100% agree. This is why any possible new Mac Pro is taking so long - it was never being developed in the first place until the “thermal corner” press junket. The Mac Pro was EOL. 6 years and counting...
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
I believe that is part of it, but I think it is also being driven by the feedback the "Pro Workflow Team" is receiving from the customers they are working with Apple to develop the new Mac Pro which is then being sent to the engineers to incorporate into the Mac Pro design.
Last edited:
There has never been a more widely anticipated product than this next generation MP. And the ironic thing is - it was never part Tim Cook's mythical pipeline
That's overselling it a great deal. It's the lowest volume Apple computer in the entire lineup. No one really cares at this point and anyone serious have moved on from Apple since 2013.
I'm a bit afraid The_Interloper could be right, although Apple rarely cancels major products after they've discussed them publicly - there's a difference between a charging pad and a workstation. If we neither see nor hear of any progress by WWDC, I'll be really afraid that The_Interloper is right.
If Apple were really just offering an iMac Pro in a desktop or tower case, why is that taking so long? I agree that it would be 10-20% faster than the iMac Pro with the same CPU and GPU because of fewer power and cooling restrictions (assuming Apple offers a beefy power supply and excellent cooling, rather than a Mini/Cube/Trashcan type design). They might get another 10-20% on some applications by offering the Radeon VII instead of the Vega Pro 64X as the top GPU. They should have been able to get that machine out within a couple of months of the iMac Pro (minus the top GPU options) - it could literally be the same motherboard.
A two year delay suggests something else - and their comments on performance suggest that it's more than a minor bump by removing power constraints from iMac Pro parts.
Would people be happy or disappointed by a Mac Pro that offered the following?
Here's where it's like an iMac Pro:
The same CPUs and GPUs as an iMac Pro (with a Radeon VII available as a +$300 upgrade from the 64X).
No underclocking - sufficient power and cooling that the CPUs and GPUs perform to spec (but no overclocking).
The same price as an iMac Pro of identical specification (the bigger power supply, different case and an additional Apple Tax to keep margins high with easily expandable RAM and storage make up for the screen).
Here's the expansion:
8 RAM slots, 2 banks of 4, ECC, easily accessible.
2 accessible NVMe SSD slots in addition to a soldered boot SSD.
1 accessible X4 PCIe slot - no GPUs - it's an X4 slot with 75 watts of power.
I proprietary connector for an additional Apple GPU Module (AMD only) - you can also remove and replace the stock Apple GPU Module .
6 TB3 (3 buses)
2 10 GBe
No other ports
By my very rough count of PCIe lanes, it works (if there are dual GPUs, either the chipset adds more lanes than it's connected to or the GPUs are both x8). This is 48 lanes without any used by the chipset (but some of that I/O will come off the chipset, replacing what it takes). It needs about 500 watts for the Xeon W-2195 and a Radeon VII, so 750 should cover the whole system (1050 if dual Radeon VIIs are possible).
More expandable than your basic iMac Pro, no NVidia and feasible. Does it appeal? It seems too similar to the iMac Pro to have taken this long. This doesn't live up to what Apple's been saying, but it's close to what folks here are predicting?
My guess would be something similar to this, but +$1000-$2000, maybe some clever modular design that allows more choices, and with the next step up in CPUs (which also means that there are very high-end CPU options - this only allows iMac Pro CPU performance) - but maybe I'm wrong, and it'll be this similar to an iMac Pro?
If Apple were really just offering an iMac Pro in a desktop or tower case, why is that taking so long? I agree that it would be 10-20% faster than the iMac Pro with the same CPU and GPU because of fewer power and cooling restrictions (assuming Apple offers a beefy power supply and excellent cooling, rather than a Mini/Cube/Trashcan type design). They might get another 10-20% on some applications by offering the Radeon VII instead of the Vega Pro 64X as the top GPU. They should have been able to get that machine out within a couple of months of the iMac Pro (minus the top GPU options) - it could literally be the same motherboard.
A two year delay suggests something else - and their comments on performance suggest that it's more than a minor bump by removing power constraints from iMac Pro parts.
Would people be happy or disappointed by a Mac Pro that offered the following?
Here's where it's like an iMac Pro:
The same CPUs and GPUs as an iMac Pro (with a Radeon VII available as a +$300 upgrade from the 64X).
No underclocking - sufficient power and cooling that the CPUs and GPUs perform to spec (but no overclocking).
The same price as an iMac Pro of identical specification (the bigger power supply, different case and an additional Apple Tax to keep margins high with easily expandable RAM and storage make up for the screen).
Here's the expansion:
8 RAM slots, 2 banks of 4, ECC, easily accessible.
2 accessible NVMe SSD slots in addition to a soldered boot SSD.
1 accessible X4 PCIe slot - no GPUs - it's an X4 slot with 75 watts of power.
I proprietary connector for an additional Apple GPU Module (AMD only) - you can also remove and replace the stock Apple GPU Module .
6 TB3 (3 buses)
2 10 GBe
No other ports
By my very rough count of PCIe lanes, it works (if there are dual GPUs, either the chipset adds more lanes than it's connected to or the GPUs are both x8). This is 48 lanes without any used by the chipset (but some of that I/O will come off the chipset, replacing what it takes). It needs about 500 watts for the Xeon W-2195 and a Radeon VII, so 750 should cover the whole system (1050 if dual Radeon VIIs are possible).
More expandable than your basic iMac Pro, no NVidia and feasible. Does it appeal? It seems too similar to the iMac Pro to have taken this long. This doesn't live up to what Apple's been saying, but it's close to what folks here are predicting?
My guess would be something similar to this, but +$1000-$2000, maybe some clever modular design that allows more choices, and with the next step up in CPUs (which also means that there are very high-end CPU options - this only allows iMac Pro CPU performance) - but maybe I'm wrong, and it'll be this similar to an iMac Pro?
It stands to reason that customers who are part of the Pro Workflow Team are using the components of a 2019 Mac Pro (hidden in an engineering mule) and have been for some time because their input is being fed back to the engineering teams designing the final product. And the Mac Pro is using off-the-shelf products in a standard configuration - a different proposition that AirPower which was something never before tried (at Apple's planned scale, if not period).
The Mac Pro might be using similar components to the iMac Pro, but the packaging is totally different. It will not share the same motherboard as the iMac Pro as the latter is designed around the packaging and cooling restrictions of the smaller case.
The iMac Pro was literally a "one-size fits all" answer and the Mac Pro will be more customizable and scalable. Logic Pro X customers have different compute needs then Final Cut Pro X customers and the Mac Pro will surely be designed so that it can be optimized for either application via BTO/CTO options whereas the iMP had to straddle both.
I expect the delay is designing that dual-optimization into the system and the feedback loop the PWT is generating - customers asks PWT for "X", PWT talks to engineering and "Mac Pro X" is designed and customers work with it. They then offer "Y" feedback to PWT, who talk to engineering who modify design into "Mac Pro Y" and customers work with that to get "Z" feedback.
Eventually Apple has to draw a line in the sand and commit to a design and I expect they did so late last year or earlier this year. So now it's down to final certification (FCC, UL, etc.) and validating the production chain before starting production ramp to announce at WWDC and ship thereafter.
If it was a question of not "taking so long", Apple would have reverted to a cheese grater with greatly improved internals including Thunderbolt support and released it 5 years ago. But clearly that was never their consideration.
The reason they are bothering with a new Mac Pro is, above all, getting the most influential users/buyers genuinely excited and that enough good publicity would come out of it to ensure that people who never would buy a Mac Pro are happy to be buying their iPhones and MacBooks.
In the last year or so, few things have shifted for me; the need for GPU has grown, multi-GPUs start to be desirable and NVidia RTX is seemingly gaining a lot of popularity.
Meaning, good luck to me getting a Mac Pro that would be worth its likely high price.
Sheit, seems like that’s the end of it for me unless those guys pull some miracles. iMac seems surprisingly good, though, so lowering expectations might work instead.
Meaning, good luck to me getting a Mac Pro that would be worth its likely high price.
Sheit, seems like that’s the end of it for me unless those guys pull some miracles. iMac seems surprisingly good, though, so lowering expectations might work instead.
How much is an iMac “Pro” again?
The trash can started at $3,000 and it was crippled from the beginning.
Drop to 16 cores & 64gb of Ram and you are around $3500 or so.
Given the Mac Mini and iMac Pro have them, Type A ports seem like they’re sticking around along with the mini jack.
The Mac Pro wasn’t crippled at $3K and any limitations were there regardless of price.
The only reason the 2013 MacPro was crippled was due to thermal constraints. Same case for the iMac Pro.
One would expect any "Tower Case " type of Mac Pro to not have those constraints.
One would expect any "Tower Case " type of Mac Pro to not have those constraints.
You don't consider the whole GPU situation on the trashcan, crippling ?
It was crippled due to heat problems like I said.
In my opinion the only reason the trash can was made was because Apple wants to control all services related to their products. They must cripple them to do this.
It’s pretty obvious just look at all of Apples devices . The self service is almost totally gone from any of the products they make
Last edited:
I'd consider the 'proprietary form factor' crippling.
You are suggesting that the 'heat problems' were intentional then ?
Your statements are inconsistent with other. I think its safer to assume the 'form crippling' was intentional, the 'heat crippling' was not.
I can not see how you derive 'service control' from an intentional low thermal ceiling.
I can see how you can derive 'service control' from a non-standard form factor.
Maybe I need another cup of coffee this morning.
Perhaps man.
It’s pretty simple .
Apple wants almost complete control of the servicing of their devices and they do that by crippling them.
With the 2009 Mac Pro they did it even though it was affecting the thermals of the device.
You can’t really believe a staff of hardware engineers didn’t know about obvious thermal problems with a new design of computer ?
I don’t believe for a second they didn’t know about it.
I see now.
So when the recent lappy toppy ( mb or mbp ? ) was released and everyone was making fun of the thermal throttling on it and shoving it into their fridges, this was somehow an intentional TDP choice engineering that was beneficial to Apple being able to extract additional value through servicing. So.. I guess Apple was selling the fridges here?
And when they did assign the resources to come out with a fix for it, they somehow begrudgingly gave up some of their leverage in the service monopoly gambit... Or maybe Harry Tuttle was able to demonstrate guerilla repair of the Apple fridges and so Apple needed to save face and quietly discontinue the fridge and the lappy toppy's reliance on it as Apple Accessory™ cooling solution.
I mean certainly you can't really believe a staff of hardware engineers didn't know about obvious thermal problems with a new design of lappy toppy[sic].
Nope, the data's in the cloud too, pulled in from a few sources, and the machines there have much much faster pipes to it than my actual office does. We do have some on prem machines, but not for that kind of work; data processing is handled in the cloud.
You mean to say that the value is mostly gone from the products that Apple makes. The cMP has incredible value, it can run all sorts of hardware that didn't exist when it was first made like NVMe SSDs, USB 3.1 cards, 14gb hard drives, more powerful CPUs, more powerful GPUs, blu-ray burners, 10Gb email adapters and more. Hopefully the Mac Pro 7,1 will provide better value than the trashcan did.
HP Updates the Z6 & Z8 (again) with new Xeons and Optane.
*looks at watch, then calendar, then last year's calendar, then the year before's calendar* - ahh there's the promise of the "upcoming" new machine.
"Real artists ship" - you know who.
I liked this bit from the article you linked
HP also announced that it's partnering with AVID, RED Digital Cinema and NVIDIA to optimize productivity for creatives.
Both of the new HP Workstations are available now, with the Z6 G4 starting at $2,372 and the Z8 G4 starting at $2,981.
Over to you Apple.
Last edited:
Yeah, I figured pointing out that HP can connect with Pro vendors to optimise their solutions, AND release new workstations... well at some point it’s like kicking puppies to point out how “all talk, no walk” Apple are.
