Unlikely iMac Pro | Mac Pro hybrid

[mattspace]

if the Mac Pro is not connected to any monitor, then does VNC still work?

For Mac Minis you need a null HDMI / display adapter to trick the system into allowing resolutions larger than 1024x768, and to engage graphics acceleration on ARD / VNC. I'm not sure if the same applies to the cMP.

 

[whwang]

For Mac Minis you need a null HDMI / display adapter to trick the system into allowing resolutions larger than 1024x768, and to engage graphics acceleration on ARD / VNC. I'm not sure if the same applies to the cMP.

Thank you. Could you tell me more about the null display adapter? I am running a Dell 5k display on my Mac Pro 5,1. It will be nice if I can get the 5k display (without the physical monitor) to the new iMac Pro over VNC, or at least 4k.

 

[mattspace]

Thank you. Could you tell me more about the null display adapter? I am running a Dell 5k display on my Mac Pro 5,1. It will be nice if I can get the 5k display (without the physical monitor) to the new iMac Pro over VNC, or at least 4k.

Here's the relevant info:

https://macminicolo.net/blog/files/an-hdmi-adapter-for-a-headless-mac-mini.html

 

[nigelbb]

I agree. Nothing has changed much in terms of pricing.

I just like to keep repeating it, because for many years a lot of people have been using 12-core Mac Pros for pocket change and modding a 4.1 or 5.1 has been like building a normal, pretty cheap PC. There might be a generation of users who started looking at Mac Pros when the 5.1 was already cheap and they might not realise what the new one will cost in one of the more powerful configurations.

When I bought a pair of Mac Pro 3,1 systems back in November 2008 i.e. just on 9 years ago they were around €2200 each including VAT (sales tax). These were dual 2.8GHz CPU 8 core systems with 2GB ECC RAM a 320GB disk & a 2600XT graphics card. They were clearly more expensive than a run of the mill PC but very good value considering the components. The 3,1 was much more affordable than subsequent Mac Pro models. I don't recall how much extra I paid for dual CPU but it wasn't a lot & most models you see for sale today are dual CPU systems.

The Mac Pros that I bought 9 years ago are still in daily use. They have each been upgraded with SSD drives plus a GTX680 & upgraded RAM (32GB in one 56GB in the other) & a USB 3.0 card. They are still powerful machines that cope with all the work thrown at them so I see them lasting a good few years more. One had a power supply die about 3 years ago & it was actually quite difficult to find a replacement so I suspect that it will eventually be hardware failure that causes their retirement rather than any lack of performance. They are running El Capitan although I do have plans to do the hack to run High Sierra on one of them.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Yes.

I bought a 5.1 3.33 GHz 6-core in 2010. The dual CPU versions were significantly more expensive, at least if you wanted similar single thread performance.

Later, I "upgraded" down to a 4.1 but it had a dual CPU tray that I then fully upgraded and still use today. All in all, taking both of these purchases into account, I can't imagine a better value-for-money plattform.

I'll probably wait for the new Mac Pro and try to get a foot in the door with the configuration where my chances of upgrading over the next few years are the greatest.

EDIT: swapped core for CPU to better reflect what I intended to say (thanks AidenShaw)

 

[AidenShaw]

Yes.

I bought a 5.1 3.33 GHz 6-core in 2010. The dual core versions were significantly more expensive, at least if you wanted similar single thread performance.

Later, I "upgraded" down to a 4.1 but it was a dual core that I then fully upgraded and still use today. All in all, taking both of these purchases into account, I can't imagine a better value-for-money plattform.

I'll probably wait for the new Mac Pro and try to get a foot in the door with the configuration where my chances of upgrading over the next few years are the greatest.

s;dual core;dual socket;g

typo

 

[AndreeOnline]

s;dual core;dual socket;g

typo

Hehe... yes.. dual CPU was my thought, but obviously not what I wrote. =)

 

[flat five]

I was thinking about the following setup, even if I assume the chance of success is low....

The coming iMac Pro as an on-the-desk computer paired with my current 5.1 Mac Pro on the floor.

The Mac Pro would be hooked up to the iMac Pro via DisplayPort to USB-C cable. It would be running with me logged in and that would in theory allow me to just CMD-F2 between the computers to go in and out of 'target display mode'.

I would strip the Mac Pro down and use it for dual 1080 Ti:s and storage. I would for instance setup a GPU assisted render on the Mac Pro and then CMD-F2 switch back to the iMac Pro as my main usage machine.

These two computers will never be officially supported to work together, but what would the actual limitation be here?

sharing the display is the least of the worries here (imo).. it's getting the computers themselves to sync in a fluid manner which will cause the biggest headaches.

to me, the best way to do something like you're outlining is to use the iMac as the master and slave the cMP..

otherwise, you have to transfer files between the computers.. have multiple instances of the same applications open (the software needs to be on both computers).. switch displays.. deal with mouse/keyboard problems (as in-- you're going to need a mouse and keyboard for each computer -or- switch the devices when you switch displays).
this is the stuff that you're not going to like doing regardless of how well you can get a shared display set up.

so yeah, use the cMP as a node.. it won't need a monitor (or mouse or keyboard) at all times.. start the network rendering on the iMac.

it will be relatively seamless feeling when doing it like that with no big differences to using only the iMac (other than faster rendering times).

the drives could hook up in a similar, fairly seamless fashion.