New Modular Mac Pro and Display - Next Year

[flat five]

“We all went on our own emotional journeys, I’d say,” laughs Federighi. “There were periods of denial and acceptance. We all went on that arc.”

Looks like from dictated function.

i really don't think that's the case.. the computer seems designed around heavy processing on two gpus and a cpu.. that's the function in which the form was for-- not the other way around..
back then, multi-gpu and GPGPU enhancements seemed right around the corner.. but the direction it appears to have gone is VerY powerful single gpus..

at least according to Federighi in your quotes, the new mac pro simply can't handle one side of the core getting very hot.. they were probably thinking more along the lines of 2 gpus and a cpu collectively generating the same heat/processing power but spreading out to all three sides.. instead, it's currently one gpu generating that much heat/processing and they can't stick one (much less two) of them in nMP..

idk, i think when they designed it, they made sound decisions based around functionality in which the form followed.. but there's risk involved when innovating since you're sort of predicting the future or attempting to shape the future..
in this case, apple took the risk and it hasn't panned out as some (the designers and at least a few customers (such as myself)) had imagined it would earlier in the decade.

 

[Korican100]

phew, one more year of my locked down 6,1. hehe

 

[Andres Cantu]

I know a lot of Mac mini users complain about the lack of updates, but man, Mac Pro users have been waiting since basically 2010 for a worthwhile update!

Still want a new Mac mini though!

 

[AidenShaw]

in this case, apple took the risk and it hasn't panned out as some (the designers and at least a few customers (such as myself)) had imagined it would earlier in the decade.

And, from my reading of the interviews, Apple is still not getting it.

Every time I saw "one GPU" it flashed "They don't get it". They said they thought that two mid-range GPUs was the future, but instead things moved to one powerful GPU.

Get a clue, amigos.

(click to enlarge)​

Four Titan X (Pascal) GPUs and 1024 GiB of RAM. At the low end, yes it may be one powerful GPU. But if you really want to build a new pro machine, two to four 300 watt GPUs should be the target.

Don't make the mMP "Cube 3.0" by making it single socket, single GPU. And the supported 64 GiB RAM on the MP6,1 is ludicrous. 3 TiB would be a nice start.

 

[now i see it]

There was/is nothing genius about the cheese grater. It was just a nice looking tower. Thats all. They tried something radical with the cylinder mp and it didn't pan out as they hoped.

It would be foolish to think the Apple engineers aren't aware of every computer design currently in existence. Yes they've seen maxed out BOXX 3D workstations. Anyone commenting on the "cluelessness" of Apple doesn't have a clue.

 

[AidenShaw]

There was/is nothing genius about the cheese grater. It was just a nice looking tower. Thats all. They tried something radical and it didn't pan out as they hoped.

It would be foolish to think the Apple engineers aren't aware of every computer design currently in existence. Yes they've seen maxed out BOXX 3D workstations. Anyone commenting on the "cluelessness" of Apple doesn't have a clue.

But in today's interview's about the MP6,1 the amigos admitted that they were clueless.

And when they repeatedly said "one GPU" they doubled down on clueless.

 

[flat five]

And, from my reading of the interviews, Apple is still not getting it.

Every time I saw "one GPU" it flashed "They don't get it". They said they thought that two mid-range GPUs was the future, but instead things moved to one powerful GPU.

Get a clue, amigos.

View attachment 694936
(click to enlarge)​

Four Titan X (Pascal) GPUs and 1024 GiB of RAM. At the bottom, yes it may be one powerful GPU. But if you really want to build a new pro machine, two to four 300 watt GPUs should be the target.

Don't make the mMP "Cube 3.0" by making it single socket, single GPU. And the supported 64 GiB RAM on the MP6,1 is ludicrous.

i don't think they'll ever build something like shown in the picture.. it makes everyone (in the pro market) buy a big bulky computer even though many (or probably most) won't need this size configuration.

if the modular talk is sincere, i imagine gpu modules will be one of the main features/selling points.. don't force everyone into the big box.. but provide a seamless/supported/unified system of GPU expansion on a per usage basis.

i mean, what else would benefit from 'modules'? storage and GPU seem the most likely.

 

[deconstruct60]

And, from my reading of the interviews, Apple is still not getting it.
....
Every time I saw "one GPU" it flashed "They don't get it".

That wasn't "only one GPU" if you actually look at the context where they mention that two work well for a another set of interesting workloads. What they are saying is that they want a system where 1 or 2 are configuration options. Probably where can put different cooling subsystems in for one extremely big thermal envelope or split some of that into two.

.... Four Titan X (Pascal) GPUs and 1024 GiB of RAM. At the bottom, yes it may be one powerful GPU. But if you really want to build a new pro machine, two to four 300 watt GPUs should be the target.

That system is probably not sitting near anyone's desk. Two 300W may not be in Apple's scope with the new system. The current Mac Pro was down in the 150-190W range per GPU. HBMv2 ( and v3 at some point) and some GPU improvements should mean can get to high (not highest but quite high) even in the 250-275W range. Part of that

Don't make the mMP "Cube 3.0" by making it single socket, single GPU.

Nothing so far has mentioned standardized socket yet.

I is quite likely that Apple will want some BTO (or even standard ) configs to get back to the 2 GPU set up of the current Mac Pro. All the transcripts mentions it was useful, but just not broad enough. Going incrementally broader doesn't mean Apple is going to chase after everyone.

The stuff that looks like compute node in a stereotypical rack cluster in a "machine room" .... That is highly not likely what Apple is going to target. Far more likely it will be designed primarily for an actual desktop. ( not deskside or non-desk at all rack. )

 

[flat five]

And when they repeatedly said "one GPU" they doubled down on clueless.

i thought the 1Gpu thing was more a way for him to pinpoint a downfall of nmp..
he didn't seem to be saying "one gpu is the new wave.. i have a clue about that"..

more like 'We can not even put a single modern top end GPU in nMP without experiencing thermal problems".

 

[macsforever]

Time to hear all the Apple haters let's go.....
Right on Apple it's about time baby right when I started my new job with my big earnings time to buy me one of those new modular Mac Pros!!!!

 

[deconstruct60]

....
And when they repeatedly said "one GPU" they doubled down on clueless.

A single user data viewer system with complicated 3D will do pretty good with one larger GPU. Apple was absolutely not trying to pick out the one single "magic bullet" application. The one GPU stuff was far more about the segments they were missing with the "two only" primary target.

There are tons of thread entries on this forum of audio folks complaining about two GPUs. 3-4 GPUs isn't going to turn them around.

There are some 'clueless' aspects as to why they had drawn the constraints on the current Mac Pro so tight. So a potential upgrade card that is just 15-30W more simply won't fit inside the envelope. That the stop-gap solution is just move down with exact same hardware is puzzling if had put any effort into thinking about a Plan B.

 

[smoothunit]

I went with a beast Hackintosh build 2 months ago and couldn't be happier. Really surprised by how easy it all went together (MacOS side). I rekon the new unit is easily 2 years away and the old 5.1 just couldn't keep up. Eitherway, if the nMP is good- I'll have an incredibly fast server to offload some work to, if not- another Hackintosh beast.

 

[Partron22]

Schiller, “And if we’ve had a pause in upgrades and updates on that, we’re sorry for that

That "if" is worth about a million middle fingers.
The correct term is "since". That is a fact.

A fake apology does not fix squat.
A firm release date of December 2017 might be good for some slight amends.

Not even an "if" on the mini. Translation: "It's a boat anchor that's still bringing in the bucks."

 

[0388631]

And, from my reading of the interviews, Apple is still not getting it.

Every time I saw "one GPU" it flashed "They don't get it". They said they thought that two mid-range GPUs was the future, but instead things moved to one powerful GPU.

Get a clue, amigos.

View attachment 694936
(click to enlarge)​

Four Titan X (Pascal) GPUs and 1024 GiB of RAM. At the low end, yes it may be one powerful GPU. But if you really want to build a new pro machine, two to four 300 watt GPUs should be the target.

Don't make the mMP "Cube 3.0" by making it single socket, single GPU. And the supported 64 GiB RAM on the MP6,1 is ludicrous. 3 TiB would be a nice start.

Why use Titan anythings when Apple could use nVidia's professional line of video cards? Anything short of a Fire Pro or Quadro screams "We had to be cheap about this one component" to me. These are professional workstation cards. Not mainstream consumer cards.

 

[Ph.D.]

My limited reading of the announcement is that Apple realizes now that one powerful GPU might have suited more people better than two GPUs of more modest power, and that a different approach might have allowed easier upgrades. I'd agree.

Unfortunately, the small announcement today is likely to be the last bit of information let out until the actual reveal. So, speculate all you want about how many GPUs (and whose) there may be, whether they use standard form factors or not, etc., but speculation is all it will be for a long, long time, sadly.

 

[tralfaz]

Everyone is all excited about the idea of a modular MP. I would recommend tempering your enthusiasm. Does any such thing exist by any other vendor? I'm not aware of any. There may be a reason if there isn't an example of a modular workstation currently in existence.

The obvious reasons would be that it would be costly and complicated to pull off, and in the end would still not be future proof. Whatever, you choose to inter-connect the modules with, it will eventually become outdated, and will eventually force you to upgrade all your modules.

For me the "modular" comment just confirmed that Apple thinks it can do what what everyone else can't. So it sounds like they are headed down an overly elaborate solution that is going to be more complicated, more expensive, and more proprietary than it needs to be.

I hope I'm wrong, but something tells me Apple can't help making the perfect, at least in Apples view, the enemy of the good.

 

[EnderBeta]

Already beat you to the naming lol.

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ming-after-2017.2040211/page-18#post-24462942

But, yes, I think mMP is a good name for it.

What about nMPc?

 

[0388631]

The obvious reasons would be that it would be costly and complicated to pull off, and in the end would still not be future proof. Whatever, you choose to inter-connect the modules with, it will eventually become outdated, and will eventually force you to upgrade all your modules.

They're likely using the system that HP has with their Z series workstations. They're modular and the boards they use are ones they tend to use for several years, making sure a wide range of processors (Xeons) will work on them. Everything else is easy access swappable.

 

[Ph.D.]

I hope I'm wrong, but something tells me Apple can't help making the perfect, at least in Apples view, the enemy of the good.

Too true!

A problem with reading tea leaves (information so limited as to be almost useless) is that incredible variations in outcomes hang on the meaning of single words such as "modular."

Modular could mean something as basic as "throw everything into a box with lots of slots and bays and ports, like all those Windoze machines." Or it could mean ... almost anything. Don't get too excited. Apple will still be Apple, no matter what dreams people may have.

 

[aaronhead14]

Everyone is all excited about the idea of a modular MP. I would recommend tempering your enthusiasm. Does any such thing exist by any other vendor? I'm not aware of any. There may be a reason if there isn't an example of a modular workstation currently in existence.

The obvious reasons would be that it would be costly and complicated to pull off, and in the end would still not be future proof. Whatever, you choose to inter-connect the modules with, it will eventually become outdated, and will eventually force you to upgrade all your modules.

For me the "modular" comment just confirmed that Apple thinks it can do what what everyone else can't. So it sounds like they are headed down an overly elaborate solution that is going to be more complicated, more expensive, and more proprietary than it needs to be.

I hope I'm wrong, but something tells me Apple can't help making the perfect, at least in Apples view, the enemy of the good.

Dude, modular just means we'll be able to interchange internal components.... EVERY PC manufacturer already makes computers like this, except Apple (since the MP 5,1). All Apple is saying is that the the Mac Pro will be customizable and upgradeable. How would that be "costly or complicated to pull off"?? It's the most simple, straightforward, intelligent thing Apple could do.

 

[BB8]

Everyone is all excited about the idea of a modular MP. I would recommend tempering your enthusiasm. Does any such thing exist by any other vendor? I'm not aware of any. There may be a reason if there isn't an example of a modular workstation currently in existence.

The obvious reasons would be that it would be costly and complicated to pull off, and in the end would still not be future proof. Whatever, you choose to inter-connect the modules with, it will eventually become outdated, and will eventually force you to upgrade all your modules.

For me the "modular" comment just confirmed that Apple thinks it can do what what everyone else can't. So it sounds like they are headed down an overly elaborate solution that is going to be more complicated, more expensive, and more proprietary than it needs to be.

I hope I'm wrong, but something tells me Apple can't help making the perfect, at least in Apples view, the enemy of the good.

What the hell is modular by your definition?

My impression was that Apple is doing a reset on the Mac Pro precisely because the custom/proprietary aspects of it were killing them. Whatever they put out next will probably be like every other generic PC box on the market except modernized and Apple taxed.

Will it have room for 4 300w GPUs and 2 processors like AidenShaw wants? Probably not, but their primary customer base will be satisfied nonetheless.

 

[deconstruct60]

My limited reading of the announcement is that Apple realizes now that one powerful GPU might have suited more people better than two GPUs of more modest power, and that a different approach might have allowed easier upgrades. I'd agree.

I think they were trying to highlight two issues. One is that the a number of former Mac Pro users are moving to iMacs. So in the group that hasn't been bled off to iMac and hasn't been assigned to the 'too small to chase' group (e.g., requires very big container solution), they have a new mix of workloads they are targeting. They talked to users and there is a subset of old Mac Pro owners they aren't chasing with a Mac Pro anymore.

Of what is left, yeah there is a chunk of single GPU users who they need to do a higher retain on to help keep from shrinking to point Mac Pro gets too small. I don't think they are saying one versus two. It is that they need an easier path to an option of one or two. They'll need both to keep the Mac Pro from shrinking too small. The pro market is Balkanized . I'm not sure they are saying 'more users" as much as another sub market segmentation that need to add to the mixture to get to big enough to do.

 

[Hank Carter]

A few months ago I switched to a Win10 PC workstation after +20 years on the Mac. Given that the new Mac Pro won't ship until at least a year from now I may be back in the market for a new machine and an opportunity to return to the fold.

All I can say is that they better not half-a#% this. I needs to be a grand slam. Last chance gents.

 

[deconstruct60]

Dude, modular just means we'll be able to interchange internal components....

Actually that is too narrow. Schiller used the term of modular in the Mac Pro's relationship to the Display ( likely docking station, but Apple calls those displays when a LCD panel is integrated. ).

Folks thinking there is some larger set of open market internal module components I think are a bit off. The 2009-2012 Mac Pro had a modular processor tray. There are folks selling old/used parts these days but those all flowed out of Apple contracted manufacturer(s).

EVERY PC manufacturer already makes computers like this, except Apple (since the MP 5,1). All Apple is saying is that the the Mac Pro will be customizable and upgradeable. How would that be "costly or complicated to pull off"?? It's the most simple, straightforward, intelligent thing Apple could do.

Most use highly standardized parts. The MP 5,1 has some, but not all standardized parts. If all that Apple was going to do is throw a bunch of standard parts into a box it wouldn't take a year (or more) to come to market.

it is unlikely Apple is working toward a Mac Pro where there are 15 different GPU cards , 10 different storage devices, etc. .... a BTO page that scrolls for days.

As long as Apple is committed to pumping all the video output via Thunderbolt Type-C sockets the GPU module will likely be custom. (and the 'display' more so a docking station. )

 

[flat five]

it is unlikely Apple is working toward a Mac Pro where there are 15 different GPU cards , 10 different storage devices, etc. .... a BTO page that scrolls for days.

yeah, i sincerely doubt apple will go there.

---
also, i won't be surprised when a newly designed mac pro is (at least) as different from the cMP as the turbine is.


--
if people are going to speculate for the next year on what this next mac pro may be, don't waste your (not so) creative energies on describing the computer design from past 25yrs that everybody already knows about anyway.. for one, apple almost certainly will not be making a computer like that ever again.
instead, waste your creative energies on something not yet seen.. it's more fun. and more productive even.