At the end, we will own HP computers and Apple TVs and phones.
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
As of now, there will most likely be a 6.2 .
And if Google isn't available in your area, I'm sure Twitter will be enough to serve all your needs .
I was exaggerating the false equivalence the other poster was going with.
"Through another partnership with IBM, IBM are now doing this." Is typically how that relationship works.
I still doubt that even IBPPLE has the product offerings / support options in this market equivalent to Dell/HPE
If Apple put current tech into a 5.1, that 7.1 would be more current than any Mac before .
Keep in mind, Apple don't surf, they just follow behind .
In case of the Mac, users are held hostage by OSX; the hardware used to be a secondary concern until the tcMP and the touchbar MBPs came out , and OSX releases went haywire .
Now the MP and MBP need to become a viable option again, so does OSX .
Alas, much like Apple, HP of today is not like HP of yore. My 1987 Vectra RS/25 was a marvel of engineering. My 2007 xw-Series workstation was not (even if it was far more capable).
Maybe it's Stockholm (Cupertino?) Syndrome, but I willingly stay with macOS.
Last edited:
First, the notion that Apple is "pivot" is largely a huge farce. It isn't a pivot. They are looking for more additive business but they are not changing direction. Nor it is particularly an expansion into global politics. Apple TV+ has a theme to it, but it is also very much appears to be going to be a entirely optional thing. It isn't going to try to be a carbon copy of one of the other channels they stream.
What Apple is doing is betting 'large' on new business ventures more so than much older ones. Large budgets, looser supervision , body counts , etc. at new areas. While more closer scrutiny , fixed body counts and good enough budgets for older area ( more older , more tighter. )
Second, doing metrics of what Apple cares about primarily via placement in these Cirque du Soleil extravaganzas is more an exercise in narcism than objective observation. There was no 'hardware' in the show today primary because it was too fracking long as it was. Another 30-40 mins would have been ridiculous. No hardware in a show (which wasn't the theme ) so Apple has completely abandoned the area .... smacks more of sibling rivalry than deep insights into Apple's strategy.
the devices matter. Oprah basically said so. If Apple TV+ wasn't going to roll out on a billion devices then she wouldn't be as motivated. Apple will have to keep the device count up for everything they talked about today to 'stick'.
Apple moved the Mini into the Prosumer or minimally more "pro" space. It isn't volume raw numbers they are chasing there. The iMac with a Vega48 is probably chasing those who don't have iMac Pro budgets. iMac Pro is obviously a move. Apple has made moves to make more systems cover more of the historical territory that the Mac Pro covered when they were the only Mac with a desktop (or better) processor option.
But those aren't exactly what some folks want in a "pro" Mac systems, but what some want isn't the whole pro space.
It probably isn't a "we begged'. More likely it is more so a defensive move. Lengthy response more so driven by relatively small size of the market. Spearheading probably isn't as much of an issue as getting a "green light" approval to go at all. Most likely it has been on pause.
They appear to have made a very big deal about not tracking your usage data. I personally don't really get this. Commercial free TV is one thing, but a few ads while browsing around stuff is pretty easy to ignore.
You got basically everything wrong, don't really see the point you are trying to make by creating a false scenario or assumption about what was being said, i said A, you made heaps of mental gymnastics to create C and then went on a comment spree about C and nothing in C was said in my original post so.
Don't quote people if you gonna make false claims about what was being said in the OP, at that point you might just as well write your own standalone comment.
Fully agree, I see it at their printers/mfp too, on the positive side they still have powerful, upgradable and this year's hardware, with regular updates and options.
Of course no MacOS, this is the sad part...
1. The cards in the iMac Pro are not SSDs. They are basically NAND cards with no real SSD controller on them. The iMac Pro has two cards probably primarily for three reason.
a. to scale to get to the 4TB. Each one of those cards only hold 4 NAND chips. In 2016-17 there wasn't a way to get to 4TB with just 4 chips. So they needed more. Which either means a bigger card or splitting them up. Apple went the "split them up" route.
b. Being on cards probably helps with serviceability problems downstream. Failure/replace of 4TB soldered to the board would get very expensive very fast both for Apple (in year one) and for customers later.
c. They could possibly do some Scrooge McDuck at the lower end. Where 8 chips to do 512GB or 1TB actually should allow them either to get some trailing edge NAND density at lower prices or do some substantive over provision to expand drive lifetime.
More so comes down to they don't want to have to write the firmware to deal with it while keeping the same level of security. Fusions is a software construction. The primary need to getting it to work is going to involve constructing software.
Those cuts were made to SSDs configs that the vast majority of folks don't buy. At the top end they brought their prices from Earth orbit down to the stratosphere. It is something, but it is hard to call it progress. It does about jack spit to get folks off of HDDs at normal pricing levels.
Apple could have put a Vega 56 or Vega 64 in the 2019 iMac but they didn't want to cannibalize iMac Pro sales. Instead Apple kept the same RX Pro 560/570/580 options from the 2017 iMac and added a Vega 48 BTO option as they could without interfering with the iMac Pro. In other words the 2019 iMac GPU got knee-capped in the name of market segmentation.
A) MacBook Pros are portables, not desktops, and B) they didn't end up in the same situation with the MBPs.
*Looks over at the massive number of (free) updates FCPX and Logic have gotten over the past five years, gestures wildly*
Complain that Apple's abandoned all the "pros" all you want, but to say that about prosumer markets is laughable.
I'll consider switching to Windows 10 full time when they figure out how to do something like not make me pull out the command prompt to troubleshoot why a first-party application through their own store won't update.
Which I think gets to the heart of it—I might have more flexible and the fastest possible hardware options on the PC side, but if I'm spending more time being miserable troubleshooting it I'm not really saving much time or money.
Most, if not all, the OEMs do that.
Also, the iMac GPU for knee-capped because the "thermal budget" for the iMac is lower than the iMac Pro.
[doublepost=1553569787][/doublepost]
I firmly believe it is because Intel screwed the pooch on their process shrinks and therefore screwed every OEM who designed their future systems around Intel's Product Roadmaps because Intel has had to run each generation of CPU harder and hotter to get performance gains out of them due to being stuck on 14nm for years longer than planned.
We have plenty of Dells and Lenovos with i7s and dGPUs that are as thin as our MacBook Pros and they run their fans like hair-dryers, as well, to dissipate all that unplanned heat. Heck, even the workstation-class machines that are an inch thick can crank their fans hard. The MBPs at least have the benefit of aluminum cases that dissipate heat much better than the plastic and carbon-fibre of the PC OEMs.
Last edited:
I agree. Also, Intel didn't release thunderbolt 3 (which they promised), i guess to keep the advantage.
None of that helps me if I need a Vega 64 or GTX 2080 which is why the iMac is not for me among other reasons. Only the Mac Pro will do and the trashcan does not count either. It has been 10 years since Apple released a real Mac Pro, that is too long.
I remember Apple was doing this sort of thing at least since the early nineties
They introduced every single accessory, every notebook (ok ok, the MB is missing, perhaps they're waiting to put an ARM chip inside it or - more sarcastically - they are waiting a few months more before sticking an 8th gen, two years old chip, and present it as the best notebook ever done), every desktop, every f/%&$& headphone, service, sticker, video, tshirt and even resumed project Titan.
Apple, next time you open your mouth, I expect it to be for the mMP.
Apple, next time you open your mouth, I expect it to be for the mMP.
Errr? There millions of systems shipping with Thunderbolt v3 in them. Have been for a couple of years now. The current Mac Pro doesn't have it only because it is caught in a Rip van Winkle slumber for the last 6+ years. ( and the MacBook because Apple iterated one step too small on the case).
If trying to talk about "open licensing" Thunderbolt in general. That's is also done.
https://www.macrumors.com/2019/03/04/usb4-converges-usb-and-thunderbolt-3/
USB4 isn't shipping in systems this year, but as far as the "opening" process goes that is pragmatically done. At least Intel's responsibility for that. The delay on implementation of other controllers is on the other implementors at this point.
If trying to talk about Intel weaving Thunderbolt v3 support into the PCH chipsets. That part did get entangled with the process shrink delay. Those newer PCH chipsets were targeted at 14nm process which is completely clogged with CPU work still. It is also likely that is substantially overblown in most threads on this and other forums. There will probably be a discrete PHYS chip to go along with it. It would just be incrementally cheaper and a large fraction "already paid for" in the PCH price. As long as the main computer host TB controller is being tracked toward PCH incorporation it will give Intel and later AMD a leg up.
Most of the "open" grumbling though is far more so about TB peripherals and cheaper, specifically design implementations for specific peripherals. (and much looser rules/controls about implementation .... which basically get with USB governance. ). That is probably going to take over a year to uncork and Intel has little to do with that.
just what is needed TB over the X4 dmi link. mixed in with the pci-e based SSD.
NO WAY in a workstation system.
With zero changes to the enclosure like they did with the Vega48? No. Even the Vega48 is at the limits of that enclosure. The i9 in high core count, high clock more is going to blow way past the marked 95W TDP and much closer to the W's TDP mark. A high end i9 tasked with high workload coupled to a Vega64 (with about as high workload) would need the cooling system that the iMac Pro has; not the iMac's.
Could they have stuffed a new, highly scaled down, logic board into the iMac Pro, dumped HDD affordability from the iMac line up , dumped the RAM door from the iMac line up, and paired a Core i9 with a Vega64 . Sure, but that wouldn't be an iMac anymore.
They'd loose the folks who were RAM upgrade price sensitive.
They'd loose the folks who were any sanctioned user RAM upgrade sensitive.
They'd loose the folks who are $/GB price sensitive.
They'd loose all the T2 Luddites and some with specific bugs that problematical, but specific that are murky.
They'd loose some folks that are GPU price sensitive. ( Apple is highly likely getting the 48 at a significant discount. If AMD has collected binned rejects for 64/56 that worked in 48 for 10-12 months they can probably cover a decent percentage. Likewise keeping the 56/64 production wafer starts covered. )
**EDIT ** there is also a screen size bias. 21" versus 27" iMac pro doesn't offer a 21.5" solution. (those smaller screen are very much part of the iMac solution space. And the 21" also don't get all of the CPU selections either. )
The iMac's main role is to be more affordable than the iMac Pro; not to ramp its bill of material costs to match it. In the $5K and up price range they have already lost most of the more highly price sensitive users. Paying for RAM upfront and at Apple prices is less of any issue for some (not all, but a significant some). High performance work anyway so boot HDDs weren't an issue anyway. iMac Pro is "first generation" so Luddites wouldn't buy it anyway.
Apple needed iMacs at the price points they had held for the last couple of years. Going iMac Pro enclosure BOM would be a huge deviation from that.
There is a chance the 580X might be a 12nm redo of 580 (AMD is shipping those in desktop cards and it wouldn't be hard to under clock those). Although it was spun as a "top to bottom" replacement for Polaris , Vega never really fills that role all that well. Especially in the midrange.
The Pro 500's sitting in Apple's line up is probably more so due to AMD's choices over last couple of years and not Apple's. They are replacement coming, but AMD goofed and had to fix and retape-out Navi (the AMD targeted Polaris replacement). That has a bigger role than any market segmentation that Apple is artificially layering on top. That and likely Nvidia still butting heads in a feud with Apple over API support and "embrace , extend, extinguish" tactics. .
[doublepost=1553631965][/doublepost]
Chuckle. It is not trying to be a workstation targeted solution. Weaving into the PCH is a mainstream deployment system. A decent chunk of lower end Windows desktops and PCs come with HDDs ; not SSDs. Running Thunderbolt and a SATA stream with one HDD or an HDD+ODD is not a burden at all. SATA constrained SSD concurrent Thunderbolt ... not really a huge problem either on mainstream workloads.
90+% (if not over 99.5%) of all Thunderbolt deployments on non Apple systems is on the PCH. That is the standard reference host system design. Apple doesn't particularly use that configuration but it is (and has been for a very long time ) the reference design point.
This is about lower the cost to provision the port so that it is available on a much higher percentage of systems. More host systems will lead to more peripherals. More peripherals will probably lead to incrementally lower costs.
There was a bunch of largely hand waving that enabling add-in-card Thunderbolt ports on box-with-slots systems that don't come with Thunderbolt by default was going to greatly enable the Thunderbolt market. If Intel just enabled he Rube Goldberg solutions that Thunderbolt to rapidly take off and sky rocket in adoption. Phefff ... not. Intel enabled it and that did not happen.
Thunderbolt is being weaved into USB4. USB is not primarily targeted at Workstations at all. Neither was/is Thunderbolt. The percentage was higher at first but that never was the long term goal.
Last edited:
So do I, but I'm using it like it's a classic car right now .
As long it gets me from A to B , I enjoy the experience and keep using it , but won't upgrade (...) to a later model or engine until the manufacturer has something viable to offer in the field .
Macs are legacy hardware and OS to me at this point .
That is going too far. Apple put an i7-8700b in the Mac Mini and an i9-9700k in the iMac both of which are hardly "legacy hardware". Your real complaint is that the Mac Pro is legacy hardware, but that complaint will also be addressed Real Soon Now™. Mac Pro redemption is coming.
I like your positive view.
Hope that we won't get disappointed, even if we are used to do so lately.