So then how is the idea of a PCI graphics card compatible with modern interfaces like Thunderbolt or USB-C?
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 Rising
- Thread starter No One
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So then how is the idea of a PCI graphics card compatible with modern interfaces like Thunderbolt or USB-C?
Internal bus. It is the design of Mac Pro that allows wiring the DP signal over Thunderbolt. There is nothing that stops "normal" GPUs to have connection over Thunderbolt or USB-C. But because they are exposed they don't need this.
A very good analogy! Here is another.
Person 1 takes footage to render farm A with boxes full of K-5000's and K-6000's! It's finished in x-amount and is ready for pickup.
Person 2 takes the same footage (file size and codec) to render farm B with closed appliance-like computers. The footage is not completed on time!
The specific "tool" for the "specific" job was needed.
I do realize there are apps and hardware people here don't even know exist. So when the terms iMac and nMP are mentioned they can't reference those apps, HW or work flows!
How do the GPUs connect to the MP6,1?
- PCIe
- PCIe
- PCIe
- PCIe
- PCIe
- PCIe 4.0 with twice the bandwidth of PCIe 3.0
No insinuation what so ever. It was taken from here and no where do I or this person equate nMP with "closed appliance-like computers". It does not have to be an nMP to be closed.
I describe myself as a computer hobbyist in that I'm interested in computers beyond using them simply as a tool as a means to an end. I'm interested in technology in general. I use Windows computers professionally (I've used quite a few Dell Precisions in my day) and Mac computers for general interest, which includes adobe suite, video editing, music recording and editing, writing, programming, etc.You mentioned that you are a "computer hobbyist" but speak in general terms pertaining to "pro" users. In specific terms and applications will you show how an iMac meets the needs of 90% of "pro" users. What apps do you consider "pro" apps? Is this just a vague term because an app like photo shop spans a wide spectrum of users? Are the other 10% of "pro" users avoiding the iMac because it gets exposed for what it really is under "pro" usage?
It seems like a lot of time here is spent on trying to define "pros", which is why I often put that in quotes, because those labels are beside the point. But yes, I'm using "pro" as a general term in that you make money using your computer and software as a tool to accomplish that (beyond basic office productivity software).
Folks who are in small niche industries often lose perspective of that. You can come up with all sorts of examples of this or that requirement to fit this or that specific need where an iMac or nMP isn't a great solution, but you can't get them to add up to a sizable market segment that is worth Apple spending the time or resources.
You guys can just go around in circles forever. I see a lot of variations on the "Apple products suck" talk, focused on the specs and benchmarks. I see very little "I want to accomplish X, what would be the best solution for this?"
The more I read about the talks about future Mac Pros the more I feel like we talking about who's gonna retire first in their early age of life.
Who knows the real story of Apple other than those major players in Apple company.
If it comes, so be it. I guess we can make the best with the current model or previous.
There is no actual lead to convince us there will be another Mac Pro anytime soon. If people wanna wait, then so be it. People can talk about what ifs and what not because hey...this is Mac rumor...otherwise it should be named Mac facts website.
Who knows the real story of Apple other than those major players in Apple company.
If it comes, so be it. I guess we can make the best with the current model or previous.
There is no actual lead to convince us there will be another Mac Pro anytime soon. If people wanna wait, then so be it. People can talk about what ifs and what not because hey...this is Mac rumor...otherwise it should be named Mac facts website.
Indeed.
Like I said:
I wasn't talking about PCIe as an interconnect. I was talking about PCIe devices for the end user. I didn't specify that in the sentence you quoted because I thought it was clear from the preceding paragraphs. So I'll rephrase that third paragraph:
The end-user PCIe aftermarket looks like a shrinking market and that is not going to encourage a lot of innovation.
Really? And Tim told you this over lunch last week?
The top of the line mac has never been a big seller, but sometimes companies keep products in the lineup even if they aren't a huge cash cow for many other reasons.
One minor but often overlooked reason why the Mac pro still exists is that Apple needs powerful workstations for internal use. iMacs don't cut it for everything they do and Windows boxes are Verboten. You may be able to get a Linux box in there, but obviously there is a lot of software that doesn't run on that system.
Yes, SJ was never too hot on slots, but Apple did build an awful lot of amount of machines with them over the past 25 odd years, because that is what the market demanded. Far more than without. So, frankly it doesn't matter of SJ liked slots or not.
The man was right more often than not, but he did not walk on water either.
Well, I've worked professionally in the entertainment business for about 25 years and I can tell you that it's not a matter of money. Our problem is that we can't drop 2-4 Titan cards in the nMP to run programs like Resolve, Flame etc. We never had this problem with the 5,1. Which is why we are now buying HP boxes.
Workstation sales are up in my field as business moves to 4k/6k/8k and VR and everyone needs to upgrade their infrastructure to meet the new content demands. You can do none of that work seriously on an iMac or for that matter the nMP. You need a seriously powerful dual CPU machine with at least two GPU (in PCI slots) that won't catch fire when you press it.
Who on earth would want to build a render farm on Apple boxes? They never even were in that market.
No, they do not spend tens of millions of dollars on keeping the MP line around so they have something for internal product design... almost all of which can be done on an iMac anyway. This is the kind of crazy talk that gets thrown around here that I referred to in a previous post.
I do agree that sometimes companies keep products around that aren't huge cash cows for other reasons, such as keeping influential decision makers in their customer base happy... which is one of the main reasons I think Apple has lost its way.
Yep, he got in his own way much of the time, and his greatest talent could also be his own worst enemy. Seemed like a real d-bag much of the time as well.
You can keep trying to make the slots thing about how many products they once had with them, etc... I really don't know what the point is other than trying to prove I'm wrong about slots not being a crucial part of Apple's previous product line. The overwhelming amount of actual information out there points to an infinitesimal amount of original buyers every using them. And the percentage of users needing them has only gone down over time. So that you're still going on about this only seems to point to the idea that you cannot accept that the market reality doesn't justify Apple dumping expansion slots from their products.
Render box, render farm, render whatever... the point is stuffing 4 Titan cards into a cMP was never Apple's market either. Sorry you're in that 10% of the workstation market that isn't served by the nMP because of lack of expansion slots.
So why does the Mac Pro have two dGPUs, neither of which support CUDA? For gaming?
You keep posting but I'm getting no closer to understanding what point you think you have. People and businesses want Apple to make more powerful customisable Macs. Your response every time is 'no you don't, and anyway Apple don't make them'.
We know they don't make them, that is exactly the point. We know Macs have become the wrong tool for the job. If you'd stop implying everyone is a niche user maybe the discussion can advance. People who require powerful, configurable workstations are not in a niche. Every use-case within that broad grouping may be a tiny market - protein folding for example, film restoration, maybe even VR gaming - but they add up to something huge and that is why powerful workstations are supposed to be flexible, to address all these awkward power-users in one broad sweep.
Everybody who needs a powerful workstation has a different idea of 'power'. Some need CPU cores, some need GPU cores, some need RAM, some need super-fast storage reads or writes, some need radiation resilience, and some need compatibility with unusual components, and some need to change that definition for every contract, and some need to be on the cutting edge every single year.
This is where Apple got it wrong, forcing every workstation user into the FCPX user category and making gross assumptions about what people needed. I for one don't appreciate Apple reaching into my business and telling me I would do better to switch from CPU to GPU. **** off Apple, that's my decision to make.
Telling movie data technicians their best best bet is to lug around an octopus of cables, dongles and external boxes on a movie set is wrong. Telling research scientist they only need 2 old GPUs with non-ECC RAM is wrong. Telling Photoshop artists they do need ECC RAM is wrong. Telling defence contractors to move in the cloud is wrong. Telling hardcore gamers Crossy Road is awesome is wrong. Telling VR developers VR isn't worth attention yet is wrong. Telling VFX artists they don't need CPU power anymore is wrong. Telling any business owner what they need is wrong. Listening is right.
Apple badly let down their users with the nMP. Arguing that it was better for Apple's profits, or that Apple is now too big to care, doesn't change that, so users have every right and reason to come here and whine about it in their downtime. I'm having to start a painful move to Windows or Linux, becuase we can't upgrade our old machines to any non-garbage Mac, and I'm not happy about it. What other than 'whine' would you expect me to do in a Mac Pro discussion forum?
If it was Steve, he'd be clamouring for zero ports, zero cables, zero slots and connectivity via bluetooth or wifi.
This post is the one. I wish somebody would hit Cook with this at his next televised interview.
Macs are for programming for macOS, iOS, watchOS, tvOS, Final Cut Pro X, Logic Pro, and selling services.
Is this what any part of your business does? No.
This discussion would not exists if most of the "Pro's", who repeatedly whine about how awful Apple currently is, would simply not fail to see that fact. Apple sells services, applications, development platform.
Why do you want to make rhino into elephant? Because thats what you need? You always have a choice, if you do not understand that. Rather than turning a rhino into an elephant go and get an elephant.
Simpler it cannot be.
^
Also, CUDA is a dead end.
OpenCL is the way forward and the AMD GPUs are generally better at it.
Apple put AMD GPUs into their platform to push OpenGL and get people off CUDA. They do this to move things forward in the direction they want to go.
Also, CUDA is a dead end.
OpenCL is the way forward and the AMD GPUs are generally better at it.
Apple put AMD GPUs into their platform to push OpenGL and get people off CUDA. They do this to move things forward in the direction they want to go.
This is very true and the main reason that we have this level of progress in technology, today.
If the companies, in general, wouldn't listen at all (of course there are also other factors to consider like competition etc), we would still have 8086 cpus, ISA slots (Apple not), monochrome monitors and 5 1/4 floppies.
So , for a healthy market, the rule is that there is demand and offer.
No company releases unwanted products that aren't covering consumer's needs or wants for obvious reasons, on the other hand any company may have an unfortunate moment and release a not so successful product or for various reasons a very fine product with not so great success, but no company or a company's division can survive if they do not fulfill the current needs of their customer base, and, I insist, the current needs not the ones after 10 years.
People want to have their job done now, with the tools available right now in the market, not wait for the future, if this ever reach us, to use whatever may come or cloud based clusters/computing etc.
Also its contradicting to say that Apple built a system with their mind to the future, no present system can be built for the future, especially a sealed one, as everybody knows how fast are the progresses in technology.
If it was built for the future, here we are, where is it? We are still here talking about nMP's old 2012 GPUs, the TB2 which wants to be TB3, the PCIe architecture (but not for the missing slots - part of the package) etc.
The real problem is that Apple may have started as a computer company, with all the well known results, but in the last 10 years they have broaden their offerings so much, targeting also other kinds of users, with huge profits from this move and
now it seems that they have lost their original identity.
From a business point of view it makes sense, to focus on the devices with the more profits, but for your customer base, especially this one, the base you have used to built your success story till present time, this is a kind of a treason.
It seems that they have forgot about their roots, now if this is good or not I don't know, usually if a tree (like Apple
) is separated from its roots, you know .... it's going to fire or to be used for something else, anyway it's not a tree anymore.
Okay then, Apple badly let their customers down when they decided Macs were only for programming for macOS, iOS, watchOS, tvOS, Final Cut Pro X, Logic Pro, and selling services.
Is that better?
No. Those who will focus on this platform will prevail. Those who have other needs unfulfilled by Apple will move on, somewhere else.
Simple as it can be.
You seem to understand most of my points (even if you've attempted to mischaracterize them here), you just don't agree with them or think they're beside the point.
Ah yes, you were all having this very productive "discussion" and then I showed up and ruined it. Right. The "discussion" was largely a string of Apple product bashing. I was offering a little perspective.
Okay, carry on with your usual scheduled programming...
Sheez, you guys really wanna argue, huh?
Fine, I'll rephrase that. This:
only hardcore gamers and people who use CUDA accelerated software need a dGPU.
should read:
only hardcore gamers and people who use GPU-accelerated software need a dGPU.
Last edited:
Current and perhaps future designed Mac Pro's, even if they had PCIe slots, were not efficient at running that many high end video cards without jerry rigging external power.
FCP X, Resolve and now even Adobe use proxy media, so the idea of needing an never ending more powerful cards just to do editing, seems like futility. One machine that does everything doesn't sound productive in the film/entertainment/TV and perhaps sending files for final render somewhere else might fill that need.
Actually I didn't really mean to post it, sorry. By the time I noticed it was already quoted. I typed it cause it becuase your comment struck a nerve. Much of the GPU software we could take advantage of is CUDA only. It wasn't really worth the post though.