Sidebar Sidebar
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)

deconstruct60 said:
Actually that isn't what Apple has been talking about. There are folks who attempted to listen to what Apple was saying and they said Apple was trying to get native iOS apps onto macOS, but that isn't it.

What Apple has actually talked about publicly is actually closer to a system where developers could write an app that has iOS and macOS components in it and that larger app bundle could run on iOS or macOS. Developers would were closely following the rules and guidelines would still have to do unique for iPads and Macs. And later iPads , Macs , and iPhones. The UIs would be different enough so that if had any substantive parts you'd have to do some work.

There would probably be a fallback and run in funny shaped window mode. For example, same thing that happens when run Instagram on an iPad. It just starts up and looks like the phone app. Kind of embarrassing but allowed one the one hand, but definitely not going to get any praise at all from Apple.

Those apps can be compiled into x86 versions just fine. ( they are now for the few that Apple did themselves. I can't see how it would get harder over the next year or two). The whole point is that you wouldn't need an ARM chip to run those.

[ The other Apple hasn't said anyting even remotely close to that thing is that T-series chips will get more horsepower and run abritrary user loaded apps. Not even close to what Apple probably is heading toward. Heck they can't even get their own software to run smoothly let alone Bubba's fart noise app. ]




No it wouldn't if those were just multiple iPad Pro processors soldered onto a single card. It would be like having multiple iPads inside the box but the individual software app on any one pf those wouldn't run substantively faster than on an iPad Pro. ( also would have the overhead of dragging the display result bak across the PCI-e connection. )

That would primarily only be handy for software that had the ability to 'run" work jobs deployed to a computational grid. ( like ship these jobs off the the render farm in the machine room. or farm these QA or compiles off to this set of remove machines. ). The 'front end' GUI part of the app collection results and manages tthe computation but it is carved up and sent off to instances. With a several ARM SoCs on a card they'd have a "cluster inside the box". Probably cheaper than the big cluster down the hall you might have to share , but wouldn't have to share.



Compressor can do these remote jobs but problem run into with small SoC is the size of individual jobs can do.

That kind of workload tends to get bounded into certain sub areas.




A CPU trying to take workload arway from a DSP may not work so well if can upgrade the DSP in the first place. Same card with ARM could be swapped out for card with more DSP/FPGA/ASIC etc.
Click to expand...

thanks for you replies man, you two should get together and start a company or write a book or something! Your efforts are too much for a small forum
 
askunk said:
Does anybody have an idea of what is the Vega 64X?
Click to expand...

"this year, we put an 'X' on the name"

010TLY_Jeffrey_Nordling_002.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Synchro3, barmann, mdbradigan and 5 others
Kpjoslee said:
Probably a better binned higher clocked version of Vega 64.
Click to expand...

Higher binned? Weren't the GPUs underclocked in the iMac Pro along with the CPUs being slightly underclocked?

I'd suspect Apple doesn't need anything special here. It is 8-10% bump in clock. If they down clocked 8-10% then this would be just letting it off the leash. 64X is more a sales marketing exercise than a technical one.

Several months of data collection on failures and field deployments probably showed they had some headroom on thermals in the new iMac Pro design. AMD is mostly stuck in this space with respect to the Mac ecoystem. ..... so since just a placeholder iMac Pro update anyway ( it isn't marked as "new" in Apple online site ), it becomes a "we did something.... the dog didn't eat our homework" exercise.
 
deconstruct60 said:
Higher binned? Weren't the GPUs underclocked in the iMac Pro along with the CPUs being slightly underclocked?

I'd suspect Apple doesn't need anything special here. It is 8-10% bump in clock. If they down clocked 8-10% then this would be just letting it off the leash. 64X is more a sales marketing exercise than a technical one.

Several months of data collection on failures and field deployments probably showed they had some headroom on thermals in the new iMac Pro design. AMD is mostly stuck in this space with respect to the Mac ecoystem. ..... so since just a placeholder iMac Pro update anyway ( it isn't marked as "new" in Apple online site ), it becomes a "we did something.... the dog didn't eat our homework" exercise.
Click to expand...

Well, if it can achieve higher clocks within same thermal and power limit on iMac Pro, then I would say it is higher binned, though it is likely to be still underclocked compared to standalone Vega 64.
 
Kpjoslee said:
Well, if it can achieve higher clocks within same thermal and power limit on iMac Pro, then I would say it is higher binned, though it is likely to be still underclocked compared to standalone Vega 64.
Click to expand...

Or Apple could just run the iMac Pro incrementally louder with the 64X running full tilt. ( crank the fans up to remove the higher power). If someone is willing to pay $150 to go faster they nay not mind incrementally louder. Also likely given the stumbles on the Mac Pro 2013 and razor thin thermal capacity that there is some excesses in the GPU cooling subsystem ( which helps the system run very quiet under normal conditions). If they have a 12-15% buffer and use up 9% then there is still 3-6% left.

"binned' as marked as a different model number perhaps, base Vega64s are marked as 56 also if AMD needs numbers in that type range. These categories aren't 100% filled solely by testing the performance/correctness. When the yields are high a very mature product dies get assigned as much as technically binned (because they 'cannot do' some list of features).

Apple could have just as easily gone to AMD and said something to the effect of "make us a new model number and fill it with desktop Vega64 clocked x% lower instead of y% lower and will pay you $55/chip more ." Ta da, an 64x. Especially with the crypto glut of inventory and the new VII suppressing the 64 sales slightly. Apple helps AMD partially out of a hole and has a "you owe me" chip to use later on something AMD is more reluctant to do. (e.g., "Pro Vega2 64" for a later Mac Pro. or perhaps the Vega48 for the iMacs. )
 
Last edited:
Aldaris said:
I would be pleasantly surprised to see it drop on Friday. Kinda like dropping products instead of waiting for the next “Apple event”.
Click to expand...

The Mac Pro will be previewed at WWDC and available in December like the iMac Pro in 2017.
 
Aldaris said:
I would be pleasantly surprised to see it drop on Friday. Kinda like dropping products instead of waiting for the next “Apple event”.
Click to expand...
Given there are no new chips for it the WWDC thing seems most likely.
 
mavericks7913 said:
At this point, it is very plausible to see Mac Pro this year.
Click to expand...

It has been very plausible since almost 12 months ago when Apple declared that the Mac Pro was '2019' product.
The "doom and gloom" has far more so been about how it would slide into 2020 or just disappear despite what Apple said.
[doublepost=1553137266][/doublepost]
Aldaris said:
I would be pleasantly surprised to see it drop on Friday. Kinda like dropping products instead of waiting for the next “Apple event”.
Click to expand...

The products so far this week have been clustered into groups: iPads , Macs , airpod ... probably not another Mac coming for at least a couple of months. Perhaps the ipod touch and airpower round out the week? It is highly illustrative of way waiting around until WWDC to do something about the Mac Pro way pasted misguided. Yearly spectacular Cirque du Soiled show is entirely unnecessary for a hardware product release.

It will be interesting over next 2-4 weeks to see if Apple uses this "3 day" ( or "4 day") supposed flurry of activity to punt on their yearly "dog ate my homework" meeting about the Mac Pro. These iMac updates are muddled on clarity of future direction. "warmed over" stuff that in the case of the iMac doesn't address real cooling issues at all. ( somewhat likely probably made them worse).

When Apple should do the 'preview' is sooner rather than later. It should be after all the "show serives" stuff has had a chance to go by but waiting months more isn't going to help them much at all.
 
fuchsdh said:
Given there are no new chips for it the WWDC thing seems most likely.
Click to expand...

They need looney toon design rumors triage more so than chips at this point. If they are off chasing a lego project Mac Pro letting folks know now would be better. If they are off trying to do a literal desktop system... again better now. If chasing "if you have to ask you can't afford it" Mac Pro 'big game' systems. Again now.
 
deconstruct60 said:
It has been very plausible since almost 12 months ago when Apple declared that the Mac Pro was '2019' product.
The "doom and gloom" has far more so been about how it would slide into 2020 or just disappear despite what Apple said.
[doublepost=1553137266][/doublepost]

The products so far this week have been clustered into groups: iPads , Macs , airpod ... probably not another Mac coming for at least a couple of months. Perhaps the ipod touch and airpower round out the week? It is highly illustrative of way waiting around until WWDC to do something about the Mac Pro way pasted misguided. Yearly spectacular Cirque du Soiled show is entirely unnecessary for a hardware product release.

It will be interesting over next 2-4 weeks to see if Apple uses this "3 day" ( or "4 day") supposed flurry of activity to punt on their yearly "dog ate my homework" meeting about the Mac Pro. These iMac updates are muddled on clarity of direction.
Click to expand...
This is frankly nonsense. The updates this week are exactly what most people have been asking for—updating components, not breaking what isn’t broken, and actually factoring in component costs for BTO upgrades. The iMac Pro got adjustments to make them a better deal even though new chips aren’t out. This is what most people in this forum have been clamoring for—quiet updates not built for flair.

The Mac Pro is going to merit something splashier for its launch, but if they give it future quiet updates like this I don’t think anyone should be complaining.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mikael H, rrl, Manzanito and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back