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

[Boil]

I wonder how big will be outcry on this very forum if Apple will come up with anything similar to Corsair One computer .

Take the top end X299 model, swap the Nvidia GPU for a Radeon VII & that would make a pretty decent macOS personal workstation... Excepting for the lack of TB3...

 

[AidenShaw]

I do have sources, and links. Why don't you find them yourself, however? Mindfactory sales, for example. Motley Fool and Seeking Alpha analysts discussing the market share of AMD and Intel CPUs, for example?

Why do you have to be lazy, and never do research yourself?

If you can't produce links - it doesn't exist, or you're hiding something.

It's your job to back up your claims, not my job.

 

[Boil]

it is macrumors so some folks will complain that the sky is blue.

How big. Just about as large as it was for the Mac Pro 2013. If the default is an AMD GPU ..... the Nvidia fan boys aren't going to be happy. There would be some slight shift in complaint set if there was an Nvidia GPU. It isn't a generic off the shelf GPU replaceable by any random board. So the folks who are complaining about not buying stuff off the shelf would still be complaining.

Corsair doesn't have Thunderbolt, but I think does some video port redirect. Is Apple going to hide the "loop back" Rube Goldberg solution inside the case? .... probably not. So even less "off the shelf" GPU card than that. [ There are some other vendors that use a MXM GPU card but again will have folks moaning about it isn't a broad standard slot. ]

Actually, it is a bog standard reference PCB in the Corsair One...

Now, the cooling system is obviously custom...

But the GPU is attached to a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 slot on the ASRock X299 ITX motherboard...

And the video outputs ARE a "loop back", from the internal GPU to the panel on the back...

 

[AidenShaw]

Take the top end X299 model, swap the Nvidia GPU for a Radeon VII & that would make a pretty decent macOS personal workstation... Excepting for the lack of TB3...

...and the lack of an Nvidia GPU.

 

[Peace]

I think everybody, especially, @namethisfile forgets, in the discussion about AMD, is that with Zen2, and Chiplet architecture, they can make specific, custom chips only for Apple.

APU based on 4 CPU Chiplets, and two GPU chiplets, for BGA package, for iMac Pro? No Problem. And whats best - this design ticks every box of HSA design.


Sure, you can bash AMD if you want to. But if there is no reason for bashing - you will look ridiculously clouless.

Its only up to you, to speak with knowledge, or to speak without it, and look clueless.



For past 5 months AMD CPUs have been outselling Intel 2:1 . Yeah, nieche.

AMD simply hasn't got good products until Zen. Right now - they do. Thats why they are selling. End of the story.

Link to where AMD has outsold Intel 2:1 and please make it official

Edit : I see where one online retailer in Germany had twice as many cpu sales from AMD but that in no way defines world sales.

 

[koyoot]

Link to where AMD has outsold Intel 2:1 and please make it official

Edit : I see where one online retailer in Germany had twice as many cpu sales from AMD but that in no way defines world sales.

Based on Mindfactory.de sales Analysts have been talking about what was the world outlook of the sales. The only place where AMD haven't outsold Intel was United States. Why? Because it was the only market that Intel wanted to deliver CPUs without delay, and it resulted in 0$ price increases of those CPUs, whereas in Germany, in the said timeframe 8700K cost 500$, and 9900K cost 800$. Thats why people turned their backs, and looked at 150$ Ryzen 5 2600, which was the most popular CPU(actually it is the most popular CPU in the world, looking at sales over different shops: Newegg, Amazon, Mindfactory, etc).

Overall conclusion of this discussion on Twitter was that Mindfactory pretty much reflects the situation in the world, which was struck with Price hikes of Intel CPUs. Which basically means, apart from USA, everywhere else.

...and the lack of an Nvidia GPU.

YAY!

That will mean AMD will get some moneyz!

 

[Simon R.]

So where is it?

 

[fuchsdh]

So where is it?

Any day could be Mac Pro day!

 

[deconstruct60]

Actually, it is a bog standard reference PCB in the Corsair One...

Now, the cooling system is obviously custom...

A reference board is not quite a random one. The fact that have to get a reference that is compatible and aligned with the cooling system means that it has some constraints and a subset of total possible cards. As long as there was some smaller subset outside of the integration requirements that Apple created .... someone would complain on these forums.


Some folks are going to pick a reference point outside of what Apple would like to do and use that as a anchor point to complain from. That's just standard practice by some in these forums.

I think the folks who want prioritize a Mac Pro from the video card "out" to the rest of the system would think something like Corsair was OK. That does account for a hefty fraction of the moaning and groaning over the last 6-8 years in this forum. Stepping out from the middle of the AMD/Nvidia fan war would cut way down on the volume of complaints on the Mac Pro.

However, A/V capture. Ultra High bandwidth I/O , dual GPU , etc. folks would put it almost in same boat as the MP 2013.

IHMO, aiming at the literal desktop is problem when the iMac Pro ( and iMacs ) are sitting there. With some relatively straightforward engeineering Apple could do better (cleaner , quieter , more efficient) than that, but add an empty slot for the folks consumed with putting in what they want with its own cooler package. Lack of integrated design just means would need to allocate it more volume and hence dropping the desktop footprint constraint would make it much easier to do.

 

[namethisfile]

YAY!

That will mean AMD will get some moneyz!

I figured this was the end game of similar posters in the arena regarding "?=Mac Pro 7,1+AMDCPU" associates/incorporated/LLC/somehowpostinginforumsdudes

$$$$

The only benefit, if, hell freezes over and we see an AMD CPU in a Mac is $$$$ for the group mentioned above. The end user like me and you will see diddly squat in this switch, if it occurs.

Nothing.

Maybe 100 points less or 100 points more in benchmarks. But, that is it.

For example, the upcoming not-out-yet Zen 2 (cough, cough @hypocratemuchKoyoot) will beat an 8700k by that much. And, eek out a 9900K by that much. Whoop-dee-doo. The user won't feel that. Only benchmark kings & queenies might see something there.

So, really, it makes no sense whatsoever for Apple to put AMD CPU's in a Mac. Period. No sense.

Except, of course, when it does make cents for the ppl I mentioned above.

That's it. That's the only play for seeing AMD in Macs. $$$$ for AMD stock holders, AMD themselves, maybe reciprocal $$$$ in the AMD supply chain.

The end user will be like, why jump "ship" into another "ship" just like it?

The last thing the end user will think is, "OMG, Thanks Apple for putting an AMD CPU in your Macs."

 

[Peace]

Based on Mindfactory.de sales Analysts have been talking about what was the world outlook of the sales. The only place where AMD haven't outsold Intel was United States. Why? Because it was the only market that Intel wanted to deliver CPUs without delay, and it resulted in 0$ price increases of those CPUs, whereas in Germany, in the said timeframe 8700K cost 500$, and 9900K cost 800$. Thats why people turned their backs, and looked at 150$ Ryzen 5 2600, which was the most popular CPU(actually it is the most popular CPU in the world, looking at sales over different shops: Newegg, Amazon, Mindfactory, etc).

Overall conclusion of this discussion on Twitter was that Mindfactory pretty much reflects the situation in the world, which was struck with Price hikes of Intel CPUs. Which basically means, apart from USA, everywhere else.


YAY!

That will mean AMD will get some moneyz!

I'll just put this here.

 

[barmann]

The last thing the end user will think is, "OMG, Thanks Apple for putting an AMD CPU in your Macs."

Well , as long as the price is low, and the thing is backwards compatible with old hardware and software, and OSX doesn't change , and it has a bunch of slots for PCIe cards and Sata drives, a few for SSD cards, plenty of current ports and the RAM is user upgradable - a monkey playing the violin can be the damn CPU .

 

[ssgbryan]

I figured this was the end game of similar posters in the arena regarding "?=Mac Pro 7,1+AMDCPU" associates/incorporated/LLC/somehowpostinginforumsdudes

$$$$

The only benefit, if, hell freezes over and we see an AMD CPU in a Mac is $$$$ for the group mentioned above. The end user like me and you will see diddly squat in this switch, if it occurs.

Nothing.

Maybe 100 points less or 100 points more in benchmarks. But, that is it.

For example, the upcoming not-out-yet Zen 2 (cough, cough @hypocratemuchKoyoot) will beat an 8700k by that much. And, eek out a 9900K by that much. Whoop-dee-doo. The user won't feel that. Only benchmark kings & queenies might see something there.

So, really, it makes no sense whatsoever for Apple to put AMD CPU's in a Mac. Period. No sense.

Except, of course, when it does make cents for the ppl I mentioned above.

That's it. That's the only play for seeing AMD in Macs. $$$$ for AMD stock holders, AMD themselves, maybe reciprocal $$$$ in the AMD supply chain.

The end user will be like, why jump "ship" into another "ship" just like it?

The last thing the end user will think is, "OMG, Thanks Apple for putting an AMD CPU in your Macs."

Unless of course, your workflow is driven by cores - like mine. I'll feel it, but then I actually do stuff with my computer.

Or if TCO matters more than fashion, which is what I value.

Cores, Ram, PCIe lanes - those are the potential bottlenecks in my workflow - right now, AMD is a better bet for my next system.

The AMD ProRender Engine is a game changer for those of us that render. I like the idea of stuffing 4 WX5100s, (or the equivalent Nvidia GPUs, or a combination of both) stuffing them in a Threadripper or Eypc based system and have the render engine see the CPUs, GPUs, system and video ram as 1 system.

There isn't an Nvidia solution that can do that.

 

[koyoot]

I figured this was the end game of similar posters in the arena regarding "?=Mac Pro 7,1+AMDCPU" associates/incorporated/LLC/somehowpostinginforumsdudes

$$$$

The only benefit, if, hell freezes over and we see an AMD CPU in a Mac is $$$$ for the group mentioned above. The end user like me and you will see diddly squat in this switch, if it occurs.

Nothing.

Maybe 100 points less or 100 points more in benchmarks. But, that is it.

For example, the upcoming not-out-yet Zen 2 (cough, cough @hypocratemuchKoyoot) will beat an 8700k by that much. And, eek out a 9900K by that much. Whoop-dee-doo. The user won't feel that. Only benchmark kings & queenies might see something there.

So, really, it makes no sense whatsoever for Apple to put AMD CPU's in a Mac. Period. No sense.

Except, of course, when it does make cents for the ppl I mentioned above.

That's it. That's the only play for seeing AMD in Macs. $$$$ for AMD stock holders, AMD themselves, maybe reciprocal $$$$ in the AMD supply chain.

The end user will be like, why jump "ship" into another "ship" just like it?

The last thing the end user will think is, "OMG, Thanks Apple for putting an AMD CPU in your Macs."

Everything what you wrote woulod be correct, if you would not underestimate AMD.

8C/16T CPU demoed by AMD, competing with 9900K, at half the power used, was running engineering sample that had maximum boost clock of 4.0 GHz, and all core boost at 3.8 GHz. 9900K in that Cinebench R15 demo was running at 4.7 GHz all core boost, and in that particular test, AMD CPU was few percent faster. How much faster will AMD CPUs be if they will clock to 4.5-4.6 GHz? How can end users not benefit from higher efficiency, more performance, more cores, of AMD CPUs?

How can this be logical thinking, even?

Secondly on the topic of competition. 9900K competitor on AM4 platform will not have 8 cores.

It will have 16 cores.

It will round circles around anything Intel will come up with next two years. And if you believe its one time only situation. AMD will have better roadmap than Intel in upcoming years. This change, end users will feel.

Best Server chip Intel will release will have 28 cores. AMD CPUs: 64 cores. Yeah. End users of servers will not feel the difference. Stop calling me hypocrite, if you are clueless about AMD offerings. Apple haven't released any new product, yet. And it would be great for end users if they would switch to AMD products, because end users WILL benefit from this change.

64 core EPYC CPU will cost 5000$. 28 core Intel server CPU costs 10000$. I presume you would pay that 10K, for the bragging rights of having Intel Inside, instead of faster machine?

 

[namethisfile]

Secondly on the topic of competition. 9900K competitor on AM4 platform will not have 8 cores.

It will have 16 cores.

It will round circles around anything Intel will come up with next two years. And if you believe its one time only situation. AMD will have better roadmap than Intel in upcoming years. This change, end users will feel.

I don't think 16-core, 9900K AMD Zen 2 competitor will run circles around it. It will beat it for sure. But not like as much as you say it would.

Wanna bet?

I have $5.

We can go back to this in December 2019 or whenever Zen 2 is released.

Not even Intel 9900K successor I am betting on. Just the 9900K vs. your Zen 2 16-core CPU.

PS--That is a hypothetical $5 bet, btw. And, not real because I don't wanna exchange info with you thru paypal or whathaveyou. So, that is why it's $5 because I know you can afford it and so can I, hypothetically-speaking.

PSSS--And, I bet you another $5 that we won't see AMD CPU in Macs now or ever.

PSSSS--We both have this hypo-$10 don't we?

 

[askunk]

The loser sends the money to charity and shows the receipt on this forum

 

[namethisfile]

The loser sends the money to charity and shows the receipt on this forum

Ok. Yeah. I don't have a charity but I'll gladly find one just for this.

And, to be clear, a 16-core Zen 2 CPU will probably beat a 9900k. The question is by how much. And, if it is "run circles around it" enough, then Koyoot wins. If, not, I win.

 

[koyoot]

I don't think 16-core, 9900K AMD Zen 2 competitor will run circles around it. It will beat it for sure. But not like as much as you say it would.

Wanna bet?

I have $5.

We can go back to this in December 2019 or whenever Zen 2 is released.

Not even Intel 9900K successor I am betting on. Just the 9900K vs. your Zen 2 16-core CPU.

PS--That is a hypothetical $5 bet, btw. And, not real because I don't wanna exchange info with you thru paypal or whathaveyou. So, that is why it's $5 because I know you can afford it and so can I, hypothetically-speaking.

PSSS--And, I bet you another $5 that we won't see AMD CPU in Macs now or ever.

PSSSS--We both have this hypo-$10 don't we?

16 core Threadripper is running circles around 9900K, in everything apart from gaming.

And 16 core AM4 CPU will be faster than 16 core Threadripper 2950X. You still want to bet?

 

[namethisfile]

16 core Threadripper is running circles around 9900K, in everything apart from gaming.

And 16 core AM4 CPU will be faster than 16 core Threadripper 2950X. You still want to bet?

Yeh.

I'll just post these pics as well as their accompanying URL's as their source. So, in this case, I would not be losing the bet if the 2950x is your "Zen 2 16-core future CPU." IMO, according to these 2 benches from GB4 and CB, 2950x doesn't qualify as running circles around 9900k.

https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/254

https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2548

https://www.cgdirector.com/cinebench-scores-updated/

PS--The Cinebench Multi score of 3210 vs. 2077 doesn't qualify as running circles around it in my book. Does it to you?

PSS--So, let's say your "Zen 2 16-core future CPU" scores 3400-ish in Cb multi score (I just added 200 more points to it because that is the gap between 1950x and 2950x), it is still not really, if you look at it, running circles around it.

PSSS--The score in Cb multi has to be around 3900-ish or 4000-ish for it to be "running circles around it because it has twice as much cores/threads.

PSSSS--And, this is CINEBENCH! Which is the most linear scaling bench out there.

 

[pl1984]

Yeh.

I'll just post these pics as well as their accompanying URL's as their source. So, in this case, I would not be losing the bet if the 2950x is your "Zen 2 16-core future CPU." IMO, according to these 2 benches from GB4 and CB, 2950x doesn't qualify as running circles around 9900k.

PS--The Cinebench Multi score of 3210 vs. 2077 doesn't qualify as running circles around it in my book. Does it to you?

PSS--So, let's say your "Zen 2 16-core future CPU" scores 3400-ish in Cb multi score (I just added 200 more points to it because that is the gap between 1950x and 2950x), it is still not really, if you look at it, running circles around it.

PSSS--The score in Cb multi has to be around 3900-ish or 4000-ish for it to be "running circles around it because it has twice as much cores/threads.

PSSSS--And, this is CINEBENCH! Which is the most linear scaling bench out there.

These results are inline with what I would expect from the two processors. Intel is faster in single core and AMD in multiple cores. Is 3210 vs. 2077 considered running circles? That's a very subjective qualification. However 3210 is 55% faster than 2077.

 

[namethisfile]

These results are inline with what I would expect from the two processors. Intel is faster in single core and AMD in multiple cores. Is 3210 vs. 2077 considered running circles? That's a very subjective qualification. However 3210 is 55% faster than 2077.

Fair enough. But CInebench scales linearly, so, even though the 2950x has double the cores/threads, it isn't 100% faster.

It has to be close to 90% faster. But, I'll admit defeat if Koyoot's "zen 2 16-core CPU" scores around 3700 in Cb multi score.

I won't admit defeat if it is 3400 or 3500 tho.

3600, yeah and above.

We'll see.

But, 3200-3400, is a definite no.

Also, considering Geekbench score, etc.

We'll see. Koyoot seems confident it will run circles. I, for one, don't think so.

So, 3500 Cb points and above, I will concede defeat.

THERE.

SETTLED.

 

[koyoot]

Well, if you will take into account that 16 core Zen2 AM4 CPU will use the same amount of power, yes, it will run circles around 9900K .

Also, you guys are comparing Threadripper CPU vs 9900K. And you forget than IPC of Zen2 CPUs will be higher than Zen/Zen+, and clocks of Zen 2 AM4 CPUs will be on the same level as Coffee Lake CPUs. So Single Threaded performance will be in worst case scenario - the same as Coffee Lake. Scores for Cinebench in this picture will only be higher. 3400-3500 Pts, potentially for top-end SKU.

Yes, guys. This is running Circles around 9900K.

Imagine what 64 Core Rome is capable of. Imagine what Mac Pro using 64 Core AMD CPU could be capable of.

 

[namethisfile]

Well, if you will take into account that 16 core Zen2 AM4 CPU will use the same amount of power, yes, it will run circles around 9900K .

Also, you guys are comparing Threadripper CPU vs 9900K. And you forget than IPC of Zen2 CPUs will be higher than Zen/Zen+, and clocks of Zen 2 AM4 CPUs will be on the same level as Coffee Lake CPUs. So Single Threaded performance will be in worst case scenario - the same as Coffee Lake. Scores for Cinebench in this picture will only be higher. 3400-3500 Pts, potentially for top-end SKU.

Yes, guys. This is running Circles around 9900K.

Imagine what 64 Core Rome is capable of. Imagine what Mac Pro using 64 Core AMD CPU could be capable of.

HEY,

If your Zen 2 16-core CPU scores 3500 and above in Cinebench Multi score, you will win, okay?

And, I am giving you a break there because that isn't even close to double.

 

[koyoot]

HEY,

If your Zen 2 16-core CPU scores 3500 and above in Cinebench Multi score, you will win, okay?

And, I am giving you a break there because that isn't even close to double.

Will you then admit that it will be good thing, and Apple should switch to AMD CPUs in all of their computers, because they will be better, and it will be good for consumers?

 

[namethisfile]

Will you then admit that it will be good thing, and Apple should switch to AMD CPUs in all of their computers, because they will be better, and it will be good for consumers?

Well, I am unsure of who will win the first bet and we can find out soon enough when Zen 2 is released.

But, I am sure as day that Apple won't put AMD CPU's in Macs. So, even if I admit it is a good thing, it won't happen.