I think everyone's assuming that just because the total core count is going up across the product line, then Apple would bump the base configuration from 4 to 6.
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.
Mac Pro Refresh "b" Possibilities?
- Thread starter iBighouse
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think everyone's assuming that just because the total core count is going up across the product line, then Apple would bump the base configuration from 4 to 6.
Maybe I am lucky... or maybe the relative long time (almost 4 years!) from the previous model MP 2010 (with a very minor "update" in 2012 just to look as if they have renewed anything in the meantime) was used by Apple to do their best to bring to the pro market a bug free nMP (as much as human possible).
To be honest I bought this "first generation" MP very afraid of all kind of faults I have heard to be possible, some people talked about, and so on,
but after over 2 months I have not found in it ANY bug at all! believe it or not!Maybe something terribly wrong
will show at a certain moment (which I hope is not the case!!!) but until now I have absolutely NOTHING to complain about this "high risk first generation" computer.
No. Not on a Pro machine. Killing Pro machine? Possible. That's how Apple works.
Tell me about it. I ordered my used 2008 Mac Pro to my doorstep, and I panicked because I remembered that I was (at the time) right across from a high school and I knew people had lost packages before... but then I remembered it was a huge 60lbs box and I stopped worrying........................
I assume that thieves will find it much easier to make money out of stolen iPhones, MacBooks or iPads than of a stollen nMP.
But of course previous MP were from that point of view safer.
A thief running with a previous MP had a hard way to make a living
They're not changing the design drastically at all. I assume some reconfiguring will happen due to the native USB3 support, so they don't have to put a separate controller in, but I really doubt anything will be visible on the outside. They've got a factory just catching up on producing these things.
I do wonder. The main reason for the huge cost of the nMP isn't Apple, it's Intel (although insert comments about SSD BTO pricing here.) I can see Apple trying to broaden the market for the Pro but I don't think they'd do it by using old chips (like keeping the current 4C config around for $500 less or so) or doing something like swapping to an i7 processor for a low-end model (can i7's handle dual GPUs? I confess to being ignorant on that score, but I assume if cards like the Titan Z use three lanes you could use dual single-lane cards at least.)
Tell me about it. I ordered my used 2008 Mac Pro to my doorstep, and I panicked because I remembered that I was (at the time) right across from a high school and I knew people had lost packages before... but then I remembered it was a huge 60lbs box and I stopped worrying
They're not changing the design drastically at all. I assume some reconfiguring will happen due to the native USB3 support, so they don't have to put a separate controller in, but I really doubt anything will be visible on the outside. They've got a factory just catching up on producing these things.
I do wonder. The main reason for the huge cost of the nMP isn't Apple, it's Intel (although insert comments about SSD BTO pricing here.) I can see Apple trying to broaden the market for the Pro but I don't think they'd do it by using old chips (like keeping the current 4C config around for $500 less or so) or doing something like swapping to an i7 processor for a low-end model (can i7's handle dual GPUs? I confess to being ignorant on that score, but I assume if cards like the Titan Z use three lanes you could use dual single-lane cards at least.)
Apple are using a $300 CPU in a $2,999 system. The i7-4820K is the same price and the i7-4790 is more. Niche market, small user base, Apple's popularity in other areas here engineering resources are better spent, a system aimed at those generating income and new manufacturing are why it's expensive.
They're not the same. The i7-4790 maxes out on RAM much lower than the actual Xeon part Apple uses.
Is that a worthy trade off? No idea. Just saying, they're not the same processor, and Intel charges a lot more for the Xeon variant with the higher RAM capacity.
You don't seem to realize that i7's are not Xeons... and yes, Xeons are the reason for the Mac Pro's expense. A E5-1680v2 will set the consumer back $1723... and Apple offers that BTO processor upgrade at $1500. http://ark.intel.com/products/77912/
To reinforce this, let's go spec out a HP workstation... 8 core, strip out all the keyboard and mice and media the Pro doesn't have... and without any graphics cards I get a price of $6,074.00. A 8 core nMP with dual D500s and AppleCare (to match HP's warranty) comes to... (drumroll) $5,748.00.
In other words, you're wrong and misinformed.
Do they?
http://ark.intel.com/compare/80806,77781,75779
You brought up moving to an i7 for a lower end model, I point out that all i7s cost the same or more than the Xeon used in the base model Mac Pro. Which happens to be the same as an i7-4820K except it supports ECC memory.
You tell us Intel are the reason a Mac pro is expensive. You've then gone on to only use the 8-core as an example which just happens to be the odd duck due to Intel's high price to move from 6 to 8-cores and you've misquoted the price - it's a $2,000 to go from a $300 CPU to a $1,700 CPU. The 4 and 6 core models are the same price as i7s and you can get 12 or 16 cores a lot cheaper than Apple want for 12. The 8-core CPU options create one odd example to back your point, but I really can't see how any one can believe Intel are responsible for Apple wanting $1,000-$3,000 more than comparable hardware.
Dell will sell you a 4-core for $1,250, 6-core for $1,750, 8-core 3.5Ghz with twice the L3 cache and RAM capacity for same as an 8-core Mac Pro and well 12 and 16 are less due to Apple using a single CPU.
Using HP as an example is poor. Their web prices are not the prices you really have to pay. Dell's web pricing is a more realistic comparison to the prices of what someone can get pre-built hardware for.
I'm not a fan of Intel's pricing creep on the high-end and I don't like the premium jump from 6 to 8 cores, not a big fan of what I had to pay for 16 and 24 cores in the past 2 years compared to what I got the top CPUs for in the past either. Maybe I have a different view because of my history with Intel workstations and Apple's products, but I always figured when people said Macs were expensive they were comparing it to other companies not saying wow these parts from "Intel, Samsung, Hynix, AMD, Toshiba, LG and Nvidia sure are expensive!"
I really don't care that Apple cost more. I love OS X and if they offered the hardware I want (something they stopped doing in 2009) I'd pay the extra, it's just a business expense for a better tool. Just find it odd to say Intel cause the Mac Pro to be expensive when in the base model it's <10% of the price.
Last edited:
Well, Intel hasn't announced a date for the release of the Haswell-EP chips but they are expected in Q3, so anything anyone says is just speculation. Some people argue that Apple won't push a refresh so soon after the release of the nMP, but I think ddr4 is going to be a buzzword and Apple won't want to miss out on it. So I'm thinking Q4.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm going either late Q4, early Q1 2015 (obviously since I'm waiting to upgrade, the sooner the better!) I don't think Apple's particularly concerned about pushing out new upgrades, especially since this should be a fairly meaty one. It will be the test of the Pro's longevity though in regards to graphics card options and whether there will be a sustained demand after the pent-up demand they were dealing with the first half of this year.
The "revision b" syndrome
Interesting to find again and again the same speculations about a so called "refresh b" AKA "revision b"... while just now is possible for Apple to deliver enough nMP for all the pending orders in the world, without having to let those people wait months or even weeks to receive their computer.
I suppose that a crystal ball owner could make a lot of money in this sub forum.
AFAIK these repeating questions do not come from OWNERS of the nMP but from many others, hesitating back and fort, up and down, right and left...climbing the walls and walking on the ceiling, trying to find out if they are going to buy one or not... and looking for some pretext not to make a decision in one way or in another.
As long as people had to wait several months (and many of them were in a truly difficult position needing the computer for their work and their customers), there was no need for the "revision b" pretext.
People could complain about a delivery time they could hardly (or for many, actually not at all!) stand.
Now (unfortunately, because of the wicked Apple) there is no longer that welcome argument in order not to decide.
Therefore there was for some people an urgent need to find a new reason to hesitate about yes-buy or not-buy a nMP.
That function is now fulfilled by the famous "revision b" or "refresh b" question.
To be a "revision b" or not to be. That is the question
I am perfectly happy with my very, very, very old and dusty, full of fossil debris, Jurassic period "revision a" (a couple of months old) nMP!
Strange, isn't it?
How can it be possible???
Maybe I should enter the Smithsonian institution or some other club of people in love with objects belonging to very ancient cultures...
Interesting to find again and again the same speculations about a so called "refresh b" AKA "revision b"... while just now is possible for Apple to deliver enough nMP for all the pending orders in the world, without having to let those people wait months or even weeks to receive their computer.
I suppose that a crystal ball owner could make a lot of money in this sub forum.
AFAIK these repeating questions do not come from OWNERS of the nMP but from many others, hesitating back and fort, up and down, right and left...climbing the walls and walking on the ceiling, trying to find out if they are going to buy one or not... and looking for some pretext not to make a decision in one way or in another.
As long as people had to wait several months (and many of them were in a truly difficult position needing the computer for their work and their customers), there was no need for the "revision b" pretext.
People could complain about a delivery time they could hardly (or for many, actually not at all!) stand.
Now (unfortunately, because of the wicked Apple) there is no longer that welcome argument in order not to decide.
Therefore there was for some people an urgent need to find a new reason to hesitate about yes-buy or not-buy a nMP.
That function is now fulfilled by the famous "revision b" or "refresh b" question.
To be a "revision b" or not to be. That is the question
I am perfectly happy with my very, very, very old and dusty, full of fossil debris, Jurassic period "revision a" (a couple of months old) nMP!
Strange, isn't it?
How can it be possible???
Maybe I should enter the Smithsonian institution or some other club of people in love with objects belonging to very ancient cultures...
Interesting to find again and again the same speculations about a so called "refresh b" AKA "revision b"... while just now is possible for Apple to deliver enough nMP for all the pending orders in the world, without having to let those people wait months or even weeks to receive their computer.
I suppose that a crystal ball owner could make a lot of money in this sub forum.
AFAIK these repeating questions do not come from OWNERS of the nMP but from many others, hesitating back and fort, up and down, right and left...climbing the walls and walking on the ceiling, trying to find out if they are going to buy one or not... and looking for some pretext not to make a decision in one way or in another.
As long as people had to wait several months (and many of them were in a truly difficult position needing the computer for their work and their customers), there was no need for the "revision b" pretext.
People could complain about a delivery time they could hardly (or for many, actually not at all!) stand.
Now (unfortunately, because of the wicked Apple) there is no longer that welcome argument in order not to decide.
Therefore there was for some people an urgent need to find a new reason to hesitate about yes-buy or not-buy a nMP.
That function is now fulfilled by the famous "revision b" or "refresh b" question.
To be a "revision b" or not to be. That is the question
I am perfectly happy with my very, very, very old and dusty, full of fossil debris, Jurassic period "revision a" (a couple of months old) nMP!
Strange, isn't it?
How can it be possible???
Maybe I should enter the Smithsonian institution or some other club of people in love with objects belonging to very ancient cultures...
Yes, I'm one of those who waited, and is waiting. My current system is nearing end of life and I'm thinking of getting a workstation. One of the things I'm waiting for is DDR 4, since any new system I buy I want it to last 10 years.
I'm thinking Apple may do a quiet update on the nMP in the Spring of 2015.
I'm pretty much in the same boat. I told myself when I got my current mac that I'd wait until ddr4 to upgrade it.
For some reason people think that a new revision will make it more difficult for Apple to produce the computer. I don't understand that logic. The wait on the nMP had nothing to do with component supply, their assembly process was the bottle neck.
Last edited by a moderator:
Most people in this forum mention often how soon "top hardware" becomes "old hardware".
The 2006 MP 1.1 is often discussed in as far it is worth upgrading and investing money in it.
It is a model only 8 years old and it was at the time it came one of the best computers and the most powerful running OSX.
Most people upgrading cMP however advise to do it with models from 2008 and newer.
I also believe that as long as possible we should keep and use every product and my 1995 car might last longer than I, who knows???
However computers seem to become "older" sooner than other products.
Is therefore thinking of 10 years not to be somehow over optimistic?
Just a question and not at all an argument.
It would be nice if it would be possible...
However computers seem to become "older" sooner than other products.
Is therefore thinking of 10 years not to be somehow over optimistic?
Just a question and not at all an argument.
It would be nice if it would be possible...
My previous computer to the one I use now lasted 7 years. I would hope I could make a nMP last 10 years, especially if I'm going to shell out that kind of money. It may be optimistic, and it may only last 7-8 years (I'd be fine with that), but the general goal would be to try for 10 years.
How long your computer lasts has nothing to do with it's hardware... It really depends on the software you want to run. If you don't upgrade your OS or Apps for 10 years, your nMP should definitely out live your last system
Case in point: My Apple IIe has lasted 30 years - it still runs AppleWorks as good as the day I got it. However, I'm having a helluva time getting Mavericks and iWork running on it.
Last edited:
.............................How long your computer lasts has nothing to do with it's hardware... It really depends on the software you want to run. If you don't upgrade your OS or Apps for 10 years, your nMP should definitely out live your last system
Case in point: My Apple IIe has lasted 30 years - it still runs AppleWorks as good as the day I got it. However, I'm having a helluva time getting Mavericks and iWork running on it.
There is a lot of truth in this reasoning.
However in my MacPro 1.1 bought end 2007, after about a year the graphic card had to be replaced and after a further year the techs of the dealer (not Apple!) said the Logic Board had to be replaced.
Maybe it is not typical at all.
Besides the dealer, the largest Apple Pro source in Basel, Switzerland, behaved in a way not very trustful and I am not even sure if they did replace the parts they said they did.
Therefore I decided in the future never again to buy anything from them but always directly from Apple.
Apple uses good hardware components. No question about it.
Still Apple Care lasts 3 years and after that period one must pay for any repair if needed.
If one thinks about 10 years, that leaves 7 years risking to pay for repairs if one is not a person capable of repairing and replacing parts by oneself which for instance is my case.
I would be worried taking into account the relative high price of a nMP but that is I, others may feel it entirely differently.
There's the maxim that "the best computer is the one you can get right now", and I think that's true. But for customers like me who don't have a time-sensitive need to buy a new computer (we don't have broken hardware, and don't have some requirement to do purchases to align with a business quarter or upgrade schedule) it can be worth waiting if you can.
Personally the major reason for my wait is DDR4, and also I always wait at least a revision before upgrading, just like I always wait for the 10.x.1 update before migrating over too. Let those hardworking 'Muricans iron out any manufacturing issues or coil whine on the first round
As far as the frequency of upgrading, I think it's paradoxically slowed down and sped up. For most people, I'm fairly certain the desktops have gotten "fast enough"--the big bottlenecks are less likely to be CPUs and GPUs and SSDs and more likely to be "I have a cruddy internet connection and my Netflix flakes out on me." For certain enthusiast and pro users though, I feel like it's gotten faster because of increased technical expectations (4K).
In my world of motion graphics, honestly what's holding me back is less hardware than the unoptimized bloat that is Adobe CC; it's 2014 and I can't play back audio or SD video without first doing a RAM preview in After Effects, and that's entirely Adobe's ancient code rather than the muscle of my Mac. The majority of my clients are fine with 720p24 because it's ending up on the web and they don't want to have to pay for more rendering time or rush couriers (because invariably they will want to change someone's title in the eleventh hour before a live event.)
Personally the major reason for my wait is DDR4, and also I always wait at least a revision before upgrading, just like I always wait for the 10.x.1 update before migrating over too. Let those hardworking 'Muricans iron out any manufacturing issues or coil whine on the first round
As far as the frequency of upgrading, I think it's paradoxically slowed down and sped up. For most people, I'm fairly certain the desktops have gotten "fast enough"--the big bottlenecks are less likely to be CPUs and GPUs and SSDs and more likely to be "I have a cruddy internet connection and my Netflix flakes out on me." For certain enthusiast and pro users though, I feel like it's gotten faster because of increased technical expectations (4K).
In my world of motion graphics, honestly what's holding me back is less hardware than the unoptimized bloat that is Adobe CC; it's 2014 and I can't play back audio or SD video without first doing a RAM preview in After Effects, and that's entirely Adobe's ancient code rather than the muscle of my Mac. The majority of my clients are fine with 720p24 because it's ending up on the web and they don't want to have to pay for more rendering time or rush couriers (because invariably they will want to change someone's title in the eleventh hour before a live event.)
..............
Interesting!.
This is a reasonable explanation from true business world as opposed to more or less empty questions often coming from other people.
For non pros like me it is significative to learn about the importance of the speed of development by software makers in any decision about when buying a new computer.
So it is not just the degree of "freshness" of the hardware Apple used but there are other criteria no less important, which do not depend on Apple.
W8100 has lower TDP than the W9000, but more throughput ( 4.2 > 3.9 ) & VRAM ( 8GB > 6GB ) ...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8196/amd-announces-firepro-w8100
Still will probably have to clock it down some more but a "D710" candidate right there (with incremental R&D updates on existing GPU cards ). Gut more CUs and half the VRAM and likely have a "D510" candidate.
Still probably kneecapped for HPC work with disabled ECC VRAM functionality.