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
The last version of the Mac Pro was the "trashcan" (late 2013), otherwise known as Mac Pro 6,1. This can be verified by selecting "About this Mac" if you have the appropriate model. The newest (yet unreleased) version will be 7,1.
The only SSD controller is in the T2.
The two NAND cards are like dumb DIMMs fitted with flash. The NAND cards have no controller, so they can't function independently as SSDs.
That is the way that I understand it as well. The iMac Pro disk is made of 2 modules but there is one disk controller so it is not a raid as the modules can not be controlled separately. Despite this I wonder if the iMac Pro retains some of the performance characteristics of a raid by reading from and writing to both modules at once, at least the synthetic benchmarks I've seen look eerily close to that of a 2-disk raid setup.
I was also surprised by Apple not redesigning the iMac to include a T2 chip after putting a T2 in every Mac released in 2018. Despite this Apple's strategy will not change and I still expect to see a T3 chip in the upcoming Mac Pro. Apple has yet to get around to redesigning the iMac and pushed out a spec bump in the meantime. I wish that Apple would do a similar spec bump for the Macbook Pro esc model but alas that is a pipe dream as Apple would rather I buy the touchbar model to get the latest Intel chips.
It's very common for flash devices to write to the NAND devices in parallel (sort of like RAID-0).
Even the higher performance USB thumb drives will "stripe" across the NAND packages.
It's also quite possible that the T2's NAND modules present multiple banks of memory. If each module had 2 banks, the T2 could do 4-way "RAID-0", with 4 banks it could do 8-way.
See Internal Parallelism of Flash Memory-Based Solid-State Drives (pdf) for example.
PCIe 3.0 has a 985MB/s per lane limit. Apple should be able to achieve close to PCIe 3.0 x4 3940MB/s connection limit at least on synthetic benchmarks:
The iMac Pro write speed is currently around 3000MB/s write 2400MB/s read according to [0]:
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2017-12-07-at-11.53.23-AM-993x1024.jpg
This is a bit better than the 970 Pro's 2500MB/s write, 2000MB/s according to [1]:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4pvzCqMVqMs/maxresdefault.jpg
The Mac Pro 7,1 will hopefully be in the ballpark of 3,500MB/s write 3,000MB/s read which will start to push into the limits of PCIe 3.0. Perhaps this would be a good time for Apple to switch to PCIe 4.0!
[0] http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2017/12/12/apples-new-imacpro-has-an-impressive-200-300-speed-bump/
[1] https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pvzCqMVqMs ( spaces so won't embed video )
You gals are still "hopeful" about a new Mac Pro? Irrational exuberance...
Expect 8 bit SCSI, so that you're not disappointed by what Phil and the other amigos deliver.
The "modular" Mac Pro should have started shipping in late spring 2017. Every day since then means that the Amigos and Jony are going off on a destructive design tangent that will be a failure like the 6,1.
Let me go count how many iterations of the Z-series that HP has released since the MP6,1 mistake....
Hell has no fury than a woman scorned... are you really that bitter about the 2013 trashcan?
Apple admitted they were wrong about the 2013 Mac Pro and that they were trying to fix it. They even said that the 7,1 was a 2019 product. Give them time, it will appear. They have a lot of other irons in the fire, and the Mac Pro isn't exactly a money maker for them, so it's perfectly rational to not expect them to bump it to the top of the priority list this year.
I'm not guaranteeing that it will be great, but at least give them a chance. If when released it sucks, it sucks... but don't say it will suck before they unveil it.
HP only makes hardware.. so they can roll out the same boring stuff with spec bumps every year or whatever. Apple is a hardware, software, etc/etc/etc developer. Kinda lame to compare them to a company that just churns out towers all day.
Unless you have an inside source and can confirm one thing or another, let's just wait and see what they come up with.
Last edited:
If it had appeared in summer 2017 - great. It doesn't take a long time to update the cheese grater with current technology.
It's nearly spring 2019 - and only crickets.... Be afraid.
[doublepost=1553481343][/doublepost]
This is so wrong.
HP (and HPE) make a lot of software to support that hardware.
Compared to the whole OS that the hardware is run on, including applications and the like? Like how Microsoft and Apple do? FCX, Office, etc? Not to mention Mac OS and Win 10? HP's "software" is insignificant compared to that.
Once again, Apple admitted they were wrong with the trashcan. They said they are trying/going to fix it. Am I worried? Absolutely. But am I going to condemn them before they release the fix? Absolutely not.
I mostly run Linux - kind of blows your argument away.
And while Apple has said that the trashcan was a mistake - they made that mistake in 2013 and in 2017 admitted that it was a mistake.
It's spring 2019 and we're still waiting for Apple to fix the mistake, and with every week we're more worried that they're going to announce an even bigger mistake.
Every week that Jony Ive might be working on the new Mac Pro is a week to worry.
I’d take a Mac Pro revision every other year or even three years, this 6+ years is bull.
I was just looking at a HP Z420 today, if Apple releases another trashintosh that may be the way I go. I have so much invested in my current Mac Pro that I could take with me to an HP but it remains to be seen what the new Mac Pro will support, and my drives won't work with 8-bit SCSI.
I have a bit more faith in the three amigos than you do. The trashintosh was a mistake and they have pledged to return to a modular system. The Mac Mini, feared by many as forgotten, has received a worthy successor, and the iMac now is available with an i9-9700K. What Apple will come up with still remains to be seen, I have my guesses yet nobody knows for certain. This is one of the most anticipated products of the year, the hype train is full steam ahead!
To be fair, HP has support. Something Apple doesn't do.
Not to mention a solution for almost every nook in enterprise / infrastructure market ( including software ). Something Apple doesn't do.
I bet you HP even has a wireless charger. Something Apple doesn't do.
If they admit they were wrong about the trashcan mainly in the thermal constraint how the hell they end up in the same situation with the mBP in 2018? The answer: they did not learn from their mistake.
Obviously haven't looked through the archive. The user you are quoting was 'bitter' about the 2009-2010 Mac Pro models even before the 2013 iteration even showed up at all. Basically over a decade of why the other mainstream workstation model(s) are better than anything on the Mac side.
As long as the feature list on the mainstream workstation side has some substantive elements that are outside of the intersection that the "Mac Pro class' presents then probably will still get bitterness. As long as Apple is not primarily trying to build a system targeted at Windows there will be stuff outside the intersection.
Not wrong in total. Apple has said little to indicate that there were not going to make something the was Macintosh first. There is a huge gap between the central design premise of starting the design from commodity parts out to a whole system and designing in from a system to whatever parts are appropriate. The first would be along the lines of starting from a set of GPU cards and a motherboard type and wrapping the system around those. The other could start from some performance goal guidelines and work down to how to fill those.
HP makes more than just hardware, but they have far more of a "Make everything for everybody" approach. Apple isn't out to make "everything for everybody". However, on the subset of stuff that Apple does make it is fair to compare to where they overlap. Apple is going to have entries that "stretch" over more categories on the "shotgun spray the whole side of the barn" approach, but some of those will overlap with that 'spray'.
What is lame is to drag them too far outside the zone they are more precisely aimed at. Somewhere between the Z4 , Z6, Z8 series is where Apple is likely to land. They aren't going to fit well with the upper zone of the z8 or the lower zone of the Z4.
[doublepost=1553528122][/doublepost]
The thermal "mistake" they talked about on the Mac Pro 2013 was not about having a fixed "lower" limit, but in that the GPU thermals were unbalanced to the CPU ones on the same shared thermal core.
The MBP doesn't have the same singular thermal core. There is some sharing thermal management across CPU and GPU but there is a fan for each ( on the MBP 15" ... which is primarily the thermal issue).
There some commonality in how the thermal issues did not show up in stress testing before product launch is a mystery. The firmware settings on the MBP CPUs set to "draw any amount of power no matter how high" was sloppy. But it was a firmware "run inside this zone" fix that was core issue with MP 2013 model.
Not directly, but they do offer Enterprise-level support via a partnership with IBM.
Through another partnership with IBM they are doing this, as well, though the focus is more via iOS (iPad) than macOS (since vertical market is moving from laptops to tablets in more and more cases).
Last edited:
First, the basis of why the last of the cMP was a disappointment was because of a relevant lack of hardware updates back in that time period, with an example being that SATA3 (ratified 2008) was never implemented.
Such as the above example.
I'm going to have to disagree, because this is a design decision choice on the part of the tcMP. Specifically, the cMP design included greater independence between thermal load sources whereas the tcMP introduced a greater interdependency. That's why the tcMP choked when an imbalance was present much more so than the cMP.
TL;DR: the cMP was designed to accommodate thermal imbalance; the tcMP was not so designed.
I think that the intended context here is that in the context of a "Pro" machine, any product design which allows mere thermal constraints to "ever" slow it down borders on questionable from a design standpoint.
Now this "ever" is a bit of hyperbola, as this really is a gradient on probabilities on when thermally based throttling kicks in for particular workflows, which depends on what use cases are adversely affected and what percentage of the time, to what degree. However for all of them and in the context of the arguably more demanding 'Pro' context, these instances should be exceedingly rare across the board...far more rare than the frequency at which they're been popping up on Apple products.
I don't want to be overdramatic but i know i will sound like it: judging by todays event, its really telling of what Apple has become, when we did not get any update before or after the trashcan everyone blamed Apples focus on consumer products like the iPad and iPhone, today, they pivoted or expanded into focusing on global politics.
So, i doubt Apple even wants to make a new Mac Pro, they promised one but then what? I can't find a single evidence of Apple wants to be in the pro or even prosumer market, they lack interest in that marked, there is no high ranking person at Apple that shows any passion for the market that the Mac Pro would exist in.
So maybe they give us one because "we" begged them to, but who at Apple will spearhead the team who develop the Mac Pro? Phil Schiller? (god save ut all if thats the case).
Apple has shown it passionate about:
Consumers
Services
Politics
So why will Apple even bother with a Mac Pro, there is no passion for it at Apple, maybe we get another one as promised but their passion surely will not grow, the opposite, the 7,1, imo will be the very last Mac Pro
So, i doubt Apple even wants to make a new Mac Pro, they promised one but then what? I can't find a single evidence of Apple wants to be in the pro or even prosumer market, they lack interest in that marked, there is no high ranking person at Apple that shows any passion for the market that the Mac Pro would exist in.
So maybe they give us one because "we" begged them to, but who at Apple will spearhead the team who develop the Mac Pro? Phil Schiller? (god save ut all if thats the case).
Apple has shown it passionate about:
Consumers
Services
Politics
So why will Apple even bother with a Mac Pro, there is no passion for it at Apple, maybe we get another one as promised but their passion surely will not grow, the opposite, the 7,1, imo will be the very last Mac Pro
I have to wonder what percentage of all those new "TV+" shows that Apple just announced today are going to be produced in FCP and how many of them are going to be produced on non-macOS machines.