (2012/Westmere)BTO/CTO1
Mac Pro "Twelve Core" 3.06 (2012/Westmere)BTO/CTO1
Mac Pro "Quad Core" 3.2 (Server 2012)MD772LL/A
Additionally, The SKUs beginning with ME correspond with the 2013 Retina Macbook Pros.
Because even more would have to change? I could see a mini based on a 3.5" HDD footprint ... overall, the name would then be a toss-up between the 'xMac' and the 'Mac Stack' concepts, depending on what else it has to offer.
Agreed. About the only real way that a 'Stack' configuration can really become appealing to a power user is if there's some hardware magic for fast interconnects and some software+OS magic to be able to farm out and manage the parallelized processing jobs. Effectively the question becomes one of if the processing power afforded by N cores on one/two CPUs can be beaten by M cores that aren't hooked together as intimately.
Maybe Apple's Grand Central Dispatch (GCD) will finally bear fruit...or maybe not.
Of course, given how Adobe is going from CS to CC, if they're finally writing GCD into their software, it could create a lot of pressure (and angst) for end users to fork up the bucks for the "Monthly Rental Fee".
-hh
I'm not a Pro...Prosumer maybe. I do video editing for a Udemy course...that said 422 takes up a ton of space, and I love having 6 internal drives in my Mac Pro (OWC multi-mounts). Would external drives be the end of the world? Nah. A Cube v2.0 would be neat for folks like me I do suppose. I really liked the Cube when it was initially released.
GCD is actually doing very well. The only problem is Adobe has refused to adopt it, but everyone else has.
Of course, GCD can't magically make a problem that's not multithreadable run over multiple cores. It's simply another way of writing multithreaded code, but it's not magic. In that way, Adobe not adopting it isn't a big deal. It's not really going to gain them very much over traditional threading.
Exactly.
The sad part is that the rumor mill folks seem to believe that such a system is desirable and would turn a profit.
No one in the workstation market would buy such a POS, even someone that just wants the power minus the expandability. Folks need to get that ungodly idea out of their heads.
Apple will continue with the MacPro and make it a real workstation that's worth the money with Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 instead of FW800. They may even nix the ODD in favor of more HDDs and SSDs.
Or
Apple will kill the Mac Pro and steer people to the iMac or MacMini.
If they go with a more compact chassis without much internal expandability, I'd say Apple is not looking at the big picture here. Sure forcing folks into buying apple memory, apple storage, etc. will increase the margins on the pro line, but this is such a small percentage of their business anyway today that it is not going to make any real difference to Apple's bottom line anyways.
The big picture they should be looking at are the profiles of their users which include
1. people in creative fields who use the mac pro to generate revenue
2. power home users
I fall into the second category. We got apple laptops, ipads, appletv, etc. and the mac pro serves as our central media hub with master copies of all of our photos, music and terabytes of home video. Having the pro as my digital hub completes the ecosystem and locks me in.
I have no interest in paying 2x market price for storage and I am also not willing to have 8 external hard drives littering my desk. I have 4 bays filled today and have 2 external hard drives for my local backups on my desk already.
I was also unwilling to purchase an imac due to poor graphics performance and inadequate cooling. My 2008 mac pro is still going strong and I have no issues with performance so it it keeps on ticking I could conceivably get 10 years out of it which would be a record for me.
The big picture they should be looking at are the profiles of their users which include
1. people in creative fields who use the mac pro to generate revenue
2. power home users
I fall into the second category. We got apple laptops, ipads, appletv, etc. and the mac pro serves as our central media hub with master copies of all of our photos, music and terabytes of home video. Having the pro as my digital hub completes the ecosystem and locks me in.
I have no interest in paying 2x market price for storage and I am also not willing to have 8 external hard drives littering my desk. I have 4 bays filled today and have 2 external hard drives for my local backups on my desk already.
I was also unwilling to purchase an imac due to poor graphics performance and inadequate cooling. My 2008 mac pro is still going strong and I have no issues with performance so it it keeps on ticking I could conceivably get 10 years out of it which would be a record for me.
Having hung around these forums for several years now, here are the complaints I hear most often:
1. The Mac Pro is overpriced (expensive)
2. I need more slots and drive bays
This proposed rumour of a compact, simplified, Mac Pro with limited internal expansion and multiple TB ports, actually solves these two problems. First, it enables a lower cost entry level model for those that don't need massive expansion. And Second, it offers virtually unlimited expansion via TB accessories for those that need it.
The other two most common complaints I hear about the Mac Pro are:
3. GPU support seriously lags (1-2 generations)
4. Mac Pro refresh cycle is too long
While some might blame these on Apple's lack of commitment to this product, I'm almost entirely sure it is directly related to the extreme niche market the current Mac Pro plays in, and the extreme low volume of units sold and revenue made on this product line. If there's any truth to this, then a more streamlined, compact, affordable product like the one rumoured here, is likely to sell in much higher volumes, resulting in much more frequent refresh cycles.
Thus, despite the rather stubborn view in this thread that only a large desktop chassis with built-in expansion can work as a pro workstation, the system being proposed here, could actually solve the top complaints of current Mac Pro owners without compromising on raw computing power at all (you'll still be able to get dual CPUs if you need that kind of horsepower).
Benefits summarized:
- It can be offered at a more affordable entry point
- It can offer unlimited expansion through TB
- It can sell a LOT more units due to broader market appeal
- It will get more frequent refreshes with more current GPUs
1. The Mac Pro is overpriced (expensive)
2. I need more slots and drive bays
This proposed rumour of a compact, simplified, Mac Pro with limited internal expansion and multiple TB ports, actually solves these two problems. First, it enables a lower cost entry level model for those that don't need massive expansion. And Second, it offers virtually unlimited expansion via TB accessories for those that need it.
The other two most common complaints I hear about the Mac Pro are:
3. GPU support seriously lags (1-2 generations)
4. Mac Pro refresh cycle is too long
While some might blame these on Apple's lack of commitment to this product, I'm almost entirely sure it is directly related to the extreme niche market the current Mac Pro plays in, and the extreme low volume of units sold and revenue made on this product line. If there's any truth to this, then a more streamlined, compact, affordable product like the one rumoured here, is likely to sell in much higher volumes, resulting in much more frequent refresh cycles.
Thus, despite the rather stubborn view in this thread that only a large desktop chassis with built-in expansion can work as a pro workstation, the system being proposed here, could actually solve the top complaints of current Mac Pro owners without compromising on raw computing power at all (you'll still be able to get dual CPUs if you need that kind of horsepower).
Benefits summarized:
- It can be offered at a more affordable entry point
- It can offer unlimited expansion through TB
- It can sell a LOT more units due to broader market appeal
- It will get more frequent refreshes with more current GPUs
Apple has a major contributing component but the Xeon E5 class infrastructure is not moving at a fast past. Intel skipped 2011 ; not really Apple ( not other workstation vendors did a major upgrade in 2011 either).
Moving down to the Xeon E3 would resync with Intel's yearly tick-tock schedule.
I don't think the volume increment that Apple will get from moving to a $500-700 cheaper box is going to be high enough to feed a 3rd party GPU market. But again it would bring the Mac Pro into alignment with the rest of the Mac line up which is on that yearly GPU bump cycle. I wouldn't expect the bleeding edge high end GPU cards though since again it is aligning more so with the yearly update mainstream market.
The GPU should smooth out when Apple and overall Win PC markets synch up on UEFI GOP ( graphics output protocol ). Over last several years it has been split with Apple on EFI and UGA (universal graphic adapter) and Win PC on BIOS. That was a major contributor to delays and small market size. Apple has come around to GOP and Win PC market has finally moved to UEFI as being primary target for new systems.
It is not likely to be priced to engage in large fratricide with the iMac.
TB is not unlimited. 2 ports and 12 TB devices. You can put alot in those 12 devices but it is no where need unlimited.
I suspect it is more about survival by demonstrating growth than "sell a LOT more". Relative to iMac and MBP 13" sales it is still going to be quite small. Mac unit sales aren't going to spike upward. This may help with stopping the drop in overall Mac sales far more so than any growth.
To increase to broader appeal they can't go after the same exact set of folks though. Some folks would get dropped because there is another growing and/or larger group that would be looped in. They are not going to scoop up "everybody" with a single product.
If stick with E5 and its slower update cycle that would be one way to do a refresh each year without new CPUs to go to. New GPGPU performance numbers. However, that somewhat would depend upon Nvidia/AMD staying 180 out of phase with Intel's cycles.
If move to E3 than on same basic cycles as rest of the Mac line up.