Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macpro 2016
- Sort by reaction score
Not really. Mainstream is evolving, and computers, especially desktops are finding new uses. Its only devs fault that Adobe software suite fails to work in multithreaded workloads. We are getting into diminishing returns territory on new nodes. There will not be any meaningful increase in core speeds in upcoming years, but we will see increase in core counts on all of the platforms.
Software HAS to be written, and optimized for this. You cannot wait with it for inevitable.
Oh, another one of those legendary mind scanners who know everything about everyone just by reading a single line of written text. When did I say something even remotely similar to that?
You said it’s not a good thing to be tied to intel, I suppose because it’s not a good thing to be stuck with a vendor when there are alternatives.
I agree. I think the same principle applies when it comes to gpus, and apple (and therefore us, apple customers) should be able to have a choice between nVidia and amd.
Guess what: the gpu in my mac pro is a rx 580, and there is not a single program I use that relies on CUDA.
That is a bit of a delusional hope. Apple spent in the vicinity of $500M ( half a billion. ) to get in to the vertical SSD business.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...a-billion-to-secure-its-flash-storage-future/
Why would they spend that much money and not put their own SSDs into their own systems? A substantive fraction there is to put SSDs into iOS devices, but again begs the question of reality of Apple having the resources to do it on the Mac side also and then not. [ This is substantively different from the CPU core issue. The storage is still implemented in 3rd party chips. It is the controller of those chips that has about the same needs independent of the main application CPU core implementation family as each (x86_64 and ARM) draw closer together in performance. Both of those need a fast storage subsystem whatever app is running. ]
Apple recently spent $300M acquiring Dialog PMIC IP to fold in house
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...illion-deal-with-dialog-semi-for-assets-staff
Guess what ? Future Macs ( and iOS devices ) are extremely likely going to have ...... Apple internally developed PMIC. The T-series hasn't fully subsumed the PMICs. T2 Mac still have discrete ones. T3 or T4 (or T5) is highly likely going to subsume those into the SoC package. Otherwise why spend $300M ( 1/3 of a billion dollars) to bring it in house? The discrete PMIC were already highly custom, this move will make them much easier to integrate in addition to being custom.
The primary issue for the next Mac Pro is not whether it is going to have an Apple boot SSD. That is extremely highly likely going to happen. The primary issue is really probably in the space of whether they are going to enable having more than one internal storage drive. That's is the trend line with several of the latest design updates that is probably at odds with the classic Mac Pro 'mission'.
Trying to wrestle away the boot (and security of boot process) away from Apple is largely a waste of time because much of the angst does not provide a better solution (i.e., it isn't more secure). Those are largely "form over function" (e.g., don't want security function, just want best race to the bottom form factor).
The real issue that Apple doesn't have a better (more functional) answer for is why the Mac Pro has to be stuck with just one internal drive. Another slot ( or 2-3) M.2 drive slots would still keep the next Mac Pro in the "Flash is the future" realm, but firmly address the issue of affordable larger capacity limits. Apple has backed away from the myopic position that TRIM only exists on Apple SSDs. So if non Apple SSDs are OK then a larger volume system like the Mac Pro could probably make use of them.
The T2 in and of itself doesn't really appear to be the root core issue of the problems. The indicators so far mostly are indicative that the software that is running on the T2 (and probably also on the MacOS side ) need more clean ups. When the software bundle expanded from T1 to T2 things got worse. If the T2 doesn't have ECC at the lower levels that would probably be better ,but the randomness of the errors is more indicative that it combinations of software and usage that are at issue. ( WatchOS just had a substantive chunk of security gaps filled. More than likely just a equally as sloppy code is sloshing around inside of BridgeOS and macOS. )
[doublepost=1544210893][/doublepost]
The T2 doesn't need any more lanes. Most folks don't need 2-5 boot volumes. For non boot drives there is not good rational reason to tie them into the T2.
What is needed here is a balance. Securing the boot drive is one issue. Working set/area capacity , bulk storage , etc is another.
The only thing the T-series might need a more secure path between main CPU and T2 for some of the non SSD message flow. Right now I think several things are done as virtual ethernet pipe connections. If there are other programs that can latch onto those pipes and 'screw around' that isn't good for security or stability. That isn't the storage subsystem part though.
Apple extremely does not need to try to extend all possible storage through the T2. It isn't really constructed for that nor is it particularly necessary. For generic storage the general market has sufficient solutions. The boot GPU integration with Thunderbolt and initial boot authentication that isn't quite as clear. Apple solutions have better function match there if not using the standards limiting forms.
Overly expanding the scope of the T2 (T-series in general ) is a dual edge sword. It can start to cause as many problems as it might solve in other dimensions. It would be better if Apple looked at finishing off the bugs, increasing the stability, and wrapping up their PMIC integration before more "other stuff" got added to the T-series.
Last edited:
You are probably correct although most professional users would not be able to live with random T2 Bridge OS crashes.
Apple just came out with a Mojave update and a T2 firmware update and the results don't look as promising for eliminating the T2 Bridge OS crashes via software / firmware. Hopefully, by time the modular Mac Pro is released, Apple will have fixed most of the interface problems with the T2.
At the very least, I hope Apple will not treat the people who purchase the new modular Mac Pros as beta testers.
Original T2 problems thread.
some is likely on the macOS side also. The farce is that this is just one or two bugs. Some of this is the easy blame game. Something popped up in the BridgeOS log so it must be a BridgeOS problem. Not really, if on the macOS side of the comm channel something spazzes out and BridgeOS has to reset, then the log entry isn't a root cause.
Even if T2 wasn't around there are almost always some subset of users with wonky drivers and/or 3rd app installs that cause problems.
That's the one upside to Apple sloth roll out for the next Mac Pro. They should be able to merge into something substantially more stable ( if they put the proper work in. ).
Also post 2821 of that thread points to a poll. ( sampling within macrumors should be taken with a grain of salt. typically biased to the hypercritical side. ) , but ~73% (when I looked just now ) have never had a problem before or after this update. Throw in the "No" and up in the 80% range. That doesn't really met the muster, IMHO, of being a systemic problem. It is an annoying set of problems that should get unwound and fixed, but for most part the system is working.
Agreed. I was just making the point that only a few people said their problems went away after the update.
Unless you have two ( or more ) lazy programmers, and submitting snickery posts on stack overflow is a parralizable task.
Meanwhile, the list of software that can use more than a handful of cores remains pretty short.
Hi aiden, do you remember a user on this forum named, Nanofrog ?
That’s not a word. Maybe you mean parallelable?
so lower performance than current Vega 56 and 64, which are below or around GTX 1080 (a mobile part), and below the 1080ti, Titan V, 2080 & 2080ti?
this is supposed to be a good thing?
The last time I checked Vega 56 is faster than GTX 1070, and to counter it Nvidia had to release GTX 1070 Ti, Vega 64 is as fast or faster than GTX 1080, and in compute it rivals GTX 1080 Ti.
https://twitter.com/KOMACHI_ENSAKA/status/1071390626879434753
Its ready.
In the context of this: https://twitter.com/KOMACHI_ENSAKA/status/1071387381415047170
https://twitter.com/KOMACHI_ENSAKA/status/1071853909440815104
Last edited:
Once again you cherry pick a few charts that support your point, without linking to the source site.
That's not transparent, and makes one wonder about your honesty. Why not include a link to the source?
Last edited:
This is the sad state for Macs concerning professional 3D work and motion graphics. Now even Nick at Greyscale gorilla is getting a pc after trying to cling on to his Mac for as long as he could. I really can't believe Apple wants to lose all these creators in 3D and motion-graphics marked.
The last time I checked Vega 56 is faster than GTX 1070, and to counter it Nvidia had to release GTX 1070 Ti, Vega 64 is as fast or faster than GTX 1080, and in compute it rivals GTX 1080 Ti.
https://twitter.com/KOMACHI_ENSAKA/status/1071390626879434753
Its ready.
In the context of this: https://twitter.com/KOMACHI_ENSAKA/status/1071387381415047170
https://twitter.com/KOMACHI_ENSAKA/status/1071853909440815104
Where is Vega 20?
It would make sense if the new MacPro had a good dGPU on board, which delivers better GPU power than the MacMini, but would at the other side not need too extensive cooling.
As Apple talks about a modular MacPro, I guess that we'll see a "MacMini" kind of computer with a basic dGPU, Xeon(s), 4 RAM-slots and probably 2nd "SSD-slot". All the rest will be "modules" connected by T3.
This would lead to a powerful and quite machine for most pro users and a MacPro that could easily be extended with additional modules.