MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)

[fhturner]

At least, the keynote started with the Mac!

Yeah, so they could get the red-headed stepchild out of the way (albeit w/ great pride and fanfare for their years-late updates) and fawn over the iPad Pro.

It does not take that long to build what the user base is asking for. If I took half as long delivering to my customers as Apple takes delivering to its pro users I'd be out of clients damn sharp.

No kidding. As I said in another thread, they cannot figure out that their Mac Pro target audience would be pleased as punch w/ something barely more Apple-y than a Hackintosh, or a new-guts cMP. Unreal that the most valuable company in the world cannot come up w/ enough resources to keep half its computer products from languishing 3-4 years or more in design. And that they cannot slap together something passable for their top pro users in a year and a half.

I'm also getting concerned that Apple might start to believe their own gospel, that tablets can be serious tools and content creators .

This was scary too (well, added to the continuing fingers-in-the-ears "I can't year you"-shouting attitude about customers needing real computers to get real work done). It's great to have that tablet functionality as an OPTION. But when they keep banging that drum while ignoring the halo, top-tier, pro computer product for what's going to be SIX YEARS (if it ever comes), that's a serious discrepancy.

Apple could just put everything into an cmp and be done with it.

Hear, hear.

ORRRRR they could do that for STARTERS, then let Jony & Co. also work on some whiz-bang jaw-dropping design that none of us asked for. And maybe give us....OPTIONS! Holy crap, could you imagine how incredible an idea that is?! OPTIONS!! Whoa.

Guarantee you it won’t come to $4000 either !

Good thing you're happy to pay that Apple premium. Whether $4000 for fully spec'ed out or $800 for base config doesn't really matter— they're both too much for what you're getting.

 

[dermeister]

I wish Apple could just put us out of our misery one way or another. In the last month or so, they did the following:

• Released macOS Mojave, which requires a $500-1000 video card upgrade to macpro5,1 to run
• New Mac mini that could technically replace a Mac Pro with a max-build + eGPU
• Conspicuously released NO guidance as to when a Mac Pro would be coming - other than it not being a 2018 product

So as usual, we're just in limbo. Sigh.

 

[BlueTide]

Prorender is a long time off being production ready. Or anything ready. It’s essentially a tech demo at the moment. I wish this were a viable option, but it’s not.

In addition, you do want the viewports to be 3d accelerated too, not just the rendering.

 

[wallysb01]

Not at all. I have 5 internal disks and 2 external disks on my Mac Pro. I want to pay as little as possible for a Mac mini internal SSD since I have to have external drives anyway. The 128 GB is fine for basically a boot-only disk.

Fair point in theory, problem is the price point. At $600 or $700 for the base config of 128GB, I'd be with you, but when getting it up to 256, means a $1000 computer... I'd expect a little more there.

Also, I have to think really being able to get by with a 128GB boot drive is a relative rarity. I have 512 GB boot-only drive on a pretty new server and all things considered its got 80+ GB used, which would leave just 40-something GB free. And its hardly got everything on it I really need it to yet. Of course use cases vary, but I have to imagine most people want to be able to actually store working files on the computer, and if so, you're chewing through 10s of GBs pretty fast these days.

 

[PianoPro]

Fair point in theory, problem is the price point. At $600 or $700 for the base config of 128GB, I'd be with you, but when getting it up to 256, means a $1000 computer... I'd expect a little more there.

Also, I have to think really being able to get by with a 128GB boot drive is a relative rarity. I have 512 GB boot-only drive on a pretty new server and all things considered its got 80+ GB used, which would leave just 40-something GB free. And its hardly got everything on it I really need it to yet. Of course use cases vary, but I have to imagine most people want to be able to actually store working files on the computer, and if so, you're chewing through 10s of GBs pretty fast these days.

I've got about 26 TB on spinning drives, all of which will be in an external box if I switched to the Mac mini. I can put a couple OS boot partitions on a 128 GB internal SSD. Why do I need a bigger internal SSD? If I really needed more SSD boot drives or more SSD app room I can put another bigger SSD in an external box too. Why pay Apple prices for SSD storage? Makes no sense for a Pro-use desktop computer. 128 GB is fine. I'll spend my money on getting the best CPU. That's what I'm disappointed about (and if the RAM is not user upgradable). I was hoping for iMac Pro CPU options with at least 8, 10 cores or more.

 

[fuchsdh]

I guess if the upgrade was like $100 or less, it wouldn't bother me as much, but 128GB is just soooo small these days. And I hear your point about not selling a trash computer, but isn't 128GB just kind of too small to recommend? Isn't there a reason why 128GB was never really an option on Apple's computers? Its always been fusion drives or 256GB+ SSDs. But now in a computer with the space for a fusion drive, we have 128? It makes no damn sense, except as a money grab. Hike the base price, but gimp it just enough to push people to the higher model. And once you add in the 256GB, the i5 is nearly free. The whole situation is lame.

I'm less bothered by the 128GB entry point than I am the $200 charge to get up to 256GB, which I agree is a much more comfortable amount. That BTO price is unchanged since 2014 at the very latest; sure, inflation and the flash you get now is faster, but it still feels like excessive gouging.

I think it's less an issue, even when soldered, because you can always throw any number of hard drives or flash drives off the back. With 40GBps TB3 and 10GBps USB 3 GEN2, it can be incredibly speedy too. Hence why the RAM being replaceable is IMO a much bigger deal since otherwise there's no way around that price.

On the plus side, $100 for 10gE actually feels reasonable. Costs $250+ for a two-port 10GbE network card on HP's site.

Really I must have missed that part. Thanks for the info.

Yep. The downside of that is that you're left with worse integrated graphics comparatively.

But it seems like Intel has moved away from Iris Graphics to some degree, looking at Ark it seems like a lot fewer options than there used to be.

I wish Apple could just put us out of our misery one way or another. In the last month or so, they did the following:

• Released macOS Mojave, which requires a $500-1000 video card upgrade to macpro5,1 to run
• New Mac mini that could technically replace a Mac Pro with a max-build + eGPU
• Conspicuously released NO guidance as to when a Mac Pro would be coming - other than it not being a 2018 product

So as usual, we're just in limbo. Sigh.

Until Intel has concrete dates for Xeon chips, it's pointless to get worked up much.

At this point I would expect WWDC though.

Also, given the moves to the mini, I'm curious what the iMac line will look like. I can't see them going all-flash unless they update the chassis at the same time, but at the same time I'd love for them to finally leave spinning boot drives behind even if it comes with a dumb price increase.

I know the SSD is soldered on. I don't care. I said I will go minimum size because I need 6-8 more external disks (SSD and HD).

I heard during the presentation that it was a desktop version of the CPU, not mobile. But it could still be throttled by thermal considerations.

It wasn't clear whether the DIMMs are easy to get to or not. They were visible (barely) in one picture but appeared covered by fan and heatsink in another picture. So not clear to me if user assessable or not.

Assuming the Mac mini is close to the 2014 model, the main obstacle will be the Torx screws on the bottom. Otherwise the fan assembly should come off easily and you may not need to move it to add RAM. Either way it doesn't look like a PITA like getting to the hard drive was in the old models.

 

[Boil]

AX bionics (and their ecosystem of support chips) stands poised to become the architecture of choice for all devices going forward. I don't see Cupertino settling on a Mac Pro roadmap until the transition to that chipset for laptops and desktops. If the latter are even a thing in next 5 years...In the meantime stack up your minis....Geez. I'm going hackintosh soon...

I fear the T2 security chips may kill the Hackintosh...?

Here is all the information one needs to know for their next Mac Pro upgrade:

https://www8.hp.com/us/en/workstati...12139_us/en/psg/ws_overview/products/desktops

I pegged out all the options on a Z8,came to almost 100K...!

Funny. The "new" BlackMagic eGPU device along with the new MacMini could be classified as a "Modular MacPro"

https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/

Either Apple products or third-party, someone needs to make modular parts that have the same footprint / design of the new SG mini...

eGPU modules with MXM-format GPUs, RX590s & Vega 56s, storage modules with four M.2 slots...

 

[fhturner]

I pegged out all the options on a Z8,came to almost 100K...!

You weren't trying hard enough. Change the OS to Linux, and you can put in 3TB of RAM. That'll bring to around a quarter mil...

 

[deconstruct60]

I'll wait for a little more info about the 3.2 GHz 6-core i7 (is that really an unlimited full-performance desktop chip in that small package?). I'd buy the 128 GB SSD just for booting because I will definitely need a separate external chassis for SSDs and HDs anyway. I also don't know anything about the Intel 630 graphics so do I need a eGPU box to drive 3 monitors (1 x 4K, 2 x 1080p?

The 3.2GHz i7 is likely an i7 8700 The GPU specs there say:

DP max resolution : 4096x2304@60Hz
max displays : 3

It can drive three monitors and one of those a 4K one and two 1080-1440p ones. The problem is going to be how much 'juice' have left when stretched out that far. If it s 3 screens of mostly 2D work then fine. If there is heavy duty 3D on the 4K monitor then it may not stretch too far. ( The HDMI 1.4 4K is only 30Hz , but I think Apple is running DP through a HDMI 2.0 adapter to get 2.0. So 4K TV probably works OK. )

Apple is probably going to have to put some limiters on the 8700. The following chart has the 8700K ( which is running faster) and the 8400 ( which is running substantively slower).

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1185...-lake-review-8700k-and-8400-initial-numbers/5

The 8700 will probably want to lean a bit over rated 65W TDP when being hammered hard for short periods of time.
If Apple is smart they'll cap it a couple percentage points higher than 65W ( e.g. 69W or so). They don't have much headroom given the rest of the system also has thermal load on the cooling system. [ Anandtech has a 9700K versus an 'overclocked' 8700K where it is 140W into the 'red zone'. 65W is really a 'soft' limit for them. But it is far more of hard limit inside the Mac Mini. ]

And how easy is it to upgrade the RAM? Can I get to it through the trap door or do I have pry this thing apart to get to the DIMMs (hate that)?

Pry is probably the wrong word but closer to disassemble. They've had to put a fan right in the entire hole in the bottom to dramatically increase air flow. So the RAM is off to the side. Going to have to remove the logic board.
There is a substantive "time and effort" cost that will go into a RAM upgrade.

still a lot less than the new "Modular" MP will be (I'm guessing a base price with 16 GB RAM at $5K, same as iMac Pro base price).

I think it is more user egos that is driving the base Mac Pro price higher than the iMac Pro base price. There is zero rational reason why Apple should do that. None.

Apple didn't parity price the Mini with the iMac why would they parity price the Mac Pro with the iMac Pro?

A major way Apple can trim the price is by starting with 6 cores rather than 8. The rest of the iMac line up is probably going to get 6 cores at some point so the iMac Pro setting a baseline of 8 makes sense. The Mac Pro is not an iMac. It is also not a Mini. At least it shouldn't be either of those. It should have some highly differentiating qualities. Like empty slots. Much larger power supply capacity. etc. So it doesn't have to be same price or more expensive than an iMac Pro. it isn't a base price contest. (that's the opposite of a differentiating features).

Apple could also start with something below a Vega 56 GPU too as an entry point. Polaris or Navi (or other desktop lower mid range ) would beat that Intel 630.

And then if the mMP turns out great I can use the Mini sans eGPU and with less external storage for something else. But my guess is the new mMP will will be about as "modular" as the Mini, just with a better base GPU before you need to add eGPU, and little if any upgradeable SSDs. I'd be surprised if it had any internal PCIe at all.

The mini has internal PCI-e. The SSD is a PCI-e device. Standard PCI-e slots aren't PCI-e. [ That euphemism that it is the slot not actually PCI-e talking about is highly mind limiting. I know folks use it all the them but tend to be same folks who can see clear solutions either. ]

Apple has stated that dual GPUs were useful for a number of folks. Zero good reason for Apple not to put an open 2nd x16 PCI-e slot in the next Mac Pro. I can see Apple telling new Mac Pro users that need more than 2 GPUs to get an eGPU, but one (and only one) didn't cover the Mac Pro space at all. Either with the 2009-2012 models or for the MP 2013.

 

[wallysb01]

I've got about 26 TB on spinning drives, all of which will be in an external box if I switched to the Mac mini. I can put a couple OS boot partitions on a 128 GB internal SSD. Why do I need a bigger internal SSD? If I really needed more SSD boot drives or more SSD app room I can put another bigger SSD in an external box too. Why pay Apple prices for SSD storage? Makes no sense for a Pro-use desktop computer. 128 GB is fine. I'll spend my money on getting the best CPU. That's what I'm disappointed about (and if the RAM is not user upgradable). I was hoping for iMac Pro CPU options with at least 8, 10 cores or more.

No I get it. That server I mentioned has a 20 TB RAID 10 on it, the external RAID next to is a 24 TB RAID5, and long term backups go to the cloud. I'm familiar with big stuff. I'm just saying, the fact that you want to pay for as little as possible doesn't justify the high price of the entry point or the high mark up on upgrades. It only justifies the existence of the option in the first place.

Oh well. What the hell on we blathering about. Its probably only overpriced by a couple hundred dollars at most.

 

[deconstruct60]

I wish Apple could just put us out of our misery one way or another. In the last month or so, they did the following:

• Released macOS Mojave, which requires a $500-1000 video card upgrade to macpro5,1 to run
• New Mac mini that could technically replace a Mac Pro with a max-build + eGPU
• Conspicuously released NO guidance as to when a Mac Pro would be coming - other than it not being a 2018 product

Several of these have problems.
First, the Video Card list provided by Apple ( Install Mojave on Mac Pro 2010 ) has more than a couple non $500 cards. And the crypto craze is waning so it is even better now.

"...
These specific third-party graphics cards are Metal-capable and compatible with macOS Mojave on Mac Pro (Mid 2010) and Mac Pro (Mid 2012):

• MSI Gaming Radeon RX 560 128-bit 4GB GDRR5

..."

About $170-190 range at Newegg/Amazon ( e.g., https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814137124 ). A whiile back it was in the $120-140 range. Apple explicitly worked to put an affordable card on the supported list.

If just need a "faster than a 5870 or 7950 " card then the RX 560 will work just fine. $500 buys something faster than that but that wouldn't be required by Mojave. Your workload perhaps but the the operating system. ( A dated 7950 is on the support list so it isn't huge performance demand by the OS. It is an instruction set baseline for the GPU. )


Second, the Mac Mini could replace a Mac Pro. Sub 32GB RAM capacity workload; yeah. For folks working with 64GB and higher requirements ; no. Folks who are running stock GPU with stock HDD and maybe a single SSD in stock ( 8-16GB ) and 4-6 cores ... yeah a Mini would do. Or an iMac. Not sure why waiting around. If your workload plateaued 5-6 years ago then waiting this long on a Mac Pro wasn't well motived.

Third, well they did release no guidance... so they actually did 'do' that. They have also said this April that it is a 2019 product ( they could possibly backpedal on that and slide into early 2020, but they did put a vague line in the sand of very late December 2019).

If they are actually shooting for Q4 2019 then it isn't surprising they didn't say anything now. In that case they'll probably have a another "the dog ate my homework" in the April time frame they have established over the last two years to announce that yet again.... 'the dog ate my homework.". The slightly better , but still vague, date will probably come then for those just love circling the airport.

Yeah, right now they are playing with fire. Obviously they don't have anything for the next 1-2 months. If they are 5-6 months out from release I think being quiet now is a mistake (but I suspect pressure to stay quiet to strictly follow policy) . If they are just 3-4 months out an even bigger one.

So as usual, we're just in limbo. Sigh.

I'd take the absence of comment at this point as an admission they don't have anything ready any time in at least Q1 2019. Q4 is their 'line in the sand'. So as time progresses the window gets smaller. ( unless they move the line later.)

 

[zephonic]

The 2TB storage BTO options is the killer. For $1400 can probably do much better

OWC Express 4M2 $350 https://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/TB3EX4M2SL/
A 2TB M.2 Samsung 970 at OWC $670

That is $1,020 for more total storage capacity since still have the 256GB for the OS/Apps/Home_dir drive. And still have 3 more M.2 slots.

Thanks for the link. That seems like a sensible alternative. Does anybody have this incorporated into their work setup?

 

[deconstruct60]

....
Either Apple products or third-party, someone needs to make modular parts that have the same footprint / design of the new SG mini...

eGPU modules with MXM-format GPUs, RX590s & Vega 56s, storage modules with four M.2 slots...

Vertically stacking on Mini isn't good idea. Matching footprints is necessarily a requirement. Even more so no they they are running a hotter case.

That's why see mini's racked on their sides with gaps ( Yeah Apple has a artsy photo with they close packed on their sides for rack/render example, but that's more to enable that 'dark mood" , "Darth Vader" looks than common sense. ) . So there is a gap between the hotter top and the air ingest of the neighbor. Physically stacking something directly on the top is essentially same path to non gap separation. If there was some vertical shelving the footprints don't have to exactly match up.


For the most part eGPU is a role rather than specific. The Blackmagic eGPU that Apple sells is dedicated and targeted to be relatively quiet, but there PCI-e card expansion boxes that can take a wide variety of cards. The modules into 3rd party expansion boxes don't have to be some specific laptop oriented form factor.

 

[Boil]

Vertically stacking on Mini isn't good idea. Matching footprints is necessarily a requirement. Even more so no they they are running a hotter case.

That's why see mini's racked on their sides with gaps ( Yeah Apple has a artsy photo with they close packed on their sides for rack/render example, but that's more to enable that 'dark mood" , "Darth Vader" looks than common sense. ) . So there is a gap between the hotter top and the air ingest of the neighbor. Physically stacking something directly on the top is essentially same path to non gap separation. If there was some vertical shelving the footprints don't have to exactly match up.

For the most part eGPU is a role rather than specific. The Blackmagic eGPU that Apple sells is dedicated and targeted to be relatively quiet, but there PCI-e card expansion boxes that can take a wide variety of cards. The modules into 3rd party expansion boxes don't have to be some specific laptop oriented form factor.

I guess by footprint I mean the overall exterior shell volume, there could still be air gaps for proper venting around the sides...

Like the OWC Ministack, but for various types of storage:

A slim version with four M.2 NVMe slots & RAID controller
A thicker version with four 2.5" SSDs & RAID controller

And then an eGPU version for MXM GPUs

Maybe even a quality BlackMagic Design video I/O module & an Apogee audio I/O module

I spec the "laptop oriented form factor" GPU because that is what should be able to properly fit in the above defined footprint...

This, but not the crappy specs & with the more refined Apple design...

The SG mini is a sleek little machine, why would I want to junk up the desktop with an external drive enclosure & a hulking eGPU chassis, when I could have a sleek mini tower of matching stacked components...?

With all the above, I could then see the Mac Pro module (single Xeon class, or maybe Ryzen/Threadripper...? but with four RAM slots for 128GB maximum), same footprint, but a good bit thicker for more cooling...

The Mac Pro module would also have a Vega 56 GPU w/8GB HBM2 (more GPU horsepower via higher end MXM GPU modules, up to a WX9100 w/16GB HBM2 version), six TB3/USB-C ports, four USB3 ports, & dual 10Gb Ethernet ports...

But Apple really does need to get more down to earth with their upgrade pricing, or actually make models that have user accessible sockets/slots for real world third-party parts...

 

[PianoPro]

The 3.2GHz i7 is likely an i7 8700 The GPU specs there say:

DP max resolution : 4096x2304@60Hz
max displays : 3

It can drive three monitors and one of those a 4K one and two 1080-1440p ones. The problem is going to be how much 'juice' have left when stretched out that far. If it s 3 screens of mostly 2D work then fine. If there is heavy duty 3D on the 4K monitor then it may not stretch too far. ( The HDMI 1.4 4K is only 30Hz , but I think Apple is running DP through a HDMI 2.0 adapter to get 2.0. So 4K TV probably works OK. )

Apple is probably going to have to put some limiters on the 8700. The following chart has the 8700K ( which is running faster) and the 8400 ( which is running substantively slower).

Thanks for the info on the CPU. The concern I was expressing is for the thermal limitations placed on the CPU. Seems like I might just squeeze by with the GPU since I'm doing mostly 2D work on my 4K monitor (FPGA layout, occasional PCB layout, etc.) and my 3D design is almost entirely on 2 x 1080p monitors. It would be nice not have to use an eGPU box.

Pry is probably the wrong word but closer to disassemble. They've had to put a fan right in the entire hole in the bottom to dramatically increase air flow. So the RAM is off to the side. Going to have to remove the logic board.
There is a substantive "time and effort" cost that will go into a RAM upgrade.

I never bought one of the pathetic last mini's. I was hoping more for the previous mini design, but it looked substantially different in the dog and pony show. So thanks again for that info. Doesn't sound great, but I could probably live with it for one RAM upgrade.

I think it is more user egos that is driving the base Mac Pro price higher than the iMac Pro base price. There is zero rational reason why Apple should do that. None.

Oh I think setting the base prices of the Mac Pro and iMac Pro the same makes excellent positioning sense, especially after the Mac mini BTO pricing. In the iMac Pro you get a nice display if that route is adequate for your needs, and in the mMP you pay for additional upgradeability (let's hope). But zero reason to argue about it. It will be what it will be. We don't have Apple's market data or business models, and without that speculation may be fun, but not productive.

The mini has internal PCI-e. The SSD is a PCI-e device. Standard PCI-e slots aren't PCI-e. [ That euphemism that it is the slot not actually PCI-e talking about is highly mind limiting. I know folks use it all the them but tend to be same folks who can see clear solutions either.

I think it was clear what I was talking about.

Apple has stated that dual GPUs were useful for a number of folks. Zero good reason for Apple not to put an open 2nd x16 PCI-e slot in the next Mac Pro. I can see Apple telling new Mac Pro users that need more than 2 GPUs to get an eGPU, but one (and only one) didn't cover the Mac Pro space at all. Either with the 2009-2012 models or for the MP 2013.

Zero reason? Plenty of reasons to an engineer designing the product to cost and size constraints, and to marketing to position/price it. That's just more speculation without the relevant total engineering cost or marketing data. Not worth debating, and I'm sure its all been decided by now.

 

[apolloa]

I’ll say this, looking at the rather high price increases across all of its new products yesterday, the new Mac Pro will be one insanely expensive machine! Also if they stick that T2 security chip in it, doesn’t that block third party repairs being carried out if they change too much? And Apple needs to reset the security or something? Or at the very least limit you to Apples ‘modules’ only?

 

[Boil]

I’ll say this, looking at the rather high price increases across all of its new products yesterday, the new Mac Pro will be one insanely expensive machine! Also if they stick that T2 security chip in it, doesn’t that block third party repairs being carried out if they change too much? And Apple needs to reset the security or something? Or at the very least limit you to Apples ‘modules’ only?

I believe it requires the system to be 'reset' with the Apple Diagnostics Tool after the repair/upgrade, which is not a publicly available bit of software...?

 

[apolloa]

I believe it requires the system to be 'reset' with the Apple Diagnostics Tool after the repair/upgrade, which is not a publicly available bit of software...?

Yeah as I understand it’s something like that. In the name of security, but it also means Apple determines how long you can use your computer for! I can see law suites later if this is what they do.

 

[Mago]

The 32GB i9 MBP with Vega 20 seems the best announcement from yesterday besides the beautiful more less useless iPad pros, very competitive when compared to the latest pixel tablets (even more expensive), but I think base storage should be 128gb and the 6gb ram should be available at lower storage tier or to all Cellular versions.

BTW as I said, better to jump the wagon if you can retool your workflow on Linux (as me).

A last thing I had to comment, quietly AMD have been working on mgpu project and now you can run the latest tensor flow release on and Vega64 on Linux at near 80% or better performance than nVidia Volta at 1/4 the cost, this could be possible in Mac OS if apple didn't deprecated opencl, while in metal is possible similar performance on Keras, TF is the new Esperanto in ML and few highly parallelized compute task.

 

[fuchsdh]

I fear the T2 security chips may kill the Hackintosh...?



I pegged out all the options on a Z8,came to almost 100K...!



Either Apple products or third-party, someone needs to make modular parts that have the same footprint / design of the new SG mini...

eGPU modules with MXM-format GPUs, RX590s & Vega 56s, storage modules with four M.2 slots...

How many MXM GPUs are there these days? Feels like it never really caught on in a big way... at the very least, I agree that MXM eGPUs seem like they'd be a nice blend of power without being a giant hulking thing on your desk, but doesn't seem like any examples for that exist.

Will be interesting if OWC and co. actually update their Mac mini stacking products.

As for killing Hackintoshes, if that happens it's still years away. Apple has machines without Tx processors it still sells.

 

[mattspace]

The 32GB i9 MBP with Vega 20 seems the best announcement from yesterday

The nomenclature for this seems ridiculous - the GPU in the MBP is called "Radeon Vega Pro 20" but it's not actually any relation to the "Vega 20" GPU AMD are allegedly going to release.

Apple are claiming 60% performance improvement over the Radeon Pro 560x, which offered around 30% of the 3D performance of the mobile GTX1080.

So, still no VR competent laptops from Apple.

 

[askunk]

I also don't know anything about the Intel 630

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-UHD-Graphics-630-GPU-Benchmarks-and-Specs.257928.0.html

Here it says that it's a 2015 technology (just slightly overclocked).

Can't innovate, my ass...
[doublepost=1540998968][/doublepost]No wonder why graphics has not even remotely been described during the Keynote and on the website.

 

[ssgbryan]

Prorender is a long time off being production ready. Or anything ready. It’s essentially a tech demo at the moment. I wish this were a viable option, but it’s not.

Blender plug-in seems to be working for me.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Several of these have problems.
First, the Video Card list provided by Apple ( Install Mojave on Mac Pro 2010 ) has more than a couple non $500 cards. And the crypto craze is waning so it is even better now.

"...
These specific third-party graphics cards are Metal-capable and compatible with macOS Mojave on Mac Pro (Mid 2010) and Mac Pro (Mid 2012):

• MSI Gaming Radeon RX 560 128-bit 4GB GDRR5

..."

About $170-190 range at Newegg/Amazon ( e.g., https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814137124 ). A whiile back it was in the $120-140 range. Apple explicitly worked to put an affordable card on the supported list.

If just need a "faster than a 5870 or 7950 " card then the RX 560 will work just fine. $500 buys something faster than that but that wouldn't be required by Mojave. Your workload perhaps but the the operating system. ( A dated 7950 is on the support list so it isn't huge performance demand by the OS. It is an instruction set baseline for the GPU. )


Second, the Mac Mini could replace a Mac Pro. Sub 32GB RAM capacity workload; yeah. For folks working with 64GB and higher requirements ; no. Folks who are running stock GPU with stock HDD and maybe a single SSD in stock ( 8-16GB ) and 4-6 cores ... yeah a Mini would do. Or an iMac. Not sure why waiting around. If your workload plateaued 5-6 years ago then waiting this long on a Mac Pro wasn't well motived.

Third, well they did release no guidance... so they actually did 'do' that. They have also said this April that it is a 2019 product ( they could possibly backpedal on that and slide into early 2020, but they did put a vague line in the sand of very late December 2019).

If they are actually shooting for Q4 2019 then it isn't surprising they didn't say anything now. In that case they'll probably have a another "the dog ate my homework" in the April time frame they have established over the last two years to announce that yet again.... 'the dog ate my homework.". The slightly better , but still vague, date will probably come then for those just love circling the airport.

Yeah, right now they are playing with fire. Obviously they don't have anything for the next 1-2 months. If they are 5-6 months out from release I think being quiet now is a mistake (but I suspect pressure to stay quiet to strictly follow policy) . If they are just 3-4 months out an even bigger one.




I'd take the absence of comment at this point as an admission they don't have anything ready any time in at least Q1 2019. Q4 is their 'line in the sand'. So as time progresses the window gets smaller. ( unless they move the line later.)

they can blame Intel for failing to come with there new that will fit in there thin box.
[doublepost=1541000246][/doublepost]

Yeah as I understand it’s something like that. In the name of security, but it also means Apple determines how long you can use your computer for! I can see law suites later if this is what they do.

well they can't use the DMCA to stop people from going there own.

 

[askunk]

Guys, we got it all wrong. We thought Apple abandoned Mac Pro users...instead it was under our noses... here is the modular Mac Pro!