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

[koyoot]

Where those Apple or AMD? If I recall correctly the 2010 MBP pruned some ventilation off the case, and 2011 was first iteration after that pruning. Plus like the 2013 Mac pro the CPU and GPU share a unified the thermal system. They are hooked to each other thermally. The GPU is downstream from the CPU before get to the fans. So the thermal channel is throughly heat before get to the GPU.

Ifixit Step 9 above. Step 10 says "Holy thermal paste! Time will tell if the gobs of thermal paste applied to the CPU and GPU will cause overheating issues down the road" .

Additionally, it is not so much upset at Nvidia because of the failure, but because of Nvidia's unwillingness to pay. Apple doesn't want to eat the cost if they don't have to. There is a difference between Nvidia/AMD getting the system design requirements specs wrong and Nvidia/AMD not wanting to pay if they screwed up. Periodically people/vendors make mistakes. The latter though, can get you put on a "don't call or work with" list. Messing with Apple's money isn't going to get you on their 'Christmas card' list. ( same thing with the scheme sue every major cellphone out there to make some extra cash. Messing with Apple's money. )


In contrast, if AMD paid for themselves (if mostly their screw up) or let Apple pay pretty close to "at cost' to fix their screw up, then they'd have a different kind of relationship.

From my personal experience with said heatsink and Motherboard: It likes more thermal paste than less. You have to use a little bit more to warrant good cooling and heat transfer from the dies to the heatsink.

I learned the hard way, that if you use even best TP, but you will use it the same way you would do on desktop CPUs - you will make the CPU and GPU run hotter. When I used more TP on the dies, so that it spread a little to the sides - the laptop was perfectly cool and quiet even when dGPU was runing(GT650M).

 

[ActionableMango]

Where those Apple or AMD?

Good question, I don't know.

 

[apolloa]

I just think the void has been way too long. If they are offering a sharp shift in paradigm where a new approach in computing can ensure increased productivity without constraints of current PCs (including Macs), they need to show it. Now.

This goes back to before the 2017 round table, we all wondered why they don't just walk out of the workstation and pro laptop business silently. What they are offering and saying they will offer are so disjoint, with bad value both as investment and a tool, and they keep raising price while giving quite little. For instance, I honestly think it may have been a better idea to ask all mouse and KB users to leave so Apple can start from scratch for the swiping generation. Just like how they shoved FCP7 users for FCPX, axed Shake and Aperture. No need to worry about x86 transition, interfacing analogy differences, an open file system, everything. Hell even disposable devices on a subscription model, just hardware to run their "Services" on. They already got the aluminium recycling part dealt with.

Pretty much where they are now heading, they want to keep that trillion dollar value, because it means the board personally gets a lot of money.

All supported by utterly biased press too; do you see the story I linked to on the front page of Mac Rumors??... no...

I always look at multiple sources for info, helps to reduce you having a blinkered view then.

But it is sad that Apple have now built in planned obsolescence for the iMac Pro, MacBook Air, Mac Mini and I think the MacBook Pro, well if it has a T2 chip then Apple will now dictate how long you can service the machine for. That’ll also reduce the second hand value of the machines too, think about that..

 

[Chancha]

Pretty much where they are now heading, they want to keep that trillion dollar value, because it means the board personally gets a lot of money.

All supported by utterly biased press too; do you see the story I linked to on the front page of Mac Rumors??... no...

I always look at multiple sources for info, helps to reduce you having a blinkered view then.

But it is sad that Apple have now built in planned obsolescence for the iMac Pro, MacBook Air, Mac Mini and I think the MacBook Pro, well if it has a T2 chip then Apple will now dictate how long you can service the machine for. That’ll also reduce the second hand value of the machines too, think about that..

The whole ordeal surrounding T2 is truly alarming, if any remaining pros needed an extra push to jump this will be it. All that talk about faster SSD controller, encryption with no speed loss etc are all noise.

 

[goMac]

The whole ordeal surrounding T2 is truly alarming, if any remaining pros needed an extra push to jump this will be it. All that talk about faster SSD controller, encryption with no speed loss etc are all noise.

It's possible T2 will do these things on a Mac Pro, but it's too early to tell. T2 can be implemented without the security lockouts. It also doesn't preclude secondary storage not sharing the same lockouts.

 

[filmak]

Sealed, locked, glued, expensive, hardly expandable and soon with an expiry date.
New Macs are like toner cartridges.
Nice and Pro...

 

[koyoot]

 

[AidenShaw]

And for only €38M.

http://www.kfmbfm.com/story/3947081...stest-supercomputer-for-industrial-production

https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/news/24-petaflop-hpe-supercomputer-feature-amd-epyc-rome-cpus/

Or you can get 200 PetaFLOPs for $200M

 

[fuchsdh]

Where those Apple or AMD? If I recall correctly the 2010 MBP pruned some ventilation off the case, and 2011 was first iteration after that pruning. Plus like the 2013 Mac pro the CPU and GPU share a unified the thermal system. They are hooked to each other thermally. The GPU is downstream from the CPU before get to the fans. So the thermal channel is throughly heat before get to the GPU.

Ifixit Step 9 above. Step 10 says "Holy thermal paste! Time will tell if the gobs of thermal paste applied to the CPU and GPU will cause overheating issues down the road" .

Additionally, it is not so much upset at Nvidia because of the failure, but because of Nvidia's unwillingness to pay. Apple doesn't want to eat the cost if they don't have to. There is a difference between Nvidia/AMD getting the system design requirements specs wrong and Nvidia/AMD not wanting to pay if they screwed up. Periodically people/vendors make mistakes. The latter though, can get you put on a "don't call or work with" list. Messing with Apple's money isn't going to get you on their 'Christmas card' list. ( same thing with the scheme sue every major cellphone out there to make some extra cash. Messing with Apple's money. )


In contrast, if AMD paid for themselves (if mostly their screw up) or let Apple pay pretty close to "at cost' to fix their screw up, then they'd have a different kind of relationship.

The 2011 GPUs were primarily down to the switch to lead-free soldering. I don't think that was mandated by Apple, because plenty of other GPUs in plenty of other OEMs failed the same way. Was a bad year for laptops.

 

[Lammers]

But it is sad that Apple have now built in planned obsolescence for the iMac Pro, MacBook Air, Mac Mini and I think the MacBook Pro, well if it has a T2 chip then Apple will now dictate how long you can service the machine for.

Not sure I understand this. Since when did the T2 chip dictate how long you can service the machine for?

 

[mattspace]

Not sure I understand this. Since when did the T2 chip dictate how long you can service the machine for?

Right now, Apple can classify a machine as Obsolete, and provide no service or parts for it, but it can still be serviced by anyone able to get compatible parts, salvage parts etc. With the T2, the system requires an apple software tool for integrity certification after a repair, and Apple can control availability of that tool, so once a machine gets on the Obsolete list, they can withhold integrity certification, and the machine is a paperweight once anything needs replacing.

What Apple would like you to hear is "this improves the security of your data". What Apple won't come out and say is "The T2 exists so that a government cannot install modified, compromised hardware in your machine."

 

[askunk]

I'm pretty sure the only surprise of the mMP will be a T3 chip with some way of dealing with multiple GPUs and letting them appear as one to the OS and the apps.
The problem is that very likely we will see proprietary slots and a limited choice of AMD-only GPU upgrades.

I keep hoping that the feedback that apparently Apple is collecting from pro users will lead them to go back to PCI-e GPUs and socketed CPUs, but if the iMac Pro and Mac mini have come out from the evolution of the tMP, we're fu**ed.

They have surely started the development late into the introduction of the tMP, therefore having already realised that the tMP wasn't selling well, the 2 GPUs didn't create any momentum among developers and that sales of old cMPs were ramping up.

It may be that they are all coming from a similar concept: T2 to speed up some peripherals and dealing with security, soldered ultrafast SSDs, socketed but not officially upgradeable CPUs and unreplaceable GPUs.

I still don't understand who could spend 5000+$ for a screen glued to a motherboard soldered to a GPU that can never grow and it's a pain in the ass if something brakes. They are professional machines, for **** sake.

It is "ok" to limit the choice of upgrades and leave the CPU upgrades to a few power users, but if something goes wrong, I have to run my boot drive on another computer, attach the computer to a backup screen, replace a faulty DIMM or use a cheaper one till my new card arrives or the old has been serviced.
The waste of time the iMP gives in certain situation it's a cost and it ADDS up to the iMP's. I should pay more to have additional benefits, not costs.

e-GPUs? They are selling hyper-expensive boxes with the same AMDs available in all Macs (no additional choice or nVIDIA's) that do not work with all apps (FCP for example), oblige to add the overhead cost every time you want to add a new card and repeat the same widely criticised approach of the tMP being a mess of cables and connections. If the mMP will be a nice object to keep on a desk, why should I want another (and uglier) box aside it just to be able to use it? (well, the same could be said for a mini...) Plus, I am pretty sure performance will be affected as GPUs get more powerful.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

but stacking more then 1 pci-e disk on the T2 will over load the X4 pci-e link even more so if it is stacked off the DMI bus

 

[deconstruct60]

but stacking more then 1 pci-e disk on the T2 will over load the X4 pci-e link even more so if it is stacked off the DMI bus

Stacking another disk on the T2 makes about zero sense even independent of DMI bus bandwidth constraints. The primary point of the T2 is to integrate the boot SSD with the boot verification/authentication process. Some detached drive stacked on "top" is just fundamentally disconnected from that objective.

The T2's purpose is not to capture all possible the storage drive traffic at all. That is purely just arm flapping histrionics over the last page or so of this thread. There is no rational reading through Apple's white paper and constructing a plausible argument about that is what the objective is.

It happens to turn out that in most Macs there is one, and only one, internal drive. So the boot drive and the storage drive are the same thing. The reason why there is only one drive is primarily driven in the Mac line up due to lack of volume. The laptops and the Mini don't really have room for another drive after put in the cooling systems and battery and other stuff. The iMacs have had two, but may drop down to one also ( the iMac Pro already. And again 'old' storage space subsumed by cooling volume expansion). Since Apple decided the Mini could 100% dump HDDs, it won't be too surprising if the next iMac ( placed high up the food chain) do that too (at least the 4K and 5K versions. The gimped, entry model may drop into the relatively crippled processor and storage status. Apple could stuff a weak Fusion drive there as default. 64GB+500GB drive. those may not get T-series just because of the price point Apple is aiming at is so low. ). The Mac Pro 2013 had a single SSD and will not be shocking at all if it has a primary boot drive that is a SSD in all the configurations. ( Mac Pro's shipping with HDDs in the standard configs is dead. Been dead for over 5 years. It isn't coming back. )


Where there is largely hand waving is how this has to necessarily do with the next Mac Pro. The 2013 Mac actually had room for a second drive ( the empty pad for a SSD connector pad was on the 'Compute' GPU). That was more so lack of lanes than lack of volume. There was also a thermal/power component to that also ( it probably didn't help to have the SSD on the primary display SSD given the other thermal problems they ran into. It wasn't critical, but it didn't help. )

If Apple cranks up the volume to afford more power ( e.g., 800-1000 W ), more space for more independent cooling for CPU and GPU(s), then finding space for a second storage drive won't be all that hard. The "additional bandwidth" is uncorked with just using the available Xeon W that they already have used in another system. If Apple shifted back to a desk-side unit it would be almost trivial. But even if keep the irrational (at this point with the iMac Pro) literal desktop constraint (as the iMac Pro perfectly fills that constraint) , the likelihood that have something just as small (or smaller) as the 2013 MP is very small. The smaller they keep the next Mac Pro the bigger the overlap with the iMac Pro there is going to be. If they want them separate them, then they need to be different in some aspects (not necessarily all ( CPU and/or GPU baseline), but at least some ).


One easy way to gap the iMac Pro and next Mac Pro is have a 2nd optional SSD hanging off the CPU . That is two differences. One just more internal capacity. The second is some highly possible bandwidth increase. That would match up with their "highest throughput" aspirational goal for the Mac Pro. ( the iMac Pro has about x8 lanes of bandwidth to nowhere of the CPU. )

Whether Apple allows additional secondary drives that include HDDs or not isn't as clear. However, a T2 boot drive doesn't necessarily invalidate HDDs as being a possibility in and of itself. The T2 is not trying to authenticate non-boot , primary bulk storage drives at all. That is not how it works at a fundamental level.
Apple may skip it because "flash storage is the future" and eventually want to chuck 'Fusion Drive" 6-8 years into the future.

 

[Boil]

The iMac Pro has two SSDs in a RAID 0 configuration, which would indicate that the T2 chip can control more than one SSD...

We might also see this RAID 0 boot configuration in the forthcoming modular Mac Pro...

 

[AidenShaw]

The iMac Pro has two SSDs in a RAID 0 configuration, which would indicate that the T2 chip can control more than one SSD...

We might also see this RAID 0 boot configuration in the forthcoming modular Mac Pro...

Not quite....

The T2 is the SSD controller, and there are two banks of dumb NAND (flash) on daughtercards. Most flash-based storage (even thumb drives) run the NAND in a RAID-0 fashion for higher bandwidth - nothing innovative about using two daughtercards.

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac+Pro+Teardown/101807

Unlike a standard SSD, which has the controller logic onboard, these raw flash modules only have an interface buffer—the PCIe/NVMe controller lies elsewhere. More on that in a bit.

​

(Note that on the new MacBook Pro, the dumb NAND chips are soldered to the motherboard. You'll need a new mobo to upgrade from 256GB to 512GB or 1TB.)

 

[fuchsdh]

I keep hoping that the feedback that apparently Apple is collecting from pro users will lead them to go back to PCI-e GPUs and socketed CPUs, but if the iMac Pro and Mac mini have come out from the evolution of the tMP, we're fu**ed.

[...]

I still don't understand who could spend 5000+$ for a screen glued to a motherboard soldered to a GPU that can never grow and it's a pain in the ass if something brakes. They are professional machines, for **** sake.

Plenty of pros fire and forget their machines. That's what my parents did for their graphic design business.

To me, the primary weakness of the iMac Pro is its starting price; I've already got existing monitors and no real room for a 27" screen, but I also don't need everything the base model provides. The iMac Pro is a great workstation, but it's inflexible.

But I don't think either the iMac Pro or Mac mini really are useful in trying to read the tea leaves about what Apple's doing with the Mac Pro. The iMac Pro seems like it's designed to appeal to the people who were using iMacs for work, not trying to cover every use case. While it's entirely possible (and let's face it, likely) that the new design will disappoint people, even if only the people who wanted some quad-CPU monster with 2TB of RAM, I don't really see the point in Apple producing a Mac that's the iMac Pro but headless. It needs some other meaningful differentiation; if Apple didn't see the point I'm not sure why they would have committed to the Mac Pro.

 

[ekwipt]

Not quite....

The T2 is the SSD controller, and there are two banks of dumb NAND (flash) on daughtercards. Most flash-based storage (even thumb drives) run the NAND in a RAID-0 fashion for higher bandwidth - nothing innovative about using two daughtercards.

View attachment 804158​

(Note that on the new MacBook Pro, the dumb NAND chips are soldered to the motherboard. You'll need a new mobo to upgrade from 256GB to 512GB or 1TB.)

Does the T2 chip slow down the transfer rates of a NVME if it were plugged into the PCIe directly?

 

[goMac]

Does the T2 chip slow down the transfer rates of a NVME if it were plugged into the PCIe directly?

AFAIK T2 is not limiting speed at all. T2 can actually push a higher rate than any single NVME SSD released so far.

 

[deconstruct60]

Does the T2 chip slow down the transfer rates of a NVME if it were plugged into the PCIe directly?

The SSD subsystem presents as a NVMe drive. Logically it is plugged in directly to PCI-e. There is no slowdown.

if talking about another SSD drive plugged into another PCI-e connection then Apple's T2 white-paper doesn't talk about the T2 interacting with controlling most of the data flow at all. It helps with ignoring things on external boot (if set) and with signing an external instance of a macOS on other drives. However, the primary encryption/decryption engine though is just targeted at the the 'internal to T2' drive.

There is no slow down. The T2 validates the firmware which can be set to completely ignore an external drive for boot purposes, but technically that isn't the T2 'slowing it down'.

There is nothing 3rd party to "plug into" the T2.

 

[Boil]

Right now I can put together a pretty sweet HackPro for about five grand, better specs than the base iMac Pro...

X299 ITX motherboard
10-core i9-9900X 3.3/4.5GHz CPU
64GB Quad-Channel RAM (four 16GB SO-DIMMs)
6TB Storage (three 2TB M.2 NVMe SSDs)
AMD WX9100 GPU (Vega 64 w/16GB HBMs)

I am hoping the new modular Mac Pro will offer at least two PCI-e x16 slots (one for GPU, one for GPGPU) & full-size DIMM slots (I would assume ECC)...

I would like to hope it also offers a few M.2 NVMe slots FOR THE END-USER TO FILL, but we all know the boot drive is going to be soldered to the logic board...

Switching to AMD CPUs for the new modular Mac Pro would be a pretty bold move, and a boon for those wanting more cores/threads without paying the huge Intel mark-up; I would go for the Threadripper 2950X, 16-cores / 32-threads...

Is it 2019 yet...?!? ;^p

 

[Aldaris]

Is it 2019 yet...?!? ;^p

This is Apple... most likely shipping by December 30th 2019... or has that happened before.

 

[deconstruct60]

Plenty of pros fire and forget their machines. That's what my parents did for their graphic design business.

The different variations on the word 'Pro' greatly contributes to why these treads flop around alot not getting no where. That 'pros' above alignes up with Apple's general usage. Someone who is using the Apple device to make a living. Other 'Pros' means some attribute of the machine, not the typical operator. Often some aspect that is non-operational (like what to do with machine when it is unplugged and the cover off. ) .

But I don't think either the iMac Pro or Mac mini really are useful in trying to read the tea leaves about what Apple's doing with the Mac Pro. The iMac Pro seems like it's designed to appeal to the people who were using iMacs for work, not trying to cover every use case. While it's entirely possible (and let's face it, likely) that the new design will disappoint people, even if only the people who wanted some quad-CPU monster with 2TB of RAM, I don't really see the point in Apple producing a Mac that's the iMac Pro but headless. It needs some other meaningful differentiation; if Apple didn't see the point I'm not sure why they would have committed to the Mac Pro.

Some parts of iMac Pro , Mini , and MBP 15" probably do greatly foreshadow what the new system will have. 4 Thunderbolt ports; probably yes. The MacBook corner case aside, Apple hasn't wavered in commitment to Thunderbolt and TBv3 with the last several rounds of updates. A T2 (or T-series); probably yes. (it is on the new MBA also). Apple wanting to be a visiable player in security and privacy is a drum that the company as a whole is banging on loudly. The Mac Pro probably isn't going to be an 'except for" corner case. A primary role for an SSD drive in the system is pretty much a whole Mac product line up mandate.

The highly sealed cases aren't. The Mac Pro 2013 didn't go that way and neither did the previous ones.

The Mac Pro can't be a headless iMac Pro with an almost 100% match in characteristics. However, few are likely confused about the differentiation of the Mac Mini , MBP 15" , and iMac Pro even though they all have 4 Thunderbolt ports. Differentiation doesn't have to limited to just 'x86 core count' or 'GPU chip used in primary display duties'.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Right now I can put together a pretty sweet HackPro for about five grand, better specs than the base iMac Pro...

X299 ITX motherboard
10-core i9-7900X 3.3/4.5GHz CPU
64GB Quad-Channel RAM (four 16GB SO-DIMMs)
6TB Storage (three 2TB M.2 NVMe SSDs)
AMD WX9100 GPU (Vega 64 w/16GB HBMs)

I am hoping the new modular Mac Pro will offer at least two PCI-e x16 slots (one for GPU, one for GPGPU) & full-size DIMM slots (I would assume ECC)...

I would like to hope it also offers a few M.2 NVMe slots FOR THE END-USER TO FILL, but we all know the boot drive is going to be soldered to the logic board...

Switching to AMD CPUs for the new modular Mac Pro would be a pretty bold move, and a boon for those wanting more cores/threads without paying the huge Intel mark-up; I would go for the Threadripper 2950X, 16-cores / 32-threads...

Is it 2019 yet...?!? ;^p

soldered to the logic board no but in an imac pro like card.

 

[deconstruct60]

If Apple is waiting on Cascade Lake derivate Xeon W solutions then Q2-Q3 would line up with being radio silent this last month. [ If so I'd still expect them to say 'something' by April though. ]

The Xeon SP (cascade lake) won't ramp to volume and all SKUs until Q2 19.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1361...oses-cascade-lake-xeon-scalable-launch-window

How Intel gets Copper Lake out in late 2019 is somewhat of a 'go figure' if they aren't even getting its predecessor out the door a quarter and change before that. Unless it is more so of a socket change and microarch tweak.