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.
How many would have preferred the old form factor with upgraded parts?
- Thread starter slughead
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Keep in mind they used a CPU with an integrated GPU on it, which is the simplest solution to route the video signal through the TB chip (board designer, ASUS in this case, would have added the necessary trace routing from the IGP to the TB chip).
That said however, from a technical standpoint, there are ways that it's possible to run the video output from a discrete card to a TB chip, without having to resort to adding a TB chip to the discrete GPU card.
No such solution has yet to reach the market last I checked however (likely do to a lack of any standard to accomplish this, since GPU card makers wouldn't want to take their chances with a proprietary solution ending up a commercial flop).
And I took my 60 seconds (and then some) with the form to tell Apple how much I actually liked the new approach to the Mac Pro and that they should also release a glossy white version alongside the black aluminum. Seriously, I did.
And I took my 60 seconds (and then some) with the form to tell Apple how much I actually liked the new approach to the Mac Pro and that they should also release a glossy white version alongside the black aluminum. Seriously, I did.
People who care what color the MacPro is...don't really need one.
And I have no intention of getting one. Quite happy with my iMac, but this is Apple we're talking about. Remember the mirror version of the PowerMac G4? Was that version really necessary to Pros? No, but apparently Apple still cares about looks. Needn't look any further than the new Mac Pro teaser video that Apple showed at WWDC to see that.
Besides, if the new Mac Pro does start appealing to more prosumers, then I believe users could start caring more about design aesthetics.
We also don't know if Ivy Bridge E will offer CPU graphics--it very well may (The Xeon E3 did).
Different socket, and that used for E3 (LGA1155), was designed for an IGP from the beginning. The E5 (LGA2011) socket wasn't.
Given the custom boards however (just to fit the physical format), it's not much additional effort to go ahead and create a proprietary means of connecting the video data from the GPU boards to the TB chips via some sort of custom interconnect (cable or flex PCB that route the signals from one board to another).
And there's another benefit by keeping an IGP out of the E5 parts, as the die shrink will allow them to push the physical core count to 12.
Different socket, and that used for E3 (LGA1155), was designed for an IGP from the beginning. The E5 (LGA2011) socket wasn't.
Given the custom boards however (just to fit the physical format), it's not much additional effort to go ahead and create a proprietary means of connecting the video data from the GPU boards to the TB chips via some sort of custom interconnect (cable or flex PCB that route the signals from one board to another).
And there's another benefit by keeping an IGP out of the E5 parts, as the die shrink will allow them to push the physical core count to 12.
After further research, it looks highly unlikely there will every be a LGA 2011 with CPU Graphics. It looks like ASUS is planning on releasing its own proprietary GPU solution so it can have thunderbolt too.
What I see happening is a transitional period with a MDP-input on a thunderbolt controller like this (only included on the actual board to save space). Note that on that controller, the video input is optional--it's only for those who want a TB monitor.
Meanwhile, during this "transitional period" (in a market which honestly may never actually fully transition to TB displays) GPUs start to come standard with some kind of standardized Thunderbolt video output (note that I don't think this exists yet) that feeds into the motherboard (maybe an extra few pins on the PCIe slot?) AND DVI/HDMI/DisplayPort at the same time.
Alternatively thunderbolt could just remain on certain consumer boards with CPU graphics--just skip LGA 2011 except on weird proprietary setups like the new Mac Pro. Professionals don't really need TB anyway as it's slower and less versatile than PCIe (Oh no! the TB fanboys are going to pounce on me!)
Last edited:
Quick question for the market experts:
Are there any Thunderbolt Displays currently on the market other than Apple?
Are there any announced but in the "pipeline"?
Are there any Thunderbolt Displays currently on the market other than Apple?
Are there any announced but in the "pipeline"?
You didn't read the by-line on that article did you? June 2012. It is July 2013. Does that look like plan?
There is alot of "Oh looks what the R&D shop cooked up" stuff thrown out at computer trade shows..... Some of them never show up as products.
One single, flat mainboard makes serviceability of this an issue, which is probably why it is still "concept' board.
Video is not optional. The card has a connector to the CPU's iGPU's output.
I don't think the Rube Goldberg loop back connector ever passed Thunderbolt certification. In fact by release some of the boards this board disappeared. Most mainboard vendors with Thunderbolt bundle virtualGPU and push other GPUs framebuffers out through the iGPU.
Not particularly a transitional period when Rube Goldberg solution never pass certification.
TB isn't slower than PCIe. It actually couldn't be slower and still transport PCIe data that meet latency constraints. This real different is that can create higher bundles with PCIe a x8 or x16 lane bundle. Thunderbolt doesn't bundle and scale.
----------
Depends upon just how deep you think Asus' pipeline is...
Over a year ago....
"... we don't know pricing or availability, though ASUS was at least able to confirm that the Thunderbolt model is headed to the US. ... "
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/07/asus-shows-off-its-first-thunderbolt-monitor-along-with-3d-and/
Maybe it is being sent by dogsled and the long route through Siberia and Alaska ?
You didn't read the article: It is indeed optional unless you want to use a Thunderbolt Display. The Thunderbolt functions without a video signal unless you plug in that connector.
Right, I was just pointing out that there was already a product that had the feature I was talking about which would work for LGA2011 which have no CPU Graphics currently (and maybe never will).
Really? Last time I checked my PCIe 3.0 16x slot can go up to 16GBps -- 8 times what thunderbolt 2 can do. The latency may be similar, but it is SLOOOOWWWERRRR. (queue sad noise "Bwaaa bwaaa").
As far as I know I have not seen any third party monitors with Thunderbolt presently in the market or any upcoming new thunderbolt monitors. It could be the cost of including Thunderbolt by third party monitors or maybe this is still Apple proprietary and there is substantial demand from PC users.
There were lots of folks and articles written about how TB/Lightpeek were going to lots of things ( maybe even cure world hunger ). There far more relevant issue is did that ever pass Thunderbolt certification????
You might try reading this thread.
http://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?23140-Thunderbolt-EX-Card-Availability
Or search Asus's website for this as a shipping product.
It has to ship to be a product.
You do realize what the x16 stands for?
Compare one Thunderbolt channel (10Gb/s) to one PCI-e v2 lane (4Gb/s) or even one PCI-e v3 lane ( 8Gb/s). Which number is largest?
The bundling is the differentiation factor not the speed.
You can only bundle PCIe lanes that are available. If oversubscribed or out of lanes at the same version level PCIe bandwidth drops off too because the bundle isn't as effective.
The more relevant issue is whether a product like this actually works or not. If it didn't ship, it's likely it didn't due to the total lack of demand for thunderbolt because *gasp* it's nearly pointless if you have a bunch of PCIe slots. I guess you can use it for Apple monitors or pay way too much for a Thunderbolt enclosure with half the throughput of SAS at twice the price.
Compare all six thunderbolt 2 ports on the Mac Pro to ONE 16x 3.0 PCIe port. Which has more bandwidth?
Now what about LGA2011 boards with Four PCIe 16x slots and one 8x slot (yes, I know they share "only" 40 lanes)? Which has more total possible throughput, those slots or the TB on the new Mac Pro? Keep in mind this product does exist, and I can buy it off NewEgg today.
Again, not that it has anything to do with my argument (that TB can function without any display capability and therefore is compatible with any PCIe GPU, as long as you can do without thunderbolt display), but I just found out from Jimmy, the Asus guy that they are in fact planning on releasing a thunderbolt expansion card as soon as Intel approves the spec (soon, he says).
More thought. The 3,1 is now gone and replaced with a 5,1 dual quad 2.4. 24MBs RAM and before I sold it, I moved the Radeon 5770 from the new Mac to the 3,1 and put the GTX570 in the 5,1. I also added a second optical drive. One thing that caught me completely off guard - the HDD sleds for the 5,1 and 3,1 are different. the 5,1 sled is longer. Took me awhile to figure that out. Anyway the 5,1 will be my workhorse for the foreseeable future.
Lou
Totally wrong direction
For me, an ideal cpu would have been the i7-4770k. I can get away with the performance of the $900 mac mini (upgraded CPU) though the integrated graphics may be an issue, I'm sure I'd be fine on a mini power-wise.
I prefer as much as possible to be inside the main box though, I have 12 TB of internal hard drives, a Blu-ray writer, and video card. In the past I've been willing to pay the premium for the pro, for the everything in one box desktop even though I couldn't care less about the "better" cpu.
So for me this new mac pro is all the downsides of a mini and the price of a pro. It's the worst of all worlds.
I would have bought the 2012 bump last year, but no USB3 = dealbreaker for me.
How can anyone actually prefer a small processor unit attached to several external boxes strewn across their desk over one box with nothing but power and video connected to it?
For me, an ideal cpu would have been the i7-4770k. I can get away with the performance of the $900 mac mini (upgraded CPU) though the integrated graphics may be an issue, I'm sure I'd be fine on a mini power-wise.
I prefer as much as possible to be inside the main box though, I have 12 TB of internal hard drives, a Blu-ray writer, and video card. In the past I've been willing to pay the premium for the pro, for the everything in one box desktop even though I couldn't care less about the "better" cpu.
So for me this new mac pro is all the downsides of a mini and the price of a pro. It's the worst of all worlds.
I would have bought the 2012 bump last year, but no USB3 = dealbreaker for me.
How can anyone actually prefer a small processor unit attached to several external boxes strewn across their desk over one box with nothing but power and video connected to it?
My only gripe with the new design is that when I place it on the floor next to my work desk, I'll find my wife has used it for tissues and snack wrappers. "No dear, this is NOT from Bed, Bath, and Beyond".....
Totally agree. A really smart Apple would keep the 5,1 going (5,5?) with an i7, 1TB HD, optional OD and a basic GPU, no TB but with lots of USB3 and the same number of FW800.
At $1600/1700 it would fill that space for a configurable Mac.
I am willing to bet that what you think a really smart thing for Apple to do is completely different than what Apple thinks is a really smart thing for them to do.
STOP PLEASE with using semantics to avoid admitting the truth.
It doesn't help your case or make TB one tiny bit faster than the 1/4 of the speed of the two fast slots in my "ancient" 2009 MP. Disingenuous and not accepting reality. You are starting to sound like that guy claiming 4 RAM slots is more than 8. Maybe you get PR releases from same writer?
And I think we can all agree that if some guys at Asus figured out a better way for offering TB while still allowing user freedom in GPU choices, then clearly they are just smarter than or less interested in selling proprietary poppycock than the engineers in Cupertino.
The fact that they did it an ENTIRE YEAR AGO just cements the case in concrete that Apple isn't trying to "innovate" anything other than ways to lock future sales in.
Can we drop it now?