If Apple bring the tower back, I don't mind it's in rose gold. I only care what it can do, but not how it looks
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.
New Mac Pro at WWDC June 2016
- Thread starter accentaudio
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac pro refresh wwdc 2016
- Sort by reaction score
If Apple bring the tower back, I don't mind it's in rose gold. I only care what it can do, but not how it looks
At the risk of repeating myself, here's what's going to happen:
* Yes, an updated nMP will be announced at WWDC. It may not ship for a while.
* No new form factor.
* Updated CPU and distinctly better GPU options.
* Faster RAM and much faster Flash.
* Updated ports pretty much all around.
So, basically, nearly all new internals. It will be a decent upgrade. Gnashing of teeth will occur anyway, and then it will start all over.
(I'd really like a 5k display to go with it, too. Thanks in advance, Apple!)
* Yes, an updated nMP will be announced at WWDC. It may not ship for a while.
* No new form factor.
* Updated CPU and distinctly better GPU options.
* Faster RAM and much faster Flash.
* Updated ports pretty much all around.
So, basically, nearly all new internals. It will be a decent upgrade. Gnashing of teeth will occur anyway, and then it will start all over.
(I'd really like a 5k display to go with it, too. Thanks in advance, Apple!)
Here's what's going to happen after 1 year:
*There's no new update at the next WWDC. It may not update for "awhile."
*People bring up the issue of annual updates and lack of upgradability (including me)
* Apple will remain silent in Mac Pros.
*Technology will be outdated
* People will complain that GPU of 2017 should have been in nmp 2016.
So, basically, the fortune cookies will tell us the next update mac would be in another 900 days.
I'd agree that Apple will not make a nnnMP until the next round of significant upgrades can be made (or perhaps one crucial one for an important new market, e.g. VR). Could be 1 year, could be 3, or the nnMP could be the last, even.
Hi All,
Like many of you, I am just waiting around to see what is announced at the upcoming 2016 WWDC. =P I really do hope that Apple updates the Mac Pro this year! If not, I'm afraid that my next purchase will be on the Windows platform.
I can't just be waiting year after year for Apple.
richmlow
Like many of you, I am just waiting around to see what is announced at the upcoming 2016 WWDC. =P I really do hope that Apple updates the Mac Pro this year! If not, I'm afraid that my next purchase will be on the Windows platform.
I can't just be waiting year after year for Apple.
richmlow
If Apple bring the tower back, I don't mind it's in rose gold. I only care what it can do, but not how it looks
For all I care about the color, it could be called unicorn hippo brown. Bringing the tower Mac Pro back would be the best thing for Apple, even if it was redesigned.
If they just update the trashcan, I'll literally crap my pants of laughter.
But it's a developer's conference, not MacWorld SF.
Developer's conference? Not really heh? For all its intents and purposes, it is more medial and mainstream than you might think it is. Good friend of mine from Italy, average Apple customer, craps his pants about WWDC, see?
I wonder what groups of people are waiting and sticking with mac pros vs leaving or going iMac ?
being a photographer the Xeon is not really needed ? even with C1 software you can crank a 6700K to be about as fast for output etc.. as multi core setups (8 or more dual CPU I am talking) and PS and LR do not use those cores ? so back to single CPU mac pro is not really worth it for some in my circles (again not saying everyone)
I do wish they would come out with two pros and not only xeon stuff I can see vid guys and some others needing so not saying its not needed just fewer markets are needing it IMHO
many other pro togs I know are getting the iMacs but many dont want the screen ? but its fine for a second monitor really
pretty much at the point I will have two machines a apple laptop to run all my biz stuff and a win machine maxed and able to keep updated and fast for each release of C1 that comes along and really will just be a C1 LR and PS machine
being a photographer the Xeon is not really needed ? even with C1 software you can crank a 6700K to be about as fast for output etc.. as multi core setups (8 or more dual CPU I am talking) and PS and LR do not use those cores ? so back to single CPU mac pro is not really worth it for some in my circles (again not saying everyone)
I do wish they would come out with two pros and not only xeon stuff I can see vid guys and some others needing so not saying its not needed just fewer markets are needing it IMHO
many other pro togs I know are getting the iMacs but many dont want the screen ? but its fine for a second monitor really
pretty much at the point I will have two machines a apple laptop to run all my biz stuff and a win machine maxed and able to keep updated and fast for each release of C1 that comes along and really will just be a C1 LR and PS machine
In times past did he lose bowel control over the MacWorld conferences?
I jokingly call WWDC "MacWorld SF" because the keynote is really a marketing event, not a developer event. In fact, this year the keynote will be in a larger auditorium 1.8km (walking) from the developer conference venue.
Maybe the larger auditorium means big announcements. Like an Imac with razor sharp edges that appears to be 1cm thinner. (But it's really only
In spite of some of my comments, I really do hope that at WWDC Apple does something. And something more than the MP6,1 upgraded with current parts downclocked to fit in that ridiculously small power/thermal envelope.
Somehow I think that Steve Jobs would not have accepted "the best computer that a 450w power supply can feed". Someone's ass would have been kicked out the door (but it's not too late for that).
Last edited:
I'm curious as to what power envelope you think Steve Jobs would have used for the Mac Pro in 2016: 1kW or 2kW?
Let's talk about 2013, and how the Mac Pro got into this mess.
As an engineer, for a low-end desktop workstation I would have looked at the design and started with a thermal envelope of about 600-800 watts for an entry to mid-range workstation. The entry wouldn't need 600 watts, but if my goal was to have one design that would adapt from entry to mid-range I'd need to design for the mid-range.
Surely Apple's Mac Pro engineering team should have realized that something was horribly wrong with the design if they had to spend a lot of time worrying about downclocking components to fit the power/thermal envelope of the system. Surely they must have realized this. Surely.
Entry system with a 450 watt PS is fine (quad core, D300). 550 watt with D500, 650 watt with D700. Since the GPUs are not upgradeable, in spite of the screws, Apple could have easily matched different power supplies with the GPU/CPU options.
All the nonsense going on here about whether this GPU or that GPU will work in the tube would be unnecessary if the original design had a little bit of headroom (instead of having no headroom, and downclocking components to fit an embarrassingly small power envelope).
Remember that this happened while Jobs was holding the reins:
"Those were the days, my friend. We thought they'd never end...."
Last edited:
I've been playing around with Dell's workstation configurations, and they start with a 425w T5810 single-socket workstation, with options at 685w and 825w. It's interesting to see what combinations of processors and graphics cards fit within these three different levels.
Many people have been hoping for a return of the dual processor Mac Pro, though; the dual-socket Dell T7910 has a 1.3kW power supply. Apple hasn't made anything remotely like this in a long time, and it seems extremely unlikely that they would reenter the workstation market, unfortunately. Or, in a typically Apple fashion, they introduced in 2013 a new "workstation-ish" product with no apparent logical target market as an experiment, and we still don't know what the experiment is or what the results are.
I agree that it would have been nice if Apple differentiated the power supplies with different graphics cards options, and it's not at all clear why they went the route they did in 2013. A while back someone on this forum suggested that a possible reason was a bet on much more efficient graphics cards that have since been delayed by at least 3 years, resulting in the current "nonsense" of cramming hot graphics cards in a much smaller thermal envelope than would seem practical. This seems the most plausible reason for the design choice to me; if this is the case, the nMP was released too early.
Anyway, it seems to me that the experiment was to produce a very small, quiet and efficient Xeon machine that relies on software and hardware technology that doesn't quite exist yet. That is, a pair of fast and efficient GPUs coupled with a very clever API to leverage them. Maybe this can finally all come together in the next Mac Pro with Polaris or Vega or Pascal and some new unreleased version of Metal.
Just like when we had the same conversation with Stacc in the Mac Pro 2016 thread. Those under-clocked D700's would out perform a Titan X using much less power. Its all a smoke screen pointing at the inside and calling it under powered, yet when doing actual work the performance is quite astounding considering the size/power ratio.
Last edited:
I wish the guy in the video who flew out was Tim Cook. He doesn't know what power is when you hand him a power generator.
on the whole trash can thing ?
I like it great idea CPU and GPU and memory cooled to what it needs to do
storage on the side cooled to what it needs to be
where it goes bad I want normal GPU I can change when how I want same as memory
CPU ? seems sockets change so much and memory config speed changes the days of CPU updates are not as big of deal
I do think there idea was a bit like the newton to early to ahead of its time to be what is today the tablet
many companies tried to make tablets and it was not until apple made it happen that the bulb went off and of course we are where we are today
my buddies and I keep saying what would be cool is a CPU and memory system maybe around mac mini size or so ?
connections like USB-C or something to connect the GPU box to it kinda like todays gaming laptop GPU boxes make it without any throttle issues ? and that box might be about the same size shape so stacking connecting with the CPU
could say stack a single or double even more CPU boxes and GPU for what we wanted and do what we want for storage
each CPU box would have m.2 maybe ? again who knows so many ways to think about it
I liked the idea of where the trash can could have gone sadly Steve was not around to keep it going ?
I like it great idea CPU and GPU and memory cooled to what it needs to do
storage on the side cooled to what it needs to be
where it goes bad I want normal GPU I can change when how I want same as memory
CPU ? seems sockets change so much and memory config speed changes the days of CPU updates are not as big of deal
I do think there idea was a bit like the newton
to early to ahead of its time to be what is today the tablet many companies tried to make tablets and it was not until apple made it happen that the bulb went off and of course we are where we are today
my buddies and I keep saying what would be cool is a CPU and memory system maybe around mac mini size or so ?
connections like USB-C or something to connect the GPU box to it kinda like todays gaming laptop GPU boxes make it without any throttle issues ? and that box might be about the same size shape so stacking connecting with the CPU
could say stack a single or double even more CPU boxes and GPU for what we wanted and do what we want for storage
each CPU box would have m.2 maybe ? again who knows so many ways to think about it
I liked the idea of where the trash can could have gone sadly Steve was not around to keep it going ?
That's one of my bigger questions since nMP was launched. Why do they have to stick with this small case and thermal envelope that forces internals to be downclocked ? Isn't the thermal envelope supposed to serve the internals and not the other way around ?
Because future GPU dies will not be bigger than 300mm2 and 150W of TDP, anyway. Ask AMD, GloFo, and TSMC what they think about big GPU dies in shrinking market like desktop. Ask them also about efficiency and how to counter this factor.
I am not saying that 300W or higher thermal design GPUs will disappear. You will get multiple GPU dies on single PCB, or single GPU stack, depending what your needs are. But if you need single CPU and multiple GPUs you will get similar idea of computer like Mac Pro.
Apple just thought that if they will be forced to go into smaller thermal envelope GPUs, they want to get rid of all the work they will have, and build on top of efficiency.
Within a year or two you will get 150W GPU with 13-15 TFLOPs of compute power. Think about the benefits of fitting two of them into small thermal envelope computer. That is what people call efficiency.
And one more thing. I suggest for people to read about what HSA 2.0 is and what future iterations of it will be. Whole trash can design revolved around this initiative. Whole idea for this computer revolved around this initiative.
Last edited:
i think you're talking about the keynote
?
wwdc is more than that.. it's the keynote that has people crapping pants. (for example, see this thread
..it's only about the keynote and what products may be introduced on stage)
The reality distortion field is powerful...50mm = 5cm
(obviously a brainfart.. just teasing you about it)
Jack Kervorkian.... Was he the one in charge of the Mac Pro line? That would explain a lot of what is happening with it today
Jack Kervorkian.... Was he the one in charge of the Mac Pro line? That would explain a lot of what is happening with it today
I think we'll know in a month if it was Dr. Death or maybe Nurse Ratched.