Mac Pro Rising

[koyoot]

Is there enough space available for these?
Perhaps a redesign is required?

For liquid cooling, yes you would need to ditch the thermal core or whatever its called. But still would be possible bringing air through that vertical shape, and dissipating the heat with single fan.

About the PSU I think that both 1300W and 300W use the same amount of space . Of course here(nMP 6.1) is barebone electronic board with coils. That would not require redesigning the case.

Overall you would not need to change the shape, height and width of the 6.1 with those updates.

 

[deconstruct60]

Now that is an interesting development...

Add the discontinued Thunderbolt display to the list of possible clues. Thunderbolt's display support could be yet another incentive for Apple to ditch the Tube since Thunderbolt 3 uses Displayport 1.2, which lacks the bandwidth to drive more than a single 5K display at 30hz.

Not. It lacks the bandwidth to yet another display. However, the two DP v1.2 streams that TB v3 can handle are well enough to deal with a 5K display. There are no "single stream" 5K displays. So pointing to a single stream on single cable really doesn't matter much.

 

[filmak]

About the PSU I think that both 1300W and 300W use the same amount of space

more watts in PSU = more heat, isnt' it?

in so restricted space...

 

[deconstruct60]

For liquid cooling, yes you would need to ditch the thermal core or whatever its called. But still would be possible bringing air through that vertical shape, and dissipating the heat with single fan.

Liquid cooling for the Mac Pro design is silliness. The volume for the total thermal system would just get bigger. You could ballon squeeze the part inside the Mac Pro smaller but the external component you'd have to tack on would just make the total higher.

Any internal only liquid solution is just pure arm flapping from a thermodynamic perspective. It would not be more effective than what is there.

What is needed is more air. If don't want to increase the fan speed then just need a wider fan. Frankly the bulk of the diameter of the current Mac Pro moves no air. ( the top "tray" is for housing radios ... not moving air. ). Move more air and the current block works just fine.

About the PSU I think that both 1300W and 300W use the same amount of space . Of course here(nMP 6.1) is barebone electronic board with coils. That would not require redesigning the case.

Can't do that range with no fan on the PSU itself. There isn't really a need for a 300W to be quite that big as the standard size. The standard size is that size because it is a fixed container trying to put the supply into so it fits into a certain location in a generic box-with-slots.

Overall you would not need to change the shape, height and width of the 6.1 with those updates.

If want more cooling need to make it wider ( or use the current width more efficiently aerodynamically). To keep the proportions about the same, incrementally wider would mean incrementally taller.

 

[ActionableMango]

Only thing what it needs is hardware update, and slightly more powerful PSU, and liquid cooling.

The last time Apple did liquid cooling, it didn't go so well.

Yes I know that the connections are better today, but I'm still not fond of introducing water to the inside of a computer.

 

[rGiskard]

Say for yourself. For me that design is good. Only thing what it needs is hardware update, and slightly more powerful PSU, and liquid cooling.

That is my opinion.

Totally agree on the PSU, it would be nice to have at least a 1000W PSU so we could drop in a couple GTX 1080s. I'm sure an external PSU will take care of that problem, amirite?


[doublepost=1467243481][/doublepost]

Not. It lacks the bandwidth to yet another display. However, the two DP v1.2 streams that TB v3 can handle are well enough to deal with a 5K display. There are no "single stream" 5K displays. So pointing to a single stream on single cable really doesn't matter much.

DP1.4 is only just now available. In a few years you'll be able to buy 5K/8K displays that can be driven with a single stream cable. At that point, the Tube Pro is an obsolete investment. Yet the old Dell tower I just found on a curb a few weeks ago on garbage day? I could update that sucker to DP 1.4! Even more ludicrous, my cMP now supports DP 1.4. Yes, with a few upgrades, Apple's 7 year old workstation remains superior to that silly Tube.
/smh

 

[Bubba Satori]

The first Polaris reviews are out.
The $200 480 performs like the two year old Nvidia 970.
Sounds like a perfect fit for the Mac Pro rising.

 

[rrl]

The Tube is a failure. Time to take it out back and put it out of its misery.

Time to take out back and put it on sale. A Fire sale (pun intended). I would gladly replace my awesome 2012 i7 mac mini for the right trash can.

 

[linuxcooldude]

The first Polaris reviews are out.
The $200 480 performs like the two year old Nvidia 970.
Sounds like a perfect fit for the Mac Pro rising.

I don't expect thats the only video card based on Polaris that is yet to be released. The 480 is aimed at the mid performance cards that is geared at the majority of gamers.

 

[Bubba Satori]

I don't expect thats the only video card based on Polaris that is yet to be released. The 480 is aimed at the mid performance cards that is geared at the majority of gamers.

Looks like the 490 will have 980Ti performance at a lower price.
That one can go in the MacPro SE.

 

[Mago]

DP1.4 is only just now available. In a few years you'll be able to buy 5K/8K displays that can be driven with a single stream cable. At that point, the Tube Pro is an obsolete investment.

Seems you deliberately ignored my argument about the Tube's USB-C Only ports (from 10u usb-c ports on the nnMP only 4 or 6 will be TB3), those w/o problems could be capables to deliver DP1.4 (or most likely 1.3 notwhitstanding there are available Muxers for dp1.4).

So the upcoming TrashCan-like Mac pro w/o issues will Deliver DP1.3 or 1.4 video signals thru those USB-C ports.

Thunderbolt 3 is controlled by Intel, no Intel GPU will have DP1.3 neither next year, so they dont care to update Thunderbolt3 to DP1.3 only for macs, but miracles still exist, at least on USB-B only mode shouldn't be too complicated to enable DP1.4. but in case Intel didnt care, apple still can enable the UBC-C ports w/o TB3 to DP1.4 using the Muxers available since feb.

 

[AidenShaw]

Is there enough space available for these?
Perhaps a redesign is required?

"Perhaps"???

The MP6,1 is a design disaster from start to finish. "Pretty" and "small" aren't requirements from the target audience.

 

[flat five]

"Perhaps"???

The MP6,1 is a design disaster from start to finish. "Pretty" and "small" aren't requirements from the target audience.

who is the target audience?
better yet, who's in their target audience that posts at this forum?

like- you? me? pat? koyoot? bubba?

answering it that way would paint a clearer picture (for me at least) of what you mean by target audience.

 

[goMac]

The first Polaris reviews are out.
The $200 480 performs like the two year old Nvidia 970.
Sounds like a perfect fit for the Mac Pro rising.

Yeah. The 480 numbers are underwhelming. Still hoping Vega will fix.

 

[Eric5h5]

The last time Apple did liquid cooling, it didn't go so well.

Eh, my liquid-cooled G5 from 2004 still works fine, aside from needing a new clock battery.

--Eric

 

[goMac]

Eh, my liquid-cooled G5 from 2004 still works fine, aside from needing a new clock battery.

--Eric

I've seen a lot of water cooled G5s, and yours is an exception to the rule.

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

Having said that, I read this interview yesterday with Randy Ubillos, the guy that solely invented Premiere Pro, Final cut, and final cut X, and it is very telling how even the most experienced specialist in his field can do such a fu** up as FCPX was. The launch and everything that came after wouldn't justify the management failure to realize the development of their target audience, or they just chose to not have them anymore.

Genuinely interested: Where did you read this?

There are rumors (due to the FBI decryption requests, NSA spying, etc.) that Apple is looking to control more of their hardware to prevent any backdoors. Naturally this leads to speculation that the Xserve may be resurrected in some fashion. Would make my work a lot easier if they did...

Juicy! It's fun to think about even if it is just a rumor. Where did you read/hear this?

This is exactly right. I sincerely hope Apple does NOT release a display with a GPU built in. If they do it will be one more thing used to lock us into a closed eco-system with no other options. I'd much rather have an eGPU that I can plug any display into, or take as a road warrior machine. (I currently run an Akitio thunder 2 with a GTX 970 from my MBP (don't get me started on Mac OpenGL support and benchmarks W10 to OS X) ;0 but it's still very nice to have a 970 on my laptop)

I said this in the thread attached to the rumor about this, but I agree. I hope that they don't put GPUs in their monitors too. It'd make too much of a mess. Consider the following:

• A MacBook Pro user has a new Apple Display with a graphics card built into it. The user also has an old Apple display or some other 3rd party display that doesn't have a GPU in it, and as such, it has to draw frames from the weak internal GPU. How is this going to work? Would one screen perform better than the other? Strange.
  • I suppose you could argue that if it's an old display, it doesn't need to be as powerful of a GPU. However, several vendors do make 4k and 5k monitors without GPUs.
  • I suppose you could do some kind of daisy-chain between monitors, having at least one Apple Display in the chain, that the other monitors could pull frames from it's GPU... but see next point below.
• It would guarantee that if you buy a MacBook Pro and don't bundle it with an Apple Display, your graphics performance would be crummy.
• Crummy graphics performance when plugging machine into projectors.

Never say never, I guess. But honestly this would probably create more problems than it would solve than if they just put a proper GPU in the machine to begin with, and if they ventilated it properly.

 

[antonis]

i'm not trying to justify anything.. i'm just saying the way it is.. pointing out the complete obvious.

macs no longer have traditional pci-e slots and haven't for quite some time now..
certainly long enough that someone claiming to need that in a computer would have moved on by now..
when i hear gripes of no pci slots around here these days, it comes off as a bunch of hot air..
ship or get off the pot.. it's been far too long to take this type of gripe seriously anymore.




when i said 15 year old perspective, i was referring to your view on what a 'workstation' is or what type of computers are needed by most of the professional computing world.

times have changed.. computers are better now.. way better.. software is better..

whatever field you're claiming to work in, i bet you $5000 there is someone in that field much more skilled than yourself producing much better content than you're capable of and they're doing on computers you claim to suck for your particular usage..
you're in music, right? do you really think there are no studios using current generation macs for high end production?

(assuming you'll agree these studios exist)... so what do you expect me to believe? that apple computers are no good for professionals?


huh? things are changing.. recognize the changes, see if the products still suit your needs, if they don't then get the ones that do.
simple.

it's the constant barrage of negativity... over and over and over.. day after week after year.. that leads me to realize "hmm, most of these people aren't even trying to find a solution to their problems and instead, just enjoy griping..".. i mean, yeah, criticize a company for making moves you disagree with.. that's fine and can even be healthy on occasion..
but look at the other side of the coin.. how do you expect someone to feel about these critics when the griping happens every single day for years on end?
do you really expect someone to think "oh, hey.. antonis has a great point.. the mac pro doesn't have internal pcie slots"
?

I don't disagree in any of these. Of course one can do any job in the X machine or the Y machine, while X seems to be much better. Of course one can switch to a PC if he is not satisfied with Apple's choices. Unless he can't because he has invested in the specific ecosystem. But it doesn't matter. Changes often cost money but sometimes are inevitable. That's fine.

However, I hope you agree that apple is not the one company that defines what a workstation is. Far from it, actually. So, what they think is deprecated and what not, is usually not so much of importance for the rest of the market. Deciding to launch a workstation that - according to their idea of what a WS is - it enforces the usage of dual gpus that are also not-upgradable but - as a compensation - it looks nice, is not the market standard.

It's just that the - so popular in these forums - motto "if you don't like it, move on" is not a real argument. Judging apple's decisions is the reason these forums exist. It is not negativity, it's discussion.

 

[G-News]

Screens performonh differently depending on the card they're hooked up to has been the norm so far, nothing new there. I already had that back in the Rage2+ and 3dfx Voodoo days.

 

[jeanlain]

All this is nice and good, but how would thunderbolt work with this thing? TB is supposed to do PCIe AND display port. There have to be TB ports on the next Mac Pro, a lot of them. But how can they fit on a standard PCIe gfx card? If they're right on the motherboard, how can they output video?
My guess is that these issues partly justified the trash can Mac Pro and its proprietary connectors to video cards.
And because of these issues, we won't see a Mac with PCI slots. That ship has sailed.

 

[goMac]

And because of these issues, we won't see a Mac with PCI slots. That ship has sailed.

I would be very surprised to see a Mac Pro with standard PCIe cards again. That ship has sailed and sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

 

[rGiskard]

Seems you deliberately ignored my argument about the Tube's USB-C Only ports (from 10u usb-c ports on the nnMP only 4 or 6 will be TB3), those w/o problems could be capables to deliver DP1.4 (or most likely 1.3 notwhitstanding there are available Muxers for dp1.4).

So the upcoming TrashCan-like Mac pro w/o issues will Deliver DP1.3 or 1.4 video signals thru those USB-C ports.

Thunderbolt 3 is controlled by Intel, no Intel GPU will have DP1.3 neither next year, so they dont care to update Thunderbolt3 to DP1.3 only for macs, but miracles still exist, at least on USB-B only mode shouldn't be too complicated to enable DP1.4. but in case Intel didnt care, apple still can enable the UBC-C ports w/o TB3 to DP1.4 using the Muxers available since feb.

Do you have a link to support your theory that the published TB3 spec showing DP1.2 is wrong? Because I can't find anything suggesting it will support DP1.3 or 1.4.

An updated Tube will drive three 5K displays, assuming all six TB ports are free for displays. I guess there is always USB 3.1 for storage, lol. Back to 10Gbps RAID array limit if you want three 5K displays. Ooops.

Meanwhile, you could drop two video cards in the cMP to drive at least six 5K displays (actually I think it's eight if the video cards each have four dp1.4 ports).

Pathetic.
[doublepost=1467408441][/doublepost]

All this is nice and good, but how would thunderbolt work with this thing? TB is supposed to do PCIe AND display port. There have to be TB ports on the next Mac Pro, a lot of them. But how can they fit on a standard PCIe gfx card? If they're right on the motherboard, how can they output video?
My guess is that these issues partly justified the trash can Mac Pro and its proprietary connectors to video cards.
And because of these issues, we won't see a Mac with PCI slots. That ship has sailed.

They don't have to be on a PCIe graphics card. And since they can be daisy chained, a new MP tower could just offer two TB3 ports and it would be enough. It's not like TB peripherals are a big thing, and without the TB being used for displays it opens up a lot of bandwidth.

The only loss if the TB ports aren't associated with a video card is that they won't carry video. Intel aren't really serious about TB as a video port anyways, otherwise they wouldn't have gimped TB3 with DisplayPort 1.2. And I doubt anyone will moan about being unable to force a 4K monitor and 8 bay RAID array to share a TB cable.


Not that I believe there will be a new MP tower...
[doublepost=1467409492][/doublepost]

who is the target audience?
better yet, who's in their target audience that posts at this forum?

like- you? me? pat? koyoot? bubba?

answering it that way would paint a clearer picture (for me at least) of what you mean by target audience.

Apple claim the Tube targets those who use GPGPUs heavily. Yet those are exactly the users who would want PCIe slots for upgrading their GPUs on a regular basis. PCIe slots would even enable such users to drop a Phi card into their Mac Pro (if Apple bothered to support it). Three year old GPUs don't serve these users at all.

 

[Mago]

Do you have a link to support your theory that the published TB3 spec showing DP1.2 is wrong? Because I can't find anything suggesting it will support DP1.3 or 1.4.

An updated Tube will drive three 5K displays, assuming all six TB ports are free for displays. I guess there is always USB 3.1 for storage, lol. Back to 10Gbps RAID array limit if you want three 5K displays. Ooops.

Meanwhile, you could drop two video cards in the cMP to drive at least six 5K displays (actually I think it's eight if the video cards each have four dp1.4 ports).

Pathetic.

Sir, TB3 actually only supports DP1.2 its widely know as I explained Intel dont want to support DP1.3 neither next year.

YOU AGAIN EVADE MY POINT ABOUT BASIC USB-C Only ports (those ports that are USB3.1 and Display Port ONLY W/O ANY THUNDERBOLT 3 SIGNALS).

FYI USB-C is before Thunderbolt, It Supports Display Port Without THUNDERBOLT AS STANDARD. http://www.displayport.org/what-is-displayport-over-usb-c/

Accordingly the New Mac Pro having 6 TB3 ports also will have 4 Extra USB3.1/DP1.4 ONLY USB-C ports.

Further not only USB-C ports, remember the Mac Pro also Includes an HDMI, which logically should be upgraded to HDMI 2.0b which supports 8K 60p.

So the Next mac Pro Having Polaris GPU inside its an SAFE INVESTMENT if you are concerned about 8K Resolution or other modes not supported by DP1.2 (but supported don USB-C's DP1.4 ports which also should be available on the nnMP).

 

[beaker7]

Sir, TB3 actually only supports DP1.2 its widely know as I explained Intel dont want to support DP1.3 neither next year.

YOU AGAIN EVADE MY POINT ABOUT BASIC USB-C Only ports (those ports that are USB3.1 and Display Port ONLY W/O ANY THUNDERBOLT 3 SIGNALS).

FYI USB-C is before Thunderbolt, It Supports Display Port Without THUNDERBOLT AS STANDARD. http://www.displayport.org/what-is-displayport-over-usb-c/

Accordingly the New Mac Pro having 6 TB3 ports also will have 4 Extra USB3.1/DP1.4 ONLY USB-C ports.

Further not only USB-C ports, remember the Mac Pro also Includes an HDMI, which logically should be upgraded to HDMI 2.0b which supports 8K 60p.

So the Next mac Pro Having Polaris GPU inside its an SAFE INVESTMENT if you are concerned about 8K Resolution or other modes not supported by DP1.2 (but supported don USB-C's DP1.4 ports which also should be available on the nnMP).

Hey while we're all posting our wildly optimistic hopes phrased as established fact, the next Mac Pro will be released tomorrow, have 12 double width PCI-e slots, 20 drive bays, 10 USB ports, dual CPUs, and start at $49.99!

 

[ActionableMango]

All this is nice and good, but how would thunderbolt work with this thing? TB is supposed to do PCIe AND display port. There have to be TB ports on the next Mac Pro, a lot of them. But how can they fit on a standard PCIe gfx card? If they're right on the motherboard, how can they output video?

There are three existing solutions I'm aware of:

1) The way PCs typically do it, by routing the video back to the motherboard physically by using a cable. Admittedly not very Apple-like. But Apple could have a custom PCIe card that routed the video back to the mobo over PCIe or an internal cable.

2) Plug the monitor into the computer's TB port and the PCIe graphics card is headless. Cheap onboard video handles bootup. After bootup, software allows the powerful GPU to do the rendering, but uses the integrated GPU for the physical output. This is already proven for example if you want to use an eGPU on a laptop, but want to use the laptop's built-in display instead of a monitor connected to the eGPU. I don't know how this is accomplished--perhaps it's just mirroring the framebuffer from one GPU to the other.

3) The onboard card is MXM, not some custom format, so that it can easily changed with other MXM boards. This has been done for example when an Xserve 3,1 was upgraded to a GTX980M. Users have the option of either choosing an MXM GPU upgrade, or PCIe GPU ugprade, (or both), with the caveat that when using PCIe you'd have to connect your monitor via DP instead of Thunderbolt.

In fact, if the nMP went to MXM you could at least upgrade the GPUs once in a while instead of it being a system all locked together in time. Granted, this isn't PCIe, but it's an improvement from where we are now.

If you think about the original GPUs in the 2006-2008 cMPs, they are embarrassingly bad today...7300GT? HD2600XT? I don't think people would still be using those old cMPs so much today if they were locked to their original video cards like the nMP is. On the other hand, maybe external GPUs will save the day.