Putting new Mac Pro myths to rest

[Draeconis]

..Those are SSDs with a SATA interface. This one doesn't have a normal SATA interface. They aren't the same. Just because the form factor is similar says absolutely nothing about the components on the form factor...

Please see this.

I think you'll find both the MacBook Air 2013 and the new Mac Pro use PCIe-based SSDs. Given the difference in speed, I imagine the ARM-based PCIe storage controller on the MacBook Air to be inferior to the Mac Pro one, possibly to reduce costs, possibly to also reduce power consumption.

I'm not sure where you got SATA from, since even the theoretical maximum of SATA-III is 600MB/s, and 2013 MacBook Airs have benchmarked in the 800MB/s area.

 

[barmann]

Never a dull moment in this forum these days

I'm not sure any of your "myths" are widely held beliefs by members of this forum.

Amen to that, bro .
The MacCan scores high in the entertainment department , better than any MP ever .

Once specs, pricing and first tests will be released, I believe positive comments will come to a screeching halt .
Not to mention TB externals, what a disaster in the making .
Moore's law already isn't valid anymore, this might well turn it inside out .

And if I'm wrong ? Even better !

 

[deconstruct60]

Please see this.

"... The first generation of consumer PCIe SSDs will use PCIe 2.0, since that’s what’s abundant/inexpensive and power efficient on modern platforms. Each PCIe lane is good for 500MB/s, bidirectional (1GB/s total). Apple’s implementation uses two PCIe 2.0 lanes, for a total of 1GB/s of bandwidth in each direction (2GB/s aggregate). ...."

Frankly, the second generation of consumer ones will likely use PCI-e v2.0 also. The mainstream CPU's limitations of just 16 PCI-e v3.0 lanes means most mainstream designs are often oversubscribed for v3.0 lanes. The MBA 11" happens not to be, but as the Anandtech article points out, you'd have to coupled a pretty hefty Thunderbolt storage subsystem to the MBA to give that SSD a workout doing large data transfers. So here v2.0 means can save some money and they do to keep the price down but improve on speed (from last year).

I think you'll find both the MacBook Air 2013 and the new Mac Pro use PCIe-based SSDs. Given the difference in speed, I imagine the ARM-based PCIe storage controller on the MacBook Air to be inferior to the Mac Pro one, possibly to reduce costs, possibly to also reduce power consumption.

ARM has little to do with the issue though.

On the Apple web site the new Mac Pro is listed as topping out at 1250MB/s ( ~1.25GB/s). That that's faster than a x2 PCI-e v2.0 link. ARM, MIPS, or Oompa Loompa powered controller there isn't enough bandwidth. So the likelihood that the two Flash controllers on these two SSDs are the same is quite small. The form factor of the drive isn't necessarily going to match costs. Nor indicative that they are using a "consumer" Flash controller on the Mac Pro.

The Mac Pro SSD is sitting on the "back" of a card connected via PCI-e v3.0 links. If they use a PCI-e v3.0 capable controller , then the top end for x2 PCI-e v3.0 link is 2GB/s which means the Mac Pro probably has some headroom. The MBA doesn't or at least relatively less. That is not being cheap.

I'm not sure where you got SATA from,

From previous Macs. I didn't take the MBA 2013 updates into account. His "form factor same so just as cheap" argument didn't particularly make any allusions to this year's updates. Same general disconnection issue though. Similar form doesn't means similar components or component prices.

Frankly, they don't even look the same up close.

top above this year's MBA's SSD , bottom above last year's . (from ifitix teardown link you gave ). Versus new one:

from Apple's current Mac Pro site. [http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/ ]


The Flash chips are different sizes. The old SATA is about as similar to the Mac Pro as the new 2013 MBA one. At least the Flash chips match up on size.

2013 MacBook Airs have benchmarked in the 800MB/s area.

With the disk queue depth set at 32 and doing sequential.... I suppose the Mac Pro's 1.25GB/s is probably equally to skewed to a downhill, with hurricane tailwind context drag race, but probably also has a faster normal rate also. If the normal rate is just as low, that's where can start grumbling about "cheap".

 

[iSee]

PUTTANG NEW MAC PRO MITHS TOO REST:

MITH - IT"S A TRASHCAN
FACT - no u idiots its a personal sized cumptuer

MITH - it will run windows 98
FACT - UMMMM it"s called mac Ossex u morans

MITH - U CAN"T run a NVIDIA graphic PROCESSOR in it
FACT - ok, that's true but why do u need 2? RU DUMB? LOLL idiots

MITHS = PUTT TOO REST.

Well done. You've really captured the level of debate in New Mac Pro threads.

The reminds me of my resolution to stop reading New Mac Pro threads until it's released. I've slipped up a few times before. I can't help it because I'm fascinated with Apple's attempt to redefine a "Pro" workstation.

 

[deconstruct60]

Once specs, pricing and first tests will be released, I believe positive comments will come to a screeching halt .

Doubtful, at least on testing and resulting commentary. At the extremes same folks entrenched into their subset of tests carefully selected to back up their views.

Not to mention TB externals, what a disaster in the making .

Most peripheral vendors synch up announcements for Consumer Electronics Show (CES) time of year. Even the high end pro shows that are likely aligned with the Mac Pro peripherals are largely over by Fall.

Coupling TB externals to around the exact dates of the Mac Pro announcement is a bit whacked. I'm sure doom and gloom folks are going to latch onto it but don't think going to see much difference after Mac Pro launch in terms of more balanced, grounded perspective on where TB peripherals are going till into 2014.

Moore's law already isn't valid anymore,

Since when? http://arstechnica.com/information-...could-stay-on-track-with-extreme-uv-progress/
The transistors are doubling. Don't confuse single core clock rates with Moore's law. There are diminishing returns at throwing very high increases of transistors at a single complex core. Likewise with myopically looking at maximizing clock rates.

Being sloppy with power isn't valid anymore is closer to what is actually the current dominate mode right now.

this might well turn it inside out .

The transistor doubling is what allows the GPUs to allocation larger transistor budgets to running some general purpose computing code and hence mixing CPU+GPU to get GPGPU. Similarly substantially larger VRAM sizes 4-8GB was a PC's memory size not all that long ago ( still is for a MBA). The new Mac Pro takes that into account.

The black hole effect of absorbing more functionality into fewer chip packages is exactly what Moore's law has done and is still doing for at least 5 more years. (the equipment in the article above isn't going into wide volume usage or optimally used for a while even if start to sell some in next couple of years. )

 

[derbothaus]

I'm fascinated with how fans ingest Apple's re-definition of 'Workstation'. This has been a popcorn-fest.

 

[deconstruct60]

I use Mari at work on a Xeon Dell T7500 system and Windows 8, ati 7870. .... but FireGl and SSD standard out of the box in the nMP is impressive and was also pointed out by the presenters. Even the low-end nMP would likely outperform what I see currently in native windows.

I think the software vendors like knowing what the minimal hardware they are targeting it going to be is higher. Even more so if know their software can easily leverage that median deployed configuration improvement. It won't be so impressive to them if the hardware gets substantially more expensive so their customers have less money to spend on software. I think they are hoping for reduction in cost of complements though ( that by going standard Apple uses volume to push the hardware prices down slightly, relative to top end Workstation market... not necessarily over Mac Pro track record. )


The AMD 7870 and W7000 differ primarily on supported VRAM. If the 2GB extra VRAM smooths out the performance then yes it probably will.

 

[Kissaragi]

Have to admire the optimism of the op that anything can be put to rest on the internet.

 

[deconstruct60]

I'm fascinated with how fans ingest Apple's re-definition of 'Workstation'. This has been a popcorn-fest.

For some contexts is it really redefined?

Workstation primarily hooked to SAN for bulk storage. What's is major difference? Several years ago that would be a Mac Pro ( since principle way to get to a fast SAN connection) with lots of empty space inside.

It is not so much trying to redefine the market but likely far more so trying where the market is growing and/or has room for differentiation versus where the market is non growing and/or extremely commoditized.
The folks who primarily want the cheapest box wrapped around the fastest CPU(s) is rapidly being commoditized.

If actually look at much of the wailing/hyperbole and cut through the cruft and FUD there is far more of "Apple is leaving me (and/or my complementary solution business) behind"/"Apple prices this right I'll buy it" than "Apple is trying/wants to redefine the overall workstation market"/"Apple is going to jump to be the biggest Tier 1 workstation vendor" in the commentary.

It isn't so much "workstation" that is being challenged as much as preconceived conceptions either about what needs actually comprises the overall workstation market or about necessary form factors and solution architectures.

 

[flat five]

I'm fascinated with how fans ingest Apple's re-definition of 'Workstation'. This has been a popcorn-fest.

equally fascinating is watching people hold on to apple's previous definition of a workstation as if it holds any sort of validity.. not realizing that in another generation or two, this same argument is going to happen except the new mac's form is going to be defended by the likes of you and the new new mac will be touted as moving backwards and non-pro

 

[tuxon86]

equally fascinating is watching people hold on to apple's previous definition of a workstation as if it holds any sort of validity.. not realizing that in another generation or two, this same argument is going to happen except the new mac's form is going to be defended by the likes of you and the new new mac will be touted as moving backwards and non-pro

Only if other companies follow apple and put out similar built machine. If not then people will still be comparing the nMP with what will still be the present workstation form factor with more versatility and configuration options.

Depending on the $$$ it brings to Apple, we may not even see a second or third generation nMP. It is a shrinking market after all. This is more so if pros move to BoXX, HP, Dell & Lenovo instead. After all the exclusive Mac software library as shrunk considerably, especially since the FCPX fiasco.

 

[deconstruct60]

equally fascinating is watching people hold on to apple's previous definition of a workstation as if it holds any sort of validity.. not realizing that in another generation or two, this same argument is going to happen except the new mac's form is going to be defended by the likes of you and the new new mac will be touted as moving backwards and non-pro

There are different submarkets. In several computer model generations, there are still going to be one-man-band shops ( or ronin subgroups embedded in larger orgs ) where everything all inside of a single box might make sense. For tractable bulk storage needs one "large enough" box may be all that is needed. Nothing about the Mac Pro even tries to invalidate that.


Given the conservative, risk adverse, nature of many I doubt the rest of the workstation vendors and most customers are going to drop everything and track Apple's new move. ( Unless it starts to print money... then sure the "me too" PC system vendor market will fall in line over time. )

----------

Only if other companies follow apple and put out similar built machine.

Can those companies track Apple? Part of the issue here is leveraging a higher context of custom internal parts. A high fraction of the workstation market are much thinner margin, highly outsourced commodity components (especially the major components ) shops.

Sure there are OEM design shops but part of this is leveraging a deal with AMD/Nvidia (presuming Apple uses their bulk to their own advantage... hard to think of why they wouldn't. )

It isn't where the companies go that is the most critical factor though. It is where the customers are going. Skate to where the puck is going, not where it is now.

 

[tuxon86]

There are different submarkets. In several computer model generations, there are still going to be one-man-band shops ( or ronin subgroups embedded in larger orgs ) where everything all inside of a single box might make sense. For tractable bulk storage needs one "large enough" box may be all that is needed. Nothing about the Mac Pro even tries to invalidate that.


Given the conservative, risk adverse, nature of many I doubt the rest of the workstation vendors and most customers are going to drop everything and track Apple's new move. ( Unless it starts to print money... then sure the "me too" PC system vendor market will fall in line over time. )

----------



Can those companies track Apple? Part of the issue here is leveraging a higher context of custom internal parts. A high fraction of the workstation market are much thinner margin, highly outsourced commodity components (especially the major components ) shops.

Sure there are OEM design shops but part of this is leveraging a deal with AMD/Nvidia (presuming Apple uses their bulk to their own advantage... hard to think of why they wouldn't. )

It isn't where the companies go that is the most critical factor though. It is where the customers are going. Skate to where the puck is going, not where it is now.

Hence why I used the conditional.

HP and Dell with their business/pro hold, on that part of the market could produce a similar design if they wanted. I don't see them doing it though. Why would they?

If nobody follows apple lead in this then I don't see a big move from 3rd party OEM to adopt this form factor. Which mean we would be dependent on Apple for any internal updates on the machine except for the ram and SSD.

The new form factor, especially the GPU, don't really bring anything in term of performance over normal PCIe. They do however, restrict you to buy from Apple exclusively, which makes it a costly proposition when it comes to upgrading production machine in the field.

 

[mizzouxc]

Well, I'd never hire you. You clearly exhibit no ability to understand technology.

I've found that software developers understand hardware the least.

Somehow I call "bull***t" on your 25 years experience in anything.

This one is the best response, somehow he's figured me out! However it seems you haven't read the thread, including the retraction on the SSD part.

IRL I'm a software architect with 25 years experience and you're running my software every time you take a plane flight or use your cell phone. Feel safe now

 

[G4er?]

In the not too distant future, you will look at your old Mac Pro and think you have taken the engine of a VW and put it inside - what you think - is a Ferrari.

In the not too distant future the new Mac Pro will be the old Mac Pro.

 

[GreenWater]

In the not too distant future the new Mac Pro will be the old Mac Pro.

True dat. However, they may delay bringing out a new design and be accused of kicking the iCan down the road.

 

[deconstruct60]

HP and Dell with their business/pro hold, on that part of the market could produce a similar design if they wanted. I don't see them doing it though. Why would they?

iMac -> HP Z1

I don't see them slavishly copying but Apple's push of the iMac into places where displaced Mac Pro like boxes is probably one reason why HP doesn't think the Z1 is a bad idea.

Similarly before the MP 2013 and cripped on GPU is this box.

http://www.boxxtech.com/Products/renderpro

"Render" is based on the presumption of being completely x86 based. Long term that likely is not a universally good idea. It isn't a box that users would primarily use. However, if adjust to something where user is in front and directly interfacting, but same focus and won't be that far from MP 2013.

If nobody follows apple lead in this then I don't see a big move from 3rd party OEM to adopt this form factor.

Again hinges on who is this "nobody". System vendors; probably not. With the threatened leagcy PC market most of them have gone into even deeper risk adverse mode.

If the "nobody" is customers then it isn't a question of following Apple's lead as of Apple following theirs. What some folks seem to be in deep denial of is that there are already folks moving in this direction. It is far more of a question of how many and how fast are they growing.

Which mean we would be dependent on Apple for any internal updates on the machine except for the ram and SSD.

If the other OEMs adopt the form factor that in no way means interchangeable parts for everyone any more than it means interchanges parts for everyone in the current laptop market.

It would be no better or worse that the situation with Apple. Might be able to swap 'boneyard' parts with a wider set of the same design with different vendors names slapped on top... but individual OEM designs would be different.

Like other tools if the price is right a large fraction of folks aren't going to care. They need a tool to do work with.

The new form factor, especially the GPU, don't really bring anything in term of performance over normal PCIe.

The deployed normal of PCIe is v2.0. v3.0 does bring a difference. Benchmarks geared toward optimizings v2.0's limitations are in no way going to demonstrate those.

The newest GPU features that leveral uniform memory access probably will over the long run.

They do however, restrict you to buy from Apple exclusively, which makes it a costly proposition when it comes to upgrading production machine in the field.

The OS X license restricts you to Apple products. If this is really gets your underwear completely twisted, probably should find new platform. There are trade-offs to those kinds of restrictions. It is up to users whether they are a net benefit or not.

Costly in the workstation marketplace is not just an Apple thing. It is always a bit interesting so much fire and smoke occurs over temporary transition points as opposed to 99% of the operations usage of these machines. Whether they are successful to the orgs they are embedded in or not far more depends upon the latter than the former.

 

[SeattleMoose]

Cliff notes version of this thread applicable to the majority of posters...I STILL WANT ONE...ASAP!!!!

 

[Cubemmal]

Well, I'd never hire you ...

lol ... And now we successfully avoid saying anything substantive of the topic at hand and resort to ad-hominem. Begone troll ...

Want to guess where the Quadro 4000, 5000, and 6000 boards came in? I only handled a few of each but they were always graded as inferior to the GTX480 cores. They ranged from 47-78. So, the chips were binned as needing lower clocks to run stable and...they ended up in the $2K-5K cards. I have no direct knowledge of AMDs policies but there is no reason to believe any differently.

That's interesting. I'd guess that the professional cards are all about stability and guaranteed performance, so perhaps they clock them slower to begin with. Then somebody reasoned that they can sell the lower performing chips and the professional buyers (who want the drivers and assurance rather than bleeding edge performance) wouldn't care. Otherwise those chips are useless to the consumer (gamer largely) market.

Don't know, but it further highlights what the professional cards are really about.

 

[rabidz7]

Are those GPUs flashable to 7970s?

 

[greenmeanie]

PIXAR uses a Data Center and render farms.
http://www.slashfilm.com/cool-stuff-a-look-at-pixar-and-lucasfilms-renderfarms/

And never mind Apple themselves uses HP/ibm servers for their data center LOL.
So please get over the MAC PRO holier than thou crap.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-kind-of-gear-is-apple-using-in-its-huge-new-datacenter-2011-6

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2586...bm_servers_in_north_carolina_data_center.html

Well, each to their own. I personally think the new MP is a marvel of engineering. And if it's good enough for Pixar, I'm pretty sure it's good enough for most Pros.

I just detected a touch of arrogance in your thread by naming it: "Putting new Mac Pro myths to rest" and the way you prattled your musings as being concrete fact.

Like I said: good enough for Pixar, good enough for most, I'd say.

Good day.

 

[flat five]

So please get over the MAC PRO holier than thou crap.

that's not going to happen around here i don't think.. too many people are looking at hp's 16core computer and thinking "16 is more than 12.. real pros need 16 cores and 5 internal storage drives.. and i'm a real pro and that's what i need. this new computer is for amateur consumers"

(while that's not a direct quote, it's definitely not an exaggeration)

[though i don't think i'm necessarily agreeing with what you wrote.. i mean i do- just from a different angle]

 

[tuxon86]

that's not going to happen around here i don't think.. too many people are looking at hp's 16core computer and thinking "16 is more than 12.. real pros need 16 cores and 5 internal storage drives.. and i'm a real pro and that's what i need. this new computer is for amateur consumers"

(while that's not a direct quote, it's definitely not an exaggeration)

[though i don't think i'm necessarily agreeing with what you wrote.. i mean i do- just from a different angle]

Well considering the 16 core will probably cost less and give you more expandability and hardware choice, yeah the bright one will go with the hp/dell. The trendy latte sipping crowed will buy the nmp because it's the hip thing to do and the bonus bragging right.

I really have a problem understanding why someone would pay more to get less and be happy about it. I guess i fail at being an apple fanboy...

 

[flat five]

I really have a problem understanding why someone would pay more to get less and be happy about it. I guess i fail at being an apple fanboy...

you have a problem understanding something so in order to fill the void, you fill it with a derogatory explanation?

 

[tuxon86]

you have a problem understanding something so in order to fill the void, you fill it with a derogatory explanation?

What!? I can't pass a judgement on myself? Did you feel targeted?

So please, explain to us lay person, how is getting a more expansive and less upgradable/customizable workstation is a good thing again?