Modular Mac Pro

[Prince134]

Nothing can beat the previous Mac Pro 5.1 design. By using the same case it can actually save money on R&D and bring it to market sooner. Have you seen any change on those most expensive Hacintoshes/PC? none.

If to voice out what we need a modular Mac Pro like . I should say: keep it the same, or PCIE user upgradable.

Look at these following setup and ask for yourself:
980W PSU, don't you want it? don't you want a PSU that can fit two CPU, at least 2 double wide GPUs and upgradable just as we have in 5.1? Optional two CPU module, single or dual, how can Apple show design any smarter than that (not dumb trash can again)? 4 STATA bay onboard, two extra for optical maybe reduce to one, this could bring the size down for a bit. Well this can be debatable as PCIE ssd is much more popular now. 2 PCIE 3.0 16X, additional 2 8x, USB 3.0. TB3.0. One optical drive? Maybe not meaningful but pro do need it still.

I would love to see Apple keep the modular case as is designed for cMP ( I know chance is not high, but if they listen, they know what's we appreciated). Anything other than that, they got to be very careful to let us Mac Pro user happy. Mac Pro 6.1 was an unhappy one, wasn't it?

The philosophy that Apple designed for MP 6.1 is the same as designing an iPhone, which is just not right. It is for pro's desktop computer, not something to put in your pocket or to be adorable as a small pretty gadget.

 

[AidenShaw]

Why do we need to "slim down" or "make smaller"

I have a number of ProLiant ML350 systems with dual sockets, 44 core/88 thread, up to 3TiB of RAM, quad GTX 1080Ti, 2400 watt power supplies, up to 240 TB of internal SAS/SATA/NVMe disks - and it's available as a deskside or rack mount.

It's about the same size as the cMP if you include the painfully sharp metal handles - but the ML350 fits in a rack without metal surgery.

The cMP is needlessly huge for its capabilities. Apple could make a single socket mMP mini-tower and a dual socket mMP midi-tower.

 

[William Payne]

I have a number of ProLiant ML350 systems with dual sockets, 44 core/88 thread, up to 3TiB of RAM, quad GTX 1080Ti, 2400 watt power supplies, up to 240 TB of internal SAS/SATA/NVMe disks - and it's available as a deskside or rack mount.

It's about the same size as the cMP if you include the painfully sharp metal handles - but the ML350 fits in a rack without metal surgery.

The cMP is needlessly huge for its capabilities. Apple could make a single socket mMP mini-tower and a dual socket mMP midi-tower.

I'm kind of in a different scenario. I would like a cMP+ sort of. From looking at the custom PC world mini means small, limited upgrades, and no space for anything and really hard to cool without water cooling. Basically what we have now with the trash can.

I don't mind having a floor based computer, I have one now in my cMP and it's great and before I brought it I was contemplating a custom PC that would have been even bigger in case size.

As for rack mount, yes that would be a neat option to go with a normal tower option. Maybe a rethink of the old X-Serve's with Mac Pro type internals. But for me a rack mount is lease appealing as a workstation. As a server an X-Serve like Mac Pro type machine would be great but for me it would only be used as a server.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'm kind of in a different scenario. I would like a cMP+ sort of. From looking at the custom PC world mini means small, limited upgrades, and no space for anything and really hard to cool without water cooling. Basically what we have now with the trash can.

I don't mind having a floor based computer, I have one now in my cMP and it's great and before I brought it I was contemplating a custom PC that would have been even bigger in case size.

As for rack mount, yes that would be a neat option to go with a normal tower option. Maybe a rethink of the old X-Serve's with Mac Pro type internals. But for me a rack mount is lease appealing as a workstation. As a server an X-Serve like Mac Pro type machine would be great but for me it would only be used as a server.

The rack mount is simply another option for a tower.

For the cMP - it doesn't work because the painfully sharp handles make the case too wide to fit horizontally on a rack shelf. Putting the cMP vertically is very wasteful of rack space. (And by and large, most people putting systems into racks are very concerned about not wasting rack space.)

 

[William Payne]

The rack mount is simply another option for a tower.

For the cMP - it doesn't work because the painfully sharp handles make the case too wide to fit horizontally on a rack shelf. Putting the cMP vertically is very wasteful of rack space. (And by and large, most people putting systems into racks are very concerned about not wasting rack space.)

A potential solution to that would be if a new Mac Pro had cMP style handles would be to make them removable.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

I'd like to at least fit it in a rack without taking a saw to it..

so it can fit in places other than the floor?

The Mac Pro does not need to be made thinner.... it is not a phone.

The height of the Mac Pro 2008 is around 20" inches with feet and "handles". Just removing the hard drives (and maybe adding U.2 drive bays) and removing the DVD slots should give enough room to shorten the Mac Pro while retaining some of the design. If you get it under 19" there should be a way for a smart designer to both satisfy the looks while allowing for the option for the computer to be turned on the side and mounted in a rack with a rather minimalist kit. You could then mount a 24 drive hard drive enclosure beneath it and install a SAS controller in the Mac Pro for massive amount of storage (i.e. in the petabytes of storage online). It should also allow a smart designer to have enough expansion in the Mac Pro case. This means that the one computer could be adapted in many different ways for many different niche "pro" solutions. You can install terabytes of SSD storage in the case, or petabytes in a rack mounted solution. It should also allow for a multi-Xeon CPU option as well - which would double the amount of bandwidth allowed for PCIe expansion options.

The cylindrical Mac Pro could then be repurposed as a non-Xeon option for developers -- a sort of Mac Mini Pro option with upscaled graphics and an Intel i7-7700K or one of the i9 CPU options for things like builds. This would be aimed primarily at developers that required more power for things like builds but don't need the more expensive "pro" options.

 

[William Payne]

The Mac Pro does not need to be made thinner.... it is not a phone.

The height of the Mac Pro 2008 is around 20" inches with feet and "handles". Just removing the hard drives (and maybe adding U.2 drive bays) and removing the DVD slots should give enough room to shorten the Mac Pro while retaining some of the design. If you get it under 19" there should be a way for a smart designer to both satisfy the looks while allowing for the option for the computer to be turned on the side and mounted in a rack with a rather minimalist kit. You could then mount a 24 drive hard drive enclosure beneath it and install a SAS controller in the Mac Pro for massive amount of storage (i.e. in the petabytes of storage online). It should also allow a smart designer to have enough expansion in the Mac Pro case. This means that the one computer could be adapted in many different ways for many different niche "pro" solutions. You can install terabytes of SSD storage in the case, or petabytes in a rack mounted solution. It should also allow for a multi-Xeon CPU option as well - which would double the amount of bandwidth allowed for PCIe expansion options.

The cylindrical Mac Pro could then be repurposed as a non-Xeon option for developers -- a sort of Mac Mini Pro option with upscaled graphics and an Intel i7-7700K or one of the i9 CPU options for things like builds. This would be aimed primarily at developers that required more power for things like builds but don't need the more expensive "pro" options.

After reading this thread I wonder whether people are wanting a new modular Mac Pro or a return of the Xserve.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

After reading this thread I wonder whether people are wanting a new modular Mac Pro or a return of the Xserve.

The aim is to create a solution that can be used by as wide a number of "niche" solutions for those where the current lineup does not fit. The purpose is not to be a server, but as a powerful workstation that can double in any number of uses. The goal should be design for expandability and power, don't design to fill a specific niche .... or you will end up missing most of the needs that were already not met by the existing options.... and if this is the result then building a modular mac for all their pro users will be considered a failure and the begging of certain pro users to hold on... we will have something soon would have been for not. No matter how big a case you make for expansion -- there will be a subset that will hit the limit of it very quickly.... design it not to be limited.

This is not a design to try and displace servers that are being used for "standard" server options (like the Xserve was). The reason why Xserve failed is because it was aimed at a market that was already served by blade type servers and making that "user" friendly was not that much of a sellable point.

 

[flat five]

The Mac Pro does not need to be made thinner..

likewise, it doesn't need to be big either (cMP being 'big').

there's a lot to be learned from nMP regarding space efficiency..

what if a computer had 4x the size of nMP? say double the amount of volume towards cooling and double the amount of hardware.. that leaves you with at least 2 CPU, 2 GPU, 4-8 SSD, 8 ram slots, 900 watt PSU.. etc.
is that enough for you?
because if so, it could certainly fit inside something 4x the size of nMP-- which would be 1/2 the size of cMP.

idk, it sounds like some people just want a computer that they can refer to as 'my rig'.. they want if big for aesthetic reasons. (or maybe some other reason that i won't get into here )

---
but the idea to make it as big as the most 'demanding' user would require then have everyone else just put less stuff inside is a bad idea imo and i highly doubt apple designers would follow that philosophy.. if this is what you're expecting of mMP then i'm pretty sure you're setting yourself up to be let down.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

likewise, it doesn't need to be big either (cMP being 'big').

there's a lot to be learned from nMP regarding space efficiency..

what if a computer had 4x the size of nMP? say double the amount of volume towards cooling and double the amount of hardware.. that leaves you with at least 2 CPU, 2 GPU, 4-8 SSD, 8 ram slots, 900 watt PSU.. etc.
is that enough for you?
because if so, it could certainly fit inside something 4x the size of nMP-- which would be 1/2 the size of cMP.

idk, it sounds like some people just want a computer that they can refer to as 'my rig'.. they want if big for aesthetic reasons. (or maybe some other reason that i won't get into here )

---
but the idea to make it as big as the most 'demanding' user would require then have everyone else just put less stuff inside is a bad idea imo and i highly doubt apple designers would follow that philosophy.. if this is what you're expecting of mMP then i'm pretty sure you're setting yourself up to be let down.

If they are going to continue down the path of everything is an appliance and they are not responding to the "pro" community that were never ever happy with the nMP machine.... then Apple should stop playing games and allow people to make business plans which likely will not include Apple going forward. It is a valid business decision and there was no "emergency" meeting with a select group of people to air the fact that they screwed up and are working on a machine that would make those people happy. the nMP is modular in a way through thunderbolt -- so if they were going to continue to "learn" that way of building their one high end workstation class machine.... then there was no reason why they should have inferred other words through the mantra of we are going to go back and build a modular mac -- because if that is what they meant -- they already have lots of modular macs.

The "pro" market (those that are not served by the rest of the machines) is small. The market does not have all the same needs. Some need high power graphics and average CPU; some need more CPU power and don't do much with graphics; some need greater GPU power for calculations but not for graphics; some need massive amounts of storage for raw video storage; some only need ultra-high speed SSD class storage.... Some people need more bandwidth for expansion than a single Xeon processor can provide (PCIe lanes), something that was lost after they decided a single Xeon with more cores would give the same compute power.... The Mac Pro should be the machine for all those needs.

What they should learn from the nMP is that they were too cute and designed a machine based on a predetermined mix of requirements -- and the market did not follow suit. They could not upgrade the CPU in the machine without balancing it off by the heat generated by the GPUs and vice versa. The older cMP machines have excellent heat compartmentalization and and venting of different areas which allow for higher end graphics without matching it with a 22 core Xeon which may not be necessary.... It was this cute design which could not just be upgraded without a complete redesign of all parts of the system that has lead Apple down the path of no upgrades for a machine for what will be 5 years or more at the time it is released. If they learn something from the nMP is that they don't want to put themselves in that position again. They have dropped from the Mac Pro being a much higher percentage of Macs sold to probably at most 1% of Macs sold.... While some of that can be contributed to just the fact that the lower end machines now handling more, not all of it can.

This machine has to go back to a more proven design that they don't have to focus much effort on upgrading it every 18 months or so with upgraded components. If they continue down the path of the nMP they will likely hit another wall because of trying to be too cute again and have another 5 years without major upgrades. This machine after all is for a very small but influential community which Apple seems at this point wants to retain -- but is in the midst of losing -- and Apple has a limited bandwidth of capability to focus real design time on the way Apple the corporation is organized.

Basically if all they are going to learn is that the nMP was the future.... then stop playing games with the professionals that need something more.... just quietly go about upgrading the nMP and let those professionals move to other platforms.

 

[iriejedi]

Modular and Mobile Mac Pro - found this top secret drawing. Gonna be huge!

 

[bkkcanuck8]

'Mature' MacPro (early 2008) - dead 8800GT + Radeon 5870 = still pretty solid machine... sigh... starting to show her age...

My 'mature' Mac Pro 2008 (8 core; 2.8) is creaking along.... been pretty well running her with the CPUs maxed (process running at 750%+ CPU) for 5 months now.... only one more month and I can give her a rest for a while

 

[flat five]

If they are going to continue down the path of everything is an appliance and they are not responding to the "pro" community that were never ever happy with the nMP machine.... then Apple should stop playing games and allow people to make business plans which likely will not include Apple going forward. It is a valid business decision and there was no "emergency" meeting with a select group of people to air the fact that they screwed up and are working on a machine that would make those people happy. the nMP is modular in a way through thunderbolt -- so if they were going to continue to "learn" that way of building their one high end workstation class machine.... then there was no reason why they should have inferred other words through the mantra of we are going to go back and build a modular mac -- because if that is what they meant -- they already have lots of modular macs.

The "pro" market (those that are not served by the rest of the machines) is small. The market does not have all the same needs. Some need high power graphics and average CPU; some need more CPU power and don't do much with graphics; some need greater GPU power for calculations but not for graphics; some need massive amounts of storage for raw video storage; some only need ultra-high speed SSD class storage.... Some people need more bandwidth for expansion than a single Xeon processor can provide (PCIe lanes), something that was lost after they decided a single Xeon with more cores would give the same compute power.... The Mac Pro should be the machine for all those needs.

What they should learn from the nMP is that they were too cute and designed a machine based on a predetermined mix of requirements -- and the market did not follow suit. They could not upgrade the CPU in the machine without balancing it off by the heat generated by the GPUs and vice versa. The older cMP machines have excellent heat compartmentalization and and venting of different areas which allow for higher end graphics without matching it with a 22 core Xeon which may not be necessary.... It was this cute design which could not just be upgraded without a complete redesign of all parts of the system that has lead Apple down the path of no upgrades for a machine for what will be 5 years or more at the time it is released. If they learn something from the nMP is that they don't want to put themselves in that position again. They have dropped from the Mac Pro being a much higher percentage of Macs sold to probably at most 1% of Macs sold.... While some of that can be contributed to just the fact that the lower end machines now handling more, not all of it can.

This machine has to go back to a more proven design that they don't have to focus much effort on upgrading it every 18 months or so with upgraded components. If they continue down the path of the nMP they will likely hit another wall because of trying to be too cute again and have another 5 years without major upgrades. This machine after all is for a very small but influential community which Apple seems at this point wants to retain -- but is in the midst of losing -- and Apple has a limited bandwidth of capability to focus real design time on the way Apple the corporation is organized.

Basically if all they are going to learn is that the nMP was the future.... then stop playing games with the professionals that need something more.... just quietly go about upgrading the nMP and let those professionals move to other platforms.

not sure what any of that ^ has to do with the size of machine and/or requires a 65lb computer to accomplish it

 

[bkkcanuck8]

not sure what any of that ^ has to do with the size of machine and/or requires a 65lb computer to accomplish it

If they make the same computer in a 15kg case I would be fine with that. BTW, the Mac Pro 2008 weighs 19.2kg (or 42lb).... it does weight considerably more once you put the spinning rust in all the bays.... but then I have already mentioned the spinning rust and optical slots are not really that important IMHO since mechanical drives are better suited in their own case -- even with the controller in the Mac Pro case.

The size of the old case is driven by the internal expansion of standard components which can be replaced without having to wait for Apple to design a new computer. Apple is not focused on the Mac Pro, and will not be that focused in the future -- so waiting for changes which require design changes because of cuteness of design or non-standard expansion... will inevitably lead to "pro" upgrades only happening irregularly in 3 to 5 year intervals.

The nMP has only 4 slots for memory, the older Mac Pro has 8 slots on a compartmentalized riser (generic Xeon workstations have up to 12). Loading the computer with as much RAM as possible is important to a subset of the pro market.

The nMP only has one Xeon CPU with a still limited number of PCIe lanes, the older Mac Pros had room for 2 full power Xeon CPUs.

So yes, the nMP is small but it is small because it really is a Mac Pro mini and with many limitations.

The nMP uses custom graphics cards which are limited by having to be balanced against the CPU because of using a common heat sink and cooling compartment - while the cMP has different compartments which do not require balancing between them. You could conceivably put two of the largest dual width graphics cards in the Mac Pro while not having to change the CPUs.

The nMP has no internal PCIe expansion -- which means you have to put it through thunderbolt across a bridge to another thunderbolt controller into an enclosure where the thunderbolt controller is plugged into a PCIe bus and has another power supply etc. Not the most efficient way to expand a computer from both a space and cost point of view. The external hard drive enclosures (4,8, etc.) has the same sort of setup with a thunderbolt controller, PCIe expansion bus, and SAS controller along with hard drives. If the main Mac had standard PCIe expansion that could have been done much cheaper by installing a SAS controller in the main computer and plugging in a standard SAS hard drive enclosure.

If someone wanted to install a Tensor Processor Unit for computational purposes - they would need the same configuration of expansion. Whether it is a serious graphics card, TPU, or powerful SAS controller they all have serious compute power with heat that needs to be compartmentalized and vented efficiently -- independent of CPUs etc.

If the main Mac has internal expansion that does not require special and limited expansion where due to using one cooling compartment -- you need a reasonably sized computer anyways. Any sort of expansion would take up considerable desk space that is not served by placing lots of boxes of different sizes on top anyways. Personally I really hate desktop clutter -- especially if it is I don't need constant access to it -- which I never do.

The nMP was cute, but it is a seriously limited design. It is the reason why we have had no upgrades in what will be 5 years once a new Mac Pro is released.

 

[greenmeanie]

I hope they keep the trash can and put USB C on it in front and the power button in front. And after that just update the specs to 2017 standards.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

I hope they keep the trash can and put USB C on it in front and the power button in front. And after that just update the specs to 2017 standards.

Apple invited 5 press people from various publications and basically told them... we royally scr*wed up with the nMP .... we tried upgrading it to more recent specs but could not upgrade the graphics to 2017 specs.... and that the design failed.... It is the reason they have not made small hardware bumps.... they could not.... not without reworking the design.... which they are not going to do regularly so it was either kill the nMP design at the top end or kill the Mac Pro completely.

 

[tralfaz]

The cMP is needlessly huge for its capabilities. Apple could make a single socket mMP mini-tower and a dual socket mMP midi-tower.

Indeed. Why does it have to be one size fits all for the MacPro. We have two sizes of iMacs, two sizes of Mac Book Pros, Two Sizes of iPhones, two sizes of iPads, why not two sizes of Mac Pros.

A non-Xeon i7(9?) single GPU box around the size of the MP6,1, and a MacPro Plus, with one or two CPUs/GPUs, the size of whatever it needs to be. They could share the same custom GPU sleds for each version in order to get Thundebolt. Trying to create a one size fits all solution will likely displease the most users possible. And while you at it how about a MacMini and a MacMiniPlus.

 

[ActionableMango]

why not two sizes of Mac Pros

The other models sell enough units to warrant multiple sizes. The Mac Pro does not.

Apple does not give exact figures for model sales, but they did say that Mac Pro sales are a single-digit percentage of all Mac models. And my guess would be that the single digit is closer to 1% than it is to 9%.

 

[h9826790]

Apple does not give exact figures for model sales, but they did say that Mac Pro sales are a single-digit percentage of all Mac models. And my guess would be that the single digit is closer to 1% than it is to 9%.

My personal guess is the actual number more close to the single single digit - zero, but not one.