and how do feed that 4 X16 ext pci-e cables + power?
Also need dual cpu installed or mark some of ext pci-e ports as CPU2.
unless they go AMD server chips 128 pci-e with 1 or 2 cpus.
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.
Modular Mac Pro
- Thread starter Skywalker5
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Also need dual cpu installed or mark some of ext pci-e ports as CPU2.
unless they go AMD server chips 128 pci-e with 1 or 2 cpus.
I think that their biggest challenge is to figure out a better standard for how they want Thunderbolt to work with video cards. USB and video on a single cable sounds good but what other vendor has a desktop without jumper cables? Apple has pushed this single connector for everything philosophy that is great for laptops but falls apart for desktop/workstations. Who really needs video going through their storage devices?
I found that PCIe 4.0 will supposedly support Thunderbolt via OCuLink-2 which may be what Apple needs for the MP 7,1 ?
I found that PCIe 4.0 will supposedly support Thunderbolt via OCuLink-2 which may be what Apple needs for the MP 7,1 ?
You don't HAVE to put all your devices on one daisy chained link.... you have multiple ports.... (not sure how many controllers on the Mac Pro).... Not sure the exact technical details but whether it is point to point, or daisy chained - I suspect the total bandwidth will be the same if it goes through the same controller chip (and there won't be one for each port -- you would run out of PCIe lanes very very quickly).
I don't see why Apple would need any new interface for interconnect modules, PCI->PCI works today and it can be done with a 1 dollar cable.
No, you don't have to but you should be able to in an Apple world. So far Apple wants every Thunderbolt connector on a Mac to be available to be used for data or video. That way everything "just works" so you don't have to worry about the display not working when you plug it in the wrong port.
Also - nMP has three Thunderbolt controllers with each having a pair of connectors. Also some internal switch so any TB port can have video routed to it.
[doublepost=1493238097][/doublepost]
I don't think Apple wants a cable hanging out of the back going from a video card's output to a Thunderbolt input connection. That is what other companies are doing today. It is a kludge that works but I don't see Apple going along.
Depends on what "modular" means, if its modular in the same way as the Lenovo Thinkpad stack:
Then there would be no external cable between modules and thus a simple PCI->PCI interface will suffice. If its modular as in distinct separate boxes that you don't need to stack then yes there will be an external cable, but no need for yet another interface for that
T-Bolt might have succeeded except for the stupid requirement to bundle video on an expansion bus.
Optional video would have been OK.
When I say 'ATX' I refer to standardised motherboard sizes, as in there is no need for Apple to repeat what they did with the 6,1 and engineer solutions to problems that nobody has. HPTX is a standard size, albeit rarely used, that can accommodate dual Xeon CPUs and 12 DIMM slots for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATX
Next time, use Google before making snarky comments about people's intelligence. Stops you looking like a moron.
I think they should really look back to what made the cheesgrater design such a hit - it was simple, it was beautiful and it allowed plenty of room for expansion using standardised components.
For the chassis I'd love to see them take the cheesegrater, reduce the physical footprint a little by removing outdated hardware and make it Space Grey coloured, it was a solid design that could be updated/rearranged while still keeping the same feel.
Internally there are some things that just aren't as important as they once were:
For the chassis I'd love to see them take the cheesegrater, reduce the physical footprint a little by removing outdated hardware and make it Space Grey coloured, it was a solid design that could be updated/rearranged while still keeping the same feel.
Internally there are some things that just aren't as important as they once were:
- Instead of the 4x 3.5" internal drive bays they could easily scale it down to 1/2 due to higher capacity drives or just remove them completely and focus on modern solutions like 2.5" drives, PCIe SSD drives and m.2 drives. The 2012 Mac Pro supported a maximum of 8TB at the time, you can get single 3.5" drives that exceed that now and that's before you look at SSDs that are easily purchasable in up to 2TB sizes on 2.5", PCIe and M.2 form factors.
- Optical disc drives are another area that's nowhere near as popular as it once was, they could either completely remove them and update the external Superdrive or use a slim slot-loading drive (either vertically or horizontally) to reduce footprint.
As the link specified ATX is a SPECIFIC form factor and a SPECIFIC configuration. The link you provided provides a web page that lists many many RELATED form factors BUT NOT ALL ATX. EATX tends to be a more popular form factor for off the shelf parts for XEON based processors (and yes it is related -- but again it is NOT ATX).
ATX form factor specifies where the holes are, what the size of it is, where there is a rather sizable hole in the back of the case is where hard wired ports are exposed and the surrounding area is filled in (usually) with a rather flimsy aluminum foil type filler.
Since ATX is the most popular of the PC form factors it is the heading of that page, but all the contents on that page are not specifically ATX form factors.
The Mac Pro 2008, 2010, 2012 is generally a superior design to any computer that is hacked together with standard parts that fit together with a ATX compatible case and an ATX motherboard. The case and the motherboard are designed to fit together and is as expandable than most PC computers based on ATX motherboards. ATX is just to make it simple to use off the shelf components specifically the enclosure itself but to some extent the power supply since it has to be a "standard size" and mounting screws. I have many good cases -- but none are as solid as the Mac Pro from bygone era.
Some of the standards that (not related to ATX, but firmware etc.) have now been incorporated into "standard" Build yourself computers that use Windows.
BTW, Intel has tried to gain traction with newer designs such as BTX to replace it's older standard of ATX -- which was based on AT (god I hope that was not the IBM AT that would be old
). BTX is what some elements of the original Mac Pro utilized (but is not BTX compliant). It was designed to "fix" some issues with the ATX design which were related to heat and high power components - since it has a more streamlined air flow path inside it. But again the use of ATX or BTX form factors only comes into play when you have to make sure the enclosure, power supply and motherboard are interchangeable... something that is not top of the list of importances for Apple -- or most Apple customers. It is has nothing to do with important things like expandability with regards to PCIe 3/4 which is independent of motherboard design itself.
[doublepost=1493309489][/doublepost]
Depends on what "modular" means, if its modular in the same way as the Lenovo Thinkpad stack:
Then there would be no external cable between modules and thus a simple PCI->PCI interface will suffice. If its modular as in distinct separate boxes that you don't need to stack then yes there will be an external cable, but no need for yet another interface for that
Actually, for some things that sort of design based on that type of modularity would make an interesting design.... but for it to be great it would need an operating system redesign.
i.e. the ability to stack together Processing / Memory modules (1..n), GPU modules..., specialized computing modules (i.e. Machine Learning) using an optical channel of some sort..... which would seamlessly work together using a clustering operating system .... You could end up with a computer that will work as a PC up to supercomputer level computing power if done correctly.... but then you are basically going in the direction of rack mounted computers with distributed processing and clustering computing power.... not an area I think Apple is interested in.
Last edited:
What would be kind of cool would be something where you have a tower and motherboard, then you get to spec what you want inside based on your intended use.
As for the aesthetic design, yeah it kind of does matter. That is one thing I dislike in the custom pc world is the lack of good industrial design.
I had eye surgery recently and the clinic/surgery I went to was a really modern/futuristicy building that was completely designed inside and out by designers. It was a rather luxurious place now that I think about it. But every single computer in the entire building were iMacs running windows as they were picked to meet the design aesthetic. Every office chair at every desk was the same. There was not a piece of furniture or hardware in the whole place that didn't meet the desired aesthetic.
Even the surgical theatre was designed to look awesome even though I as the patient couldn't even really see it during the surgery.
What I am getting at is that in this day and age overall aesthetic design is a big deal in a lot of places.
As for the aesthetic design, yeah it kind of does matter. That is one thing I dislike in the custom pc world is the lack of good industrial design.
I had eye surgery recently and the clinic/surgery I went to was a really modern/futuristicy building that was completely designed inside and out by designers. It was a rather luxurious place now that I think about it. But every single computer in the entire building were iMacs running windows as they were picked to meet the design aesthetic. Every office chair at every desk was the same. There was not a piece of furniture or hardware in the whole place that didn't meet the desired aesthetic.
Even the surgical theatre was designed to look awesome even though I as the patient couldn't even really see it during the surgery.
What I am getting at is that in this day and age overall aesthetic design is a big deal in a lot of places.
That's exactly why Apple sell iMac, but Mac Pro's performance should never be seriously limited by its looking / form factor / etc
I agree 100%, I am looking at my cMP right now and can safely say that if Apple does it right we should not have to worry about that.
The thing is that the discontinued Mac Pro 2008, 2010, 2012 was both a seriously good looking case and extremely good design internally. It was somewhat limited in that if you filled in the case with two graphics cards you were limited to one measly low bandwidth PCIe slot left (3 slots taken up by two graphics cards). Some of the other stuff internally is not needed internally any more (the DVD drives, the hard drive bays) but the expandability of having PCIe based slots on their highest end pro based machine would be great to have back. Hard drives are best housed in an external enclosure but should be easily controlled by an internal based SAS/DAS controller or equivalent instead of more expensive options. I still think having it shortened by an inch and having it being able to be rack mounted in a standard 19" rack along with an external hard drive enclosure would be ideal at the top end.... (along with enough PCIe slots to have two double width graphics cards and 2+ other PCIe cards).
The cMP is a great machine and maybe it could be repurposed as sort of a mac mini pro with a standard non-Xeon processor and several reasonably powerful graphics options.... a sort of development machine that can be used for the rumoured VR based development.
I would still like to see internal hard drives if wanted. maybe have it so you can remove the drive bay enclosure if you don't want to use them like on some aftermarket PC cases. DVD bays I can understand getting rid of.
I would like to see more pcie x16 slots. As for a mac mini pro im sure someone would think that is great I personally would have no use for such a machine.
Completely agree.
A slimmed down Mac Pro chassis based on the old cheesegrater design would be great. Getting rid of the 3.5" and 5.25" drive bays should free up a lot space and it should reduce the weight of the machine. There should be plenty of space to then put dual CPUs, as well greatly increasing the amount of PCIE x16 slots. Finally, adding a new space grey or jet black-ish finish (like the current MP6,1) should give it a fresh new look.
to me personally, that would signify the beginning of the end.. if all apple could come up with is a rehash of cMP then i would almost certainly know they are no longer an innovative company.
i get it that a lot of people around here already think this and love to poke fun at nMP but reality is, nMP is one of the most innovative desktop computers we've seen in a long time.
for the mMP, i'd personally hope apple can design something as innovative as nMP while managing to please a wider group of people than they did with nMP.. if they just do cMP again, it's a sign they've given up and/or losing the ability to design awesome products slated for mass production (imo)
"not caring much at how it looks"...
I am wondering, why people don't simply use a Windows machine. Plastic and cheet metal, powerful, cheap.
Put it wide under the desk and thats it. Maybe install HackOS on it.
I will not say, that design is very first place, and I'm not against power,
but a poor designed machine I would never buy.
A Mac should be something different and valuable.
BTW. a cheesecrater is not so well designed in my mind.
Its clunky, heavy, old fashion. And technically its bented cheet aluminium.
The HD drawers are jamming while sliding them out. Okay its not simply tin like a PC, but on the other side
its also not designed, that I would fall in love with today. In first place much to big.
You can change the graphics card, thats all.
I prefere anyway to have my additional HDs extern in the furniture or away from my near.
I would like to hear much more about modular software design and not the ******** what Apple does all the last years.
So now hurt me
I am wondering, why people don't simply use a Windows machine. Plastic and cheet metal, powerful, cheap.
Put it wide under the desk and thats it. Maybe install HackOS on it.
I will not say, that design is very first place, and I'm not against power,
but a poor designed machine I would never buy.
A Mac should be something different and valuable.
BTW. a cheesecrater is not so well designed in my mind.
Its clunky, heavy, old fashion. And technically its bented cheet aluminium.
The HD drawers are jamming while sliding them out. Okay its not simply tin like a PC, but on the other side
its also not designed, that I would fall in love with today. In first place much to big.
You can change the graphics card, thats all.
I prefere anyway to have my additional HDs extern in the furniture or away from my near.
I would like to hear much more about modular software design and not the ******** what Apple does all the last years.
So now hurt me
I understand your perspective, but I think we have to remember that change for the sake of change is pointless.
For example, the iPhone really hasn't fundamentally changed since its introduction, right? It's gotten a lot more powerful, sure, but there hasn't been a structural break significant enough where you can say "oh wow, Apple just took the iPhone concept, threw everything out the window, and started from zero!".
Yet, you would agree that Apple has been innovative in the iPhone area, correct? I certainly think so. So if Apple can be innovative with iPhone, while keeping its DNA essentially the same, why can't Apple be innovative with the Mac Pro without changing its DNA?
The current Mac Pro (6,1) is a fantastic machine. It's super quiet, (was) powerful relative to its peers, comes in a beautiful form factor, and had a lot of potential. However, the strengths of the Mac Pro 6,1 did not match the needs of the users that needed a new Mac Pro. It was a fantastically innovative product that was directed to the wrong audience.
The people that needed a new Mac Pro needed a lot of CPU compute performance, a lot of RAM, a lot of PCI-E slots, a lot of internal and external storage solutions, and they were also willing sacrifice compactness and acoustics to have a workstation that was 100% reliable (no overheating or power issues). They needed something that was a step above iMac, MacBook Pro, or Dell/HP solution in terms of performance and scalability.
So I think there's nothing wrong with doing to a cMP what Apple did with iPhone. Keep that Mac Pro DNA intact, but slim it down, modernise it, and speed it up.
Last edited:
This it is the problem. Is we can legally install MacOS on any hardware, still get support from Apple, and the installation process is as simple as Windows. Then I will be more then happy to build a 7700K + 1080Ti Hackintosh now. However, this is not the case. That's why some of us looking for a real powerful Mac Pro. If it looks good, that's a bonus.
Modular doesnt means Industry Standards...
I bet the followong:
Single CPU Socket (either AMD or Intel CPU)
6x or more Ram Slots (hopefully std)
storage: only SSD/NVMe in apple's proprietary fashion
GPU modular yes, maybe user replaceable but in Apple's Proprietary fashion, une or two, maybe Max combined TD to be under 500W
Expansion: Tb3 all the way, maybe Apple will sell an affordable TBv3-PCIe x4 cage which will stack gracefully with the mMP.
I bet the followong:
Single CPU Socket (either AMD or Intel CPU)
6x or more Ram Slots (hopefully std)
storage: only SSD/NVMe in apple's proprietary fashion
GPU modular yes, maybe user replaceable but in Apple's Proprietary fashion, une or two, maybe Max combined TD to be under 500W
Expansion: Tb3 all the way, maybe Apple will sell an affordable TBv3-PCIe x4 cage which will stack gracefully with the mMP.
I'd like to at least fit it in a rack without taking a saw to it..