There is nothing new to bring wrt the discussion or, for that matter, the topic of this thread. We're all here just rehashing the same thing over and over.
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.
Is the new Mac Pro a failure?
- Thread starter ZombiePhysicist
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Actually, the nMP with five external drive bays (total of 18 drives) consumes less power than the old MP. My previous old guy had one external box attached to it (4 drives). Looking at the numbers, it appears to be 30% less consumption with the nMP + all externals mentioned above. This is based on the APC until that powers everything. I am a big fan of the smaller design and efficiency where expansion is easily achieved by adding at TB wire. All I need is one long cable to place the extras on a shelf and the rest just piggy-back of that one. I initially had several of the boxes next to the nMP. The only time they made noise was at boot up or coming out of sleep mode. Once running, virtually no noise.
This is my apples to apples comparison. I realized there is a difference of opinion on the definition of "expandable" and I'm OK with that. For my purposes, the nMP is fully expandable. For others maybe not.
Happy Holidays
This is my apples to apples comparison. I realized there is a difference of opinion on the definition of "expandable" and I'm OK with that. For my purposes, the nMP is fully expandable. For others maybe not.
Happy Holidays
What is preventing you from installing a Thunderbolt card in the cMP and achieving the same physical placement? As for the power consumption numbers...I'm not putting any weight into them. Hard drives can consume a lot of power. Enough so most disk arrays will power them up one by one to avoid overloading the power supply. a cMP can support four drives internally (assuming standard 3.5" hard disks and ignoring any PCIe based SSDs or other non-standard means of installing drives). Will the nMP conserve more power than the cMP? Of course...as I said earlier...Apple pulled a lot out of it an pawned it off on external devices. Remove features and of course it'll save on things like size, power consumption, heat, and noise. One doesn't need to be an engineer to know that.
Try installing a Thunderbolt Card into a cMP! You will find that it doesn't work.
Whilst Asus, Gigabyte and Supermicro ( ones I know of ) have made TB add-in cards they only work with boards with TB Headers on them. You aren't going to be able to add the necessary parts into the cMP to work with those Add-In Cards.
You're missing the point. One could make a Thunderbolt card which works with the cMP. The option is there.
Correct. There are no PCIe to Thunderbolt cards, nor will there be unless Intel decides there should be.
What a stupidly ludicrous example. Why would you throw away a perfectly good computer & not trade it in or sell it? That's like saying every time that I buy a new car that because I can't exchange the engine for a newer more powerful fuel efficient version that the whole car must go in the crusher. Piffle!
I read about the first dozen pages, then skipped to the end.....cause it seemed most angles had been covered.
Just wanted to add: I voted that the nMP is a success, but don't feel that this bi-polar pole has any serious value. As has been hashed and rehashed....some folks are fine with the new design, and some are not. We can only vote our opinion on the design, but neither liking it or not liking it really has anything to do with success or failure.
To add to the discussion a bit:
When the nMP gets refreshed, what would folks like to see? Yes, you can say a traditional tower design with expansion slots. I hope to see, in the same nMP form factor:
Yes, it may be wacky, but some of us wished for a headless iMac for years....and along came the Mini.
Apple could really lower the price point, and we all know plenty of professionals are happy with i-based iMacs and MBPs. At a tempting entry level price, the notion of external TB storage or even break-out boxes with roll-your own PCIe cards becomes more tempting.
Ideal? Perhaps not, but a step in the right direction to lowering the cost of the entire setup: computer + peripherals + monitors
I would actually like to see the nMP follow a bit in its grand daddy's foot steps: A slightly bigger case, but still similar to current design, but with2 PCIe slots for std GPU choices...or 1 GPU + something else. Yes, the Cube. A failure because of the price point at the time, but a fabulous design of compact, quiet computing, yet still retaining some ability to configure and upgrade.
Just wanted to add: I voted that the nMP is a success, but don't feel that this bi-polar pole has any serious value. As has been hashed and rehashed....some folks are fine with the new design, and some are not. We can only vote our opinion on the design, but neither liking it or not liking it really has anything to do with success or failure.
To add to the discussion a bit:
When the nMP gets refreshed, what would folks like to see? Yes, you can say a traditional tower design with expansion slots. I hope to see, in the same nMP form factor:
- Standard (cost effective options) M.2 solid state storage slot on all models to replace current proprietary slot
- 2 major models: one with current Xeon CPUs, and one with high end i7 CPUs
- Nvidia GPU option (for all models)
Yes, it may be wacky, but some of us wished for a headless iMac for years....and along came the Mini.
Apple could really lower the price point, and we all know plenty of professionals are happy with i-based iMacs and MBPs. At a tempting entry level price, the notion of external TB storage or even break-out boxes with roll-your own PCIe cards becomes more tempting.
Ideal? Perhaps not, but a step in the right direction to lowering the cost of the entire setup: computer + peripherals + monitors
I would actually like to see the nMP follow a bit in its grand daddy's foot steps: A slightly bigger case, but still similar to current design, but with2 PCIe slots for std GPU choices...or 1 GPU + something else. Yes, the Cube. A failure because of the price point at the time, but a fabulous design of compact, quiet computing, yet still retaining some ability to configure and upgrade.
I'm not missing the point at all. The option isn't there. Otherwise Asus, Supermicro, Gigabyte, HP wouldn't be supplying TB Add-In boards that only work with certain boards/systems that have TB headers. They would make the TB add-in boards work so that can simply fit into ANY of there boards by simply connecting via the PCI-E slot instead.
Why else would they limit the add-in boards in that way?
Why can’t every motherboard use it?
The requirement for Thunderbolt 2 is as follows:
- A PCI-Express 2.0 4x port connected to the PCH
- A TB_HEADER pin-out
- An onboard DisplayPort
- Validation by Intel to ensure performance and compatibility
- An updated BIOS that adds Thunderbolt enhancements
If you look at all of the available Add-On cards then they all have that header on them as Intel have laid out that is needed
You could of course ask Intel to change the Thunderbolt Ready programme specification, so doesn't need all these requirements for the add-on cards. However Asus tried that and failed.
Rather then a Car analogy will give a Train instead
Years ago the Freight Companies wanted to run 90mph Coal Trains in Britain. They can't because causes excessive Track wear, not because the trains couldn't achieve 90mph. You could change the track so doesn't cause as much wear but that is changing the goalposts which was running on the existing track.
Yes, you are missing the point. They could do it. However they've decided not to do it...for whatever the reason (most likely because TB is expensive compared to USB 3.0/3.1 which, for many people, is good enough.I'm not missing the point at all. The option isn't there. Otherwise Asus, Supermicro, Gigabyte, HP wouldn't be supplying TB Add-In boards that only work with certain boards/systems that have TB headers. They would make the TB add-in boards work so that can simply fit into ANY of there boards by simply connecting via the PCI-E slot instead.
Why else would they limit the add-in boards in that way?
Why can’t every motherboard use it?
The requirement for Thunderbolt 2 is as follows:
How will get around these requirements which the cMP doesn't meet.
- A PCI-Express 2.0 4x port connected to the PCH
- A TB_HEADER pin-out
- An onboard DisplayPort
- Validation by Intel to ensure performance and compatibility
- An updated BIOS that adds Thunderbolt enhancements
If you look at all of the available Add-On cards then they all have that header on them as Intel have laid out that is needed
You could of course ask Intel to change the Thunderbolt Ready programme specification, so doesn't need all these requirements for the add-on cards. However Asus tried that and failed.
Rather then a Car analogy will give a Train instead
Years ago the Freight Companies wanted to run 90mph Coal Trains in Britain. They can't because causes excessive Track wear, not because the trains couldn't achieve 90mph. You could change the track so doesn't cause as much wear but that is changing the goalposts which was running on the existing track.
Intel launched the Thunderbolt Ready programme that laid out requirements. It uses a normal PCI-E x4 slot but requires a specific TB Header and support for Thunderbolt in the Board/System. Asus, Gigabyte, HP, Supermicro, and I believe MSI have all launched such cards. You also have to get validated by Intel if want to market as Thunderbolt.
Intel have laid out the requirements so that won't just pop in any old system and work.
There is a reason why they haven't done it, and it isn't that TB is expensive at all. From your answer then I am reading as you don't know why they haven't done it. If you know then why answer ...for whatever the reason, then go into a stereotypical response of why TB isn't needed by most people. ( personally I agree Thunderbolt isn't needed by everyone and for a lot of people USB is good enough. FW800 is still good enough for me! )
Intel laid out the requirements for TB AIC cards. I did put those requirements in there. Read them carefully and you will see what I am saying.
Asus tried and failed as didn't meet the Thunderbolt specification as laid out by Intel. You will have to change the goalposts and get Intel to change the specification so that could add Thunderbolt into the cMP.
Or are you trying to say that the Specification laid out could have been done differently so would be easier to add into any board
you can't upgrade that stuff right now.. there is nothing to upgrade it with.
what we don't know.. as in - nobody here knows this..
is whether or not 7,1 and 8,1 etc parts will work in 6,1.
it's not impossible.. and actually pretty likely.. in 5 years from now at this exact forum, there will be threads about people buying $1000 6,1 quads.. upping to 8 core.. putting in 802.11ax / bluetooth 5 airport cards.. swapping d300 for d302.. adding a second internal ssd... etc.
idk, i think your 'no longevity whatsoever' regarding upgrading isn't so true.. i get it that you might be worried this will be the case but that in no way makes it the actual case..
Ok Ladies and Gentlemen this is my last post until new year I hope so.
There is enough said about nMP vs cMP, what I could see is that a friend of a friend who knows the cousin of the girlfriend of some girl that have a boyfriend cleaning carpets at Cuppertino that actuality Jhonny Ive comes here on a daily basis, he knows that because Jhonny laughs can be heared across the Apple campus.
Ok, now the reality, the nMP is here soon an new update not as dramatic as previous is foresee, we will see the same trash can with updated internals nothing revolutionary while this maybe the nMP which should have been the previous one, but still is not aimed to push the computational limits to a new extreme but for companies requiring powerful hardware for OSX apps not for Linux or Windows niche heavy computational apps.
And get your updated new Mac Pro since it will be the last one on Intel Cpu's since AMD is reading a sort of APU which combines XEON class processor with an integrated FirePro class gpu all this by Apple order, I doubt this will target only iMacs but the Mac Pro, the good part is that Apple could fit 3 of these Xeon like APU inside the MP 8, 1 ; I don't like it because I don't like AMD cpus neither their bulldozer series is relevant, but considering the alternative is to Jump to ARM platform is better option, and has few interesting technical characteristics intrinsic to SOC as direct bus CPU-GPU interface much more efficient than PCIE, the bad thing is that such FrankenCPU very unlikely to be upgradable unless you get the spare from Apple.
I'd like a nMP based on i7/nVidia aimed at Gamers, Apple Is missing this market miserably, and is not a big deal or technical challenge to build this Gamer oriented Mac since both i7 and Xeon E5v4 share socket and both can work on the same chipset, however the i7 can't use ECC memory otherwise is an Xeon.
No big hope this to happen, Apple marketing is so rigid, also impossible to include again nVidia gpu due deals with AMD the most we will see on this theoretical Gamer Mac is two radeon fury X.
Another thing I would like to see is an updated and more powerful Timecapsule with at least AC1950 class wifi performance and at least 8 GB ethernet ports with link aggregation to be capable to reach 2gbps of network performance where all we have an old bottleneck.
For everyone Merry Christmas and for those nMP haters I deserve Santa to put one on your Tree ...
Bye until next year...
There is enough said about nMP vs cMP, what I could see is that a friend of a friend who knows the cousin of the girlfriend of some girl that have a boyfriend cleaning carpets at Cuppertino that actuality Jhonny Ive comes here on a daily basis, he knows that because Jhonny laughs can be heared across the Apple campus.
Ok, now the reality, the nMP is here soon an new update not as dramatic as previous is foresee, we will see the same trash can with updated internals nothing revolutionary while this maybe the nMP which should have been the previous one, but still is not aimed to push the computational limits to a new extreme but for companies requiring powerful hardware for OSX apps not for Linux or Windows niche heavy computational apps.
And get your updated new Mac Pro since it will be the last one on Intel Cpu's since AMD is reading a sort of APU which combines XEON class processor with an integrated FirePro class gpu all this by Apple order, I doubt this will target only iMacs but the Mac Pro, the good part is that Apple could fit 3 of these Xeon like APU inside the MP 8, 1 ; I don't like it because I don't like AMD cpus neither their bulldozer series is relevant, but considering the alternative is to Jump to ARM platform is better option, and has few interesting technical characteristics intrinsic to SOC as direct bus CPU-GPU interface much more efficient than PCIE, the bad thing is that such FrankenCPU very unlikely to be upgradable unless you get the spare from Apple.
I'd like a nMP based on i7/nVidia aimed at Gamers, Apple Is missing this market miserably, and is not a big deal or technical challenge to build this Gamer oriented Mac since both i7 and Xeon E5v4 share socket and both can work on the same chipset, however the i7 can't use ECC memory otherwise is an Xeon.
No big hope this to happen, Apple marketing is so rigid, also impossible to include again nVidia gpu due deals with AMD the most we will see on this theoretical Gamer Mac is two radeon fury X.
Another thing I would like to see is an updated and more powerful Timecapsule with at least AC1950 class wifi performance and at least 8 GB ethernet ports with link aggregation to be capable to reach 2gbps of network performance where all we have an old bottleneck.
For everyone Merry Christmas and for those nMP haters I deserve Santa to put one on your Tree ...
Bye until next year...
Whew... thank goodness he's gone... all that common sense stuff was putting a real buzz kill on my nMP hate.
Merry Christmass to all.
Merry Christmass to all.
Why not 10GbE instead? Link aggregation is good for a busy server, but does next to nothing for a task with only a thread or two.
Also, wouldn't it be a waste because the Time Capsule uses a spinning hard drive which isn't much faster than a single GbE link? (Although, it might be useful if the Time Capsule does single-instance store with the dedup happening in the Time Capsule rather than the client.)
I would love to have Santa drop by with an MP6,1 for me. (In the same way that I'd love to be given a Corvette - which I would sell without even seeing it.)
It would be on eBay within minutes without ever being opened, and would fund a big part of the 20-core Precision that I've been looking at.
Enjoy Saturnalia.
Last edited:
I'd like to see this unicorn too, but this piece of hardware is available only on the same parallel world where the nMP comes with nVidia GPU and dual socket CPU where MacRumors users fight argument that a single socket is better...
BTW link aggregation works fine moving data form the nMP to the server the drawback is that properly configure a capably switch is an nightmare.
I like the Nas with Thunderbolt mentioned earlier but I consider it overkill on disk capacity and we have actually two DS1515+ one regular and one fireproof (ioSafe1515) plus the Thunderbolt enclosures one of this is stored on a vault when not in use, this is just in case, external backup also is periodical just not as critical and done just in case following strict data safe policies.
( 10gb ethernet is way better than link aggregation but unlikely we will see it on Apple until goes mainstream)
I consider the problem with link aggregation is that it's usually not applied per connection. You can have 8 parallel GbE connections, but any single connection is only GbE. ("Connection" in TCP/IP parlance.)
That NAS box has two 10 GbE links in the default configuration. 10 GbE is on the cusp of mainstream.
Properly configured and optimally implemented (requires a lot of check both on the clients , the servers and the switch) Link Aggregation twice the bandwidth on each protocol transfer, while TCP packet speed its the same, an FTP or HTTP (as well as an SMP/AFP transfer) dispatch packets across both interfaces and those packets the are re-assembled on destination, its is transparent and applicable to most protocols, not all, database, IM protocols unlikely to benefit from link aggregation.
Still not a big deal since most NASes barely saturate a single gigabyte connection, having a 10GB connection could send many thunderbolt enclosures to pasture, I think maybe on a couple of years this will occur, today we are organized around GB Ethernet and thunderbolt, Ethernet for low performance file sharing and TB for huge files, and we have the Synology
Nases and a mac mini, the mini most the time is used only as means to share files inside the TB enclosures not always online as the Synology NASses.
(Hope this actually my last post until new year...)
Why make meaningless promises (does it matter when your last post of 2015 is - no) ??
If you make a post at 23:59 on the 31st - then you should worry!
I'm in exactly the same boat as biker4mac. Super keen to get the new pro but was so disappointed with Apple's lack of understanding of how people use Pros. Upgraded instead to a later model "used silver box" that allowed me to migrate software and hardware with minimum disruption to my business. Looks like another case of marketing division overriding the creative engineers.
A nMP with an high end i7 (5820K / 5930K / 5960X) and DDR4 memory + Nvidia powered gpu.. that would be an very interesting powerhouse for a lot of users here. I am in!
- Status