I suspect, Apple’s interpretation of expandability will still be thunderbolt. Yes, it might be able to accomodate memory, M.2 and graphics upgrades, but I think they want Pro’s to still choose external devices for added performance. I just hope they look at the workflow of who will buy this machine and include components in that they want like even an SD card reader.
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
So, further thoughts on the design, it’s pretty much gonna be a taller and wider Mac Mini, think 4 Mac Mini’a stacked to the height of a current 2013 Mac Pro.
Oh gosh, I can’t believe we haven’t seen this all along. Apple is choosing this for several reasons.
- Takes up less space, less material to build
- easier and cheaper to manufacturer and ship more on a single flight. I don’t think Apple will be manufacturing these in the US.
- It will look just as good as a Home Pod in the Apple Store, not intimidating, but inviting enough for even someone with deep pockets who will buy it because it looks nice too and pickup a 32 inch 6k display or 2 to go with it.
- Apple always has a history about even building portability into all its products. Even the cheese grater has handles. I think the new Mac Pro might have a depressed handle that will make moving it from location to the next easier but also removing shell easier with one hand.
I personally have been looking at my computing needs and I have been considering if another MacBook Pro would be my choice. But i’m thinking since I work from home most of the time, this would probably be the right choice for me. But I am not gonna be the first guinea pig, will likely wait until the second gen or still go Mac Mini or still a MacBook Pro.
Oh gosh, I can’t believe we haven’t seen this all along. Apple is choosing this for several reasons.
- Takes up less space, less material to build
- easier and cheaper to manufacturer and ship more on a single flight. I don’t think Apple will be manufacturing these in the US.
- It will look just as good as a Home Pod in the Apple Store, not intimidating, but inviting enough for even someone with deep pockets who will buy it because it looks nice too and pickup a 32 inch 6k display or 2 to go with it.
- Apple always has a history about even building portability into all its products. Even the cheese grater has handles. I think the new Mac Pro might have a depressed handle that will make moving it from location to the next easier but also removing shell easier with one hand.
I personally have been looking at my computing needs and I have been considering if another MacBook Pro would be my choice. But i’m thinking since I work from home most of the time, this would probably be the right choice for me. But I am not gonna be the first guinea pig, will likely wait until the second gen or still go Mac Mini or still a MacBook Pro.
You're close, but I think it will be something like this, a hexagon form factor, with options for updates, additional modules and a unique opportunity for a snarky nickname.
Presented for your consideration with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Remember you saw it here first.
Last edited:
Are you referring to a hexagon from a perspective? If so, I agree with you, but I think the boxy design is something Jony Ive doesn’t like. But I think we are now getting a better understanding of where they are going.You're close, but I think it will be something like this, a hexagon form factor, with options for updates, additional modules and a unique opportunity for a snarky nickname.
Presented for your consideration with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Remember you saw it here first.
It's not going to resemble a Mac Mini. Why make the flagship look like a bloated version of the entry level machine?
It will be striking and individual like the last one, but a bit bigger.
It's not going to be a conventional tower, or they would have released it by now.
It will be striking and individual like the last one, but a bit bigger.
It's not going to be a conventional tower, or they would have released it by now.
It may not be what we all want it to be, but we know it's going to be powerful, otherwise what's the point? The iMacPro is beast as it is, or at least it was when it came out, thermals aside. Top spec iMac is pretty powerful now too. Even the new MacMini is pretty dope. We can be assured the MacPro will be made to one up the iMacPro. Apple's been on a better trend with hardware lately, the updates on the MacBookPros are clear indication of that, expecially if they update them again soon like expected.
It's going to have powerful processor options. Possibly dual socket?
At least a 128GB RAM option or more, 256?
At least one fast PCIe SSD Boot drive, hopefully at least two physical SSDs.
Same IO as the iMacPro or more...4 Thunderbolt 3, 4 USB-A, 10gbe (x2?)
GPU options? Probably at least two? Not sure if standard PCIe. AMD only?
One or two free PCIe slots? Here's hoping.
Oh...and it will come in Space Gray.
It's going to have powerful processor options. Possibly dual socket?
At least a 128GB RAM option or more, 256?
At least one fast PCIe SSD Boot drive, hopefully at least two physical SSDs.
Same IO as the iMacPro or more...4 Thunderbolt 3, 4 USB-A, 10gbe (x2?)
GPU options? Probably at least two? Not sure if standard PCIe. AMD only?
One or two free PCIe slots? Here's hoping.
Oh...and it will come in Space Gray.
They're only going to have one in a store, they can fit it somewhere no matter its form
Federighi stated clearly that the dual option had given space to the single, more powerful GPU. I hope they will give us at least a slot for an additional one, though.
I believe if apple actually got feedback from pro users (as they claimed as the reason for a such blatant delay) the mMP should be closer to the cheese grater design than my lived but flawed trash can.
What I don't see is apple enabling STD PCIE GPUs, maybe they will offer a custom or semi custom GPU form factor just to keep away commodity parts and cheap diy upgrades (but enable expensive apple-blessed diy upgrades), while may include few x8 or x16 PCIE slots but unable to install any GPU.
Days ago I wrote about a rumour/ leak that talks about a mMP being much like a cheese grater turned 90degress to keep vertical airflow, I consider it much more plausible than the stacked mac-mini like mMP or the NeXT cube reborn, let's see, I'm ready to be disappointed again.
What I don't see is apple enabling STD PCIE GPUs, maybe they will offer a custom or semi custom GPU form factor just to keep away commodity parts and cheap diy upgrades (but enable expensive apple-blessed diy upgrades), while may include few x8 or x16 PCIE slots but unable to install any GPU.
Days ago I wrote about a rumour/ leak that talks about a mMP being much like a cheese grater turned 90degress to keep vertical airflow, I consider it much more plausible than the stacked mac-mini like mMP or the NeXT cube reborn, let's see, I'm ready to be disappointed again.
Don't expect dual socket anymore, both Intel and AMD enforce single socket workstation, with 32 cores as option, very few people actually need a 2P system
GPU may come STD or custom form factor, user base want STD PCIE Apple design track suggest they will implement something proprietary here or at least offuscate diy upgrades as much they can.
And likely as only bto but nVidia may comeback according latest rumours but not this year.
Free STD PCIE slots are needed for some hardware like FPGAs Tpu special capture cards, we may see one as much, more than one only if shared with 2nd GPU (Assuming STD GPUs)
https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-xeon-cascade-lake-w-3000-series-specs,news-60589.html
Are these potential candidates?
Are these potential candidates?
Well...it seems as though Cascade Lake W-Series specs have leaked. I have been waiting for this to leak for a while, as I am sure have others.
If the rumors are true and the Cascade Lake W’s have moved to LGA-3467, then I think this is probably the CPU that Apple will end up using in the new the Mac Pro, at least the base models with a single CPU “brain”. This would mirrors the strategy Apple used with the 2010 Mac Pro having the 1S Westmere/Bloomfield in one tray and having the 2S Gulftown in a distinctly separate tray.
This means the next iteration of the iMac Pro moves to LGA-3647 as well, but means that Apple may need custom variants with a lower TDP, if the 160w-205w TDP holds true.
This also means that Apple could also offer Xeon SP CPUs in 2S or 4S, depending on what their research told them customers really wanted.
It fixes the disconnect I had because I could not see Apple engineering a new iMac Pro with LGA-2066 CPUs and putting LGA-3467 CPUs in the Mac Pro because that engineering effort would not be sufficiently economical in management’s view. Intel moving the Cascade Lake Xeon W-Series to LGA 3467 certainly solves that issue neatly enough.
Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-xeon-cascade-lake-w-3000-series-specs,39278.html
Source: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/PC_Shopping/M.1551697214.A.81D.html
If the rumors are true and the Cascade Lake W’s have moved to LGA-3467, then I think this is probably the CPU that Apple will end up using in the new the Mac Pro, at least the base models with a single CPU “brain”. This would mirrors the strategy Apple used with the 2010 Mac Pro having the 1S Westmere/Bloomfield in one tray and having the 2S Gulftown in a distinctly separate tray.
This means the next iteration of the iMac Pro moves to LGA-3647 as well, but means that Apple may need custom variants with a lower TDP, if the 160w-205w TDP holds true.
This also means that Apple could also offer Xeon SP CPUs in 2S or 4S, depending on what their research told them customers really wanted.
It fixes the disconnect I had because I could not see Apple engineering a new iMac Pro with LGA-2066 CPUs and putting LGA-3467 CPUs in the Mac Pro because that engineering effort would not be sufficiently economical in management’s view. Intel moving the Cascade Lake Xeon W-Series to LGA 3467 certainly solves that issue neatly enough.
Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-xeon-cascade-lake-w-3000-series-specs,39278.html
Source: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/PC_Shopping/M.1551697214.A.81D.html
That's some hefty TDP jumps on most of the line, although at least in the iMac Pro I guess they'd be shifting down from their previous models since they'd get more cores at comparatively lower TDPs versus trying to use the successor chips to their last ones (which were still custom for Apple, so who knows.) I wonder if there's going to be any 6-core parts this revision? Not sure Apple would want to put it in a machine when there are 6c Mac minis, but a relatively low entry price for a bare-bones Mac Pro model is still useful for people who want flexibility in BTO. Also hope that means we get six DIMMs.
Q3 release suggests we'd get a Aug–Oct revision.
We know the iMac Pro has thermal headroom, but the top-end 3000 series are almost 50% higher in TDP than the 2000 series.
If Apple continues to pursue low-noise, I wonder how deeply these will need to be under-clocked.I had the same disconnect and agree this does address it, if inelegantly (IMO).
That being said, there have been rumors that some W-Series (Cascade Lake-X) will be based on Basin Falls and still be on LGA-2066 with a Computex announcement.
Intel's current W series are a mix of LGA-2066 (8 to 18 cores) and LGA-3467 (28 cores) so I could see Intel continuing with that going forward, allowing the iMac Pro to stay on Cascade Lake-X and the Mac Pro being on Cascade Lake. Yes, that adds production and SKU complexity, but the Mac Pro should have the extra thermal overhead to cool the hotter Cascade Lake Xeons while still being quiet.
LGA-3467 FTW. If they can keep it cool and reasonably quiet it seems like the best option that would fit the timetable, TDP and cost envelopes.
Using LGA 3647 in the Mac Pro while sticking with LGA-2066 in the iMac Pro makes a ton of sense - there's a reason to stay with the LGA-2066 socket in the iMac Pro (the LGA-3647 socket is huge, as are the Epyc and Threadripper sockets). It's probably a little hard to fit a 3500-pin plus socket in a slender all-in-one, but fine for a Mac Pro.
If Intel (or even AMD) sticks to current practice, there will be a core limit to anything that fits in a smaller socket. Right now, both Intel and AMD are limited to 8 cores on the consumer socket, Intel will go to 18 cores on the LGA-2066 midrange socket, while AMD goes to 32 with "similar" chips (but the Threadripper socket is closer in size to LGA-3647). The big socket buys 28 cores (Intel) or 32 (AMD). AMD is expected to release 16-core consumer Ryzens and 64 core EPYC jumbo-socket chips soon.
Apple doesn't want the Mac Pro facing the same core limits as the iMac Pro, so they'll use two different sockets.
Seeing what's coming out, though I'm increasingly sure we're looking at a single-processor machine in all configurations. Intel has released an increasingly full line of single-processor variants on Xeon-SP (big socket, 6-channel RAM, although called Cascade Lake-W), but what they haven't done is released dual-processor Xeon-SPs (except at the low end). Without paying big bucks for 4 or 8 processor capable Xeons, the highest core count available in a dual-processor capable chip is 12 (at a relatively low clock speed). Almost all workstation users are better off with a single 24 or 28 core chip, or even a single, faster 16-core, than with two slow 12-cores.
HP has released workstations that go up to dual 28-core, but they've done it by accepting the huge price jumps for 8-processor capable Xeon Platinums ($10,000, where the same chip is about $3500 in a single-processor version, and the single-processor version is actually clocked slightly higher). If Apple wanted to do dual-socket Mac Pros, they'd have to do the same thing, and they'd probably be $50,000 computers in any reasonable configuration (dual-processor Z8s are in that range).
Nobody has made 4 or 8 processor workstations in a very long time - those are server designs. No Mac with more than two CPUs has ever been sold - well, that depends on your definition of "Mac"... DayStar released a couple of obscure quad-processor Mac clones in 1997 (they scared Steve Jobs enough that they were a big part of the reason he shut down the cloners)...
If Intel (or even AMD) sticks to current practice, there will be a core limit to anything that fits in a smaller socket. Right now, both Intel and AMD are limited to 8 cores on the consumer socket, Intel will go to 18 cores on the LGA-2066 midrange socket, while AMD goes to 32 with "similar" chips (but the Threadripper socket is closer in size to LGA-3647). The big socket buys 28 cores (Intel) or 32 (AMD). AMD is expected to release 16-core consumer Ryzens and 64 core EPYC jumbo-socket chips soon.
Apple doesn't want the Mac Pro facing the same core limits as the iMac Pro, so they'll use two different sockets.
Seeing what's coming out, though I'm increasingly sure we're looking at a single-processor machine in all configurations. Intel has released an increasingly full line of single-processor variants on Xeon-SP (big socket, 6-channel RAM, although called Cascade Lake-W), but what they haven't done is released dual-processor Xeon-SPs (except at the low end). Without paying big bucks for 4 or 8 processor capable Xeons, the highest core count available in a dual-processor capable chip is 12 (at a relatively low clock speed). Almost all workstation users are better off with a single 24 or 28 core chip, or even a single, faster 16-core, than with two slow 12-cores.
HP has released workstations that go up to dual 28-core, but they've done it by accepting the huge price jumps for 8-processor capable Xeon Platinums ($10,000, where the same chip is about $3500 in a single-processor version, and the single-processor version is actually clocked slightly higher). If Apple wanted to do dual-socket Mac Pros, they'd have to do the same thing, and they'd probably be $50,000 computers in any reasonable configuration (dual-processor Z8s are in that range).
Nobody has made 4 or 8 processor workstations in a very long time - those are server designs. No Mac with more than two CPUs has ever been sold - well, that depends on your definition of "Mac"... DayStar released a couple of obscure quad-processor Mac clones in 1997 (they scared Steve Jobs enough that they were a big part of the reason he shut down the cloners)...
It would be nice to have a GPU choice between simple Vega/Navi, possibly NVidia, but also some Fire Pro WXXXX.
Should Apple opt for a proprietary daughter card, I doubt we will have much of a choice. I don't see Apple re-engineering each different architecture to produce just a few thousand units.
Should Apple opt for a proprietary daughter card, I doubt we will have much of a choice. I don't see Apple re-engineering each different architecture to produce just a few thousand units.
Unless Apple is actually ready to release the Kraken (ARM/A-Chips), then the 3647 socket would seem right on target. Why?
Does anyone expect them to come out with a large, power hungry bomber capable of properly supporting a dual proc system? I sure don't. I think a single socket architecture that allows for a base model whose price won't blow away the lower tier of their potential market and has the guts to support high margin BTOs is their sweet spot.
Does anyone expect them to come out with a large, power hungry bomber capable of properly supporting a dual proc system? I sure don't. I think a single socket architecture that allows for a base model whose price won't blow away the lower tier of their potential market and has the guts to support high margin BTOs is their sweet spot.
I find myself in agreement with you, danwells. High-core count single CPUs should cover the significant majority of macOS use cases and anyone whose workloads/workflows benefitted from/needed dual-CPU left for Windows/Linux years ago.
So we have chatter about ARM, AMD, & Intel CPUs...
Chatter about AMD Vega / Navi GPUs, and bitter chatter about lack of modern Nvidia GPU support...
Chatter about stacking modular units, chatter about cubes with backplanes & daughtercards, chatter about cheesegraters stood on end...
Ridiculous chatter about hexagon-shaped enclosures, about side-by-side "brain boxes" & "expansion boxes" (yeah, we want more of a footprint on the desktop)...
I still would love to see my idea of an ARM cluster, but if it has to be a x64 CPU, then I would hope Apple goes for Threadripper 3 over the Intel Xeons...
That is all (for now)...
Chatter about AMD Vega / Navi GPUs, and bitter chatter about lack of modern Nvidia GPU support...
Chatter about stacking modular units, chatter about cubes with backplanes & daughtercards, chatter about cheesegraters stood on end...
Ridiculous chatter about hexagon-shaped enclosures, about side-by-side "brain boxes" & "expansion boxes" (yeah, we want more of a footprint on the desktop)...
I still would love to see my idea of an ARM cluster, but if it has to be a x64 CPU, then I would hope Apple goes for Threadripper 3 over the Intel Xeons...
That is all (for now)...
There would be no point in offering Radeon Pro or FirePro as the drivers in MacOS don't distinguish between "gaming" and workstation cards.