MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)

[juanm]

So basically. Most people here aren't really in the industry that requires powerful systems like this new MacPro.

Just a bunch of nerds geeking out over technology.

Otherwise you wouldn't think $5999 is too much for this system.

That's not the point. See my previous post. The consumer/prosumer/individual creative profesional used to have a computer perfect for them in the 2.5K/3K range. Now the barebones is over twice that price, with a $200 GPU. The real substance will be in the 10K-15K range.

Basically, we complain because we wanted a product that Apple used to offer, and discontinued, and instead they have launched a new one with the same name, but a completely different target. I used to work on a 50K-60K workstation, and Apple didn't offer anything in that range, so I didn't compare the then Powermac G4 to that computer. Now, this Mac Pro is filling the niche of the high end workstation, but still leaves the aforementioned categories without a viable option, so I don't compare them. Sure, other vendors have similar pricing (my own Lenovo PC was about the price of this Mac Pro) but they also offer alternatives at a lower price, which Apple still doesn't (and doesn't seem to want to go back to).
[doublepost=1559715613][/doublepost]

I understand freelance pros find the price a little too steep, but as is often the case, you get what you pay for

It has a two year old $180-200 GPU. You do NOT get what you pay for (and yes, I know similar systems from other vendors also offer crappy low end components with a "pro" moniker).

 

[Larvas]

That's not the point. See my previous post. The consumer/prosumer/individual creative profesional used to have a computer perfect for them in the 2.5K/3K range. Now the barebones is over twice that price, with a $200 GPU. The real substance will be in the 10K-15K range.

Basically, we complain because we wanted a product that Apple used to offer, and discontinued, and instead they have launched a new one with the same name, but a completely different target.

Wouldn't the new iMac Pro (ok, not the one which is currently out) fill in that spot? It offers a display + workstation hardware. Sure, you can't upgrade it, but it does fill the spot...

 

[filmak]

Every professional has to calculate his expenses and check the offered upgrade paths to see if they deserve it and they are ok with his income and balance.

This time Apple went from the one side to the opposite one, from a 2.500 - 3.500 almost sealed Mac Pro to a fully upgradeable one, but at double the cost. With 3.500 one could buy a 6 core system with dual GPUs (FirePros they said) and larger SSD. (I'm not saying that this was a successful project for Apple, we all know the shortcomings of the tcMP, but It was the only Pro headless system offered).

Now you can buy an extraordinary package, a better one, expandable and beautiful, but at 6.000 you are just getting 8 cores, 256 SSD and one oldie GPU.
Is this good enough? I really do not know and I want to see some benchmarks for a clearer decision, before placing a blind order (even if I like it a lot).
It needs for sure more storage, GPU power and I can't decide if it also needs a better CPU.

The complains are because of the sudden high pricing (not saying that it is not deserving it, at least as a project), the entry price for this kind of Macs used to be a lot lower for at least the last 15 years. So it is not a matter of someone being a nerd or a geek, or whatever naming you like, it's a simple observation for anyone who can think.

After all these, I have to say that I'm really happy for the unexpected presentation of such a nice system and I believe that the prices will come down at some point, perhaps at the next update, so everybody will be happy.

Till then, patience, Fall is coming.

 

[juanm]

Wouldn't the new iMac Pro (ok, not the one which is currently out) fill in that spot? It offers a display + workstation hardware. Sure, you can't upgrade it, but it does fill the spot...

Exactly, you can't upgrade it. And yes, you can add a slew of eGPUs, which is at best an expensive patch. But that's not what consumers wanted, clearly. I remember it was impossible to go into any studio (sound, graphics, video, photography, you name it) and not see a LOT of Mac Pros. I can count on one hand how many Trashcan Mac Pros I've seen in the wild. Same goes for iMac Pros, they are nowhere as ubiquitous as the Mac Pro used to be up to 5,1. Ask yourself why.

Let me quote this from eoshd.com:
"Of course in the Netflix content production world where $50,000 for a camera is a necessity and when money is simply no object for mission critical professional tools, the new 6K display and Mac Pro presumably do their job.
That least me to ask the question – what will they edit on?
Surely not Final Cut Pro X which is a $200 piece of consumer software?
iMovie perhaps?!
And since Davinci Resolve, Avid, Premiere and more are all cross-platform, wouldn’t even a large business look very closely at the cost/benefit of PC rigs vs all-new Mac Pro?"

If you target "pros" –whatever it is that Apple thinks they are– you can expect them to look at ROI, and for Resolve for instance, a 6K Mac Pro won't cut it because it has a lame GPU, so you'll have to put up about $8K or so to get one that's not three years old and $150 by the time the Mac Pro launches (quite literally).
For $8K, a "pro" who wants to use Resolve, would look at the numbers, and realise that Resolve will work much better for much less money on Windows.

Sure, there certainly is a small market for what Apple just announced, but it's basically a modern version of the SGI IRIX computers from the mid to late nineties that were for high end media only. If their plan is to sell only one or two to each high end studios, sure, and a dozen to the odd specialised company, maybe it'll work, but there aren't many of those.

 

[Mago]

Imho apple needs to reinstall the trashcan, but not as a Mac pro, but as bare Mac, with non hedt i7/i9 a and a single Vega 48/64 GPU, the trashcan still has it's merits.

 

[deconstruct60]

At least Cascade Lake W processors Apple will use in this machine have 64 PCIe lanes, albeit only version 3. Up from 48 PCIe lanes on Skylake W.

It isn't really version three. In Intel's server/workstation naming scheme the first number if "Product SKU". ( In the Core i series the first 1-2 numbers is generation. that is different. The "generation" is the second digit.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor-numbers-data-center.html

So the W-32xx , it is the '2' that is the version/generation. Intel may later do some 22xx updates depending upon how long the Icelake updates will drag on into 2020. They have somewhat skipped the 10 , 14 , and 18 counts. They'd have to dramatically lower the prices ( as in the Ryzen 3000 range ), Which they probably don't want to do if they can spin up the next generation without hiccup.


What seems to be the "left turn' that Intel is taking is that they appear to be dropping the lower "Product SKU" (basically the smaller socket) due to competition from Threadripper.

".. Both the Skylake and Cascade Lake dies had the x16 lane root complex available on-die. Until now Intel reserved those lanes for the on-package Omni-Path Host Fabric Interface (HFI) integration. With those parts, Intel has decided to expose those lanes to the platform bringing the total PCIe count to 4×16 for a total of 64 lanes. It’s worth pointing out that with x64 PCIe lanes, those processors are Intel’s highest I/O parts. The move is designed to improve the competitiveness of those parts against AMD Threadripper which have 60 PCIe lanes available. "
https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/2400/intel-rolls-out-cascade-lake-xeon-w-processors/

So they have pulled some reserved for OmniPath lanes that were already and make them generally because they can't make the core count move up (no shrink of an already almost max size die ) or the clock speed increase (without taking a hit on TDP). So they have caving a bit on price in some spots in the line up , cranking up the TDP ( which TR isn't leading on yet anyway) , and dumping OmniPath in this context (never was primarily aimed at workstation context anyway. Hopefully the PCH Omnipath component can claw back a little TDP by putting it to sleep or turning off. )

That additional x16 isn't 100% 'free' in terms of bandwidth. The DMI link is riding on that controller too.



P.S.. a decent chance the iMac Pro is stuck for a while ( unless Apple changes "horses" on next iteration).

 

[Kpjoslee]

That was back when the Mac was their sole bread and butter, and before the portable gadgets made them a trillion dollar company.



I disagree. It'd be more like market share siphoned off from the Windows PC portion of the marketplace.
Easy money for Apple. Whether you're talking about an HP machine with an Apple operating system inside, or a completely Apple designed machine, built mostly to normal PC configuration standards. Apple could still make a profit. They could simply copy the material list of their entire line of iMacs, and put virtually identical parts inside a normal (user accessible) PC case, but without including the display screen.
Put the ~$200 Apple Tax on each machine, and be very profitable, selling to Windows converts.

Oh, I am not against that idea, but I am not interested in hoping for something that will probably never happen. It seems like it would be easy money for Apple but it would cause more cannibalization of their own sales more than getting supplementary incomes from their clones. Desktop market size is about half of its peak years more than a decade ago, and will keep on declining. What is the point of chasing that market now? Apple isn't even interested in chasing after windows marketshare.

 

[deconstruct60]

Imho apple needs to reinstall the trashcan, but not as a Mac pro, but as bare Mac, with non hedt i7/i9 a and a single Vega 48/64 GPU, the trashcan still has it's merits.

There is way toooo much overlap between the 'trashcan' and the iMac Pro. The top of the HEDT line up that is on socket 2066 is just as stuck at the W-22xx roll out. Most likely it will be some "Comet Lake" variant in a subset of the non 2066 socket part of the set up that plays a roll. And perhaps a another 'hot rod' 3647 version with crazy high TDP.

It doesn't look like there will be an XCC ( >28) die for IceLake so Intel needs to get the HCC out the door so maybe can use something like 2066 to move forward while finish digging out of the hole they dug.
[doublepost=1559721167][/doublepost]

Inflation is not a thing on the tech sector, deflation is.

The cost of chip fabrication facilities certainly is going up. The number of players in the game are dropping because the "cost to play" is raising. It isn't all 'down'. That's a dated maxim.

Exascale SuperComputers is another area costs aren't going down.

If sitting in some workload area that is matched to the improvement still available things are close to the decline stage. But if in area where starting to bump up with physics constraints and/or the scale is extreme ( ultra small or ultra big ) things are getting tougher.

 

[Peace]

Inflation is not a thing on the tech sector, deflation is.

not true.

20 years ago i paid about 2999 for a good gateway computer. top of the line.
2 years ago i paid about 2999 for a good custom built system. top of the line.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Imho apple needs to reinstall the trashcan, but not as a Mac pro, but as bare Mac, with non hedt i7/i9 a and a single Vega 48/64 GPU, the trashcan still has it's merits.

I keep having this fantasy where nMP (can we call it that anymore?) - 6,1 is still in production. You'd see them everywhere, sitting unobtrusively in an alcove, quietly connected to and monitoring everything in that space.

I have a real soft spot for that machine. Maybe the modding community will do something with that beautiful shell.

If only they weren't beholden to the shareholders - we could have Xserve, Mac Pro, a cut down tower that's just the Mac, the cylinder, and all the rest.

One can dream. Hey, we just got Mac Pro and Xserve back.

 

[barmann]

So basically. Most people here aren't really in the industry that requires powerful systems like this new MacPro.

Just a bunch of nerds geeking out over technology.

Otherwise you wouldn't think $5999 is too much for this system.

Sure, why not make it 6999 then ?
What's a few k less or more for industry pros ? Don't mean nothing

Granted, you have a point , a few thousand here and there in hardware costs don't mean the world for a professional individual or company that is making a decent profit .

However - and I can only speak for myself - I'd prefer to have more money in my pocket at the end of the fiscal year over having it spent on a possibly overpriced product .


Apart from that, a few very basic numbers . This is based on Germany, it varies depending on where you live .
The prices of the MP will also be adjusted to local economies , so the numbers only serve as an example .


- New MP , base config., €6000

- VAT 20% (19% actually, but let's keep it simple) - €1200

- misc. : migration hardware cost for cables, internal brackets, external enclosures, hubs etc . , let's say a conservative €800 , plus VAT €160

---> total €8160

_____________


If you are a professional/company, turning a good profit :

- €8160 for one base configuration MP and parts

- VAT refund , minus €1200

- tax deduction , for expenses/investments ( on €6800 w/o VAT ), let's assume a 20% tax rate : minus €1360

---> total €5600




If you are a professional/company, startup, having a bad year, making investments - not making any profit :

- €8160 for one base configuration MP and parts

- VAT refund , minus €1200

- tax deduction , for expenses/investments ( on €6800 w/o VAT ), 0% tax rate : minus €0

---> total €6960




If you are an amateur, student, other non professional :

- €8160 for one base configuration MP and parts

- VAT refund , minus €0

- tax deduction : minus €0

---> total €8160



_______________

This is an extremely simplified calculation, but can you see how the entry price might have quite an impact on the adaption of the new Mac Pro ?

You can always argue one could get a cheaper Mini or iMac, but if your work/hobby/studies/business startup require a powerful and modular computer now , Apple doesn't make it easy for you to choose a Mac .
[doublepost=1559732800][/doublepost]

Wouldn't the new iMac Pro (ok, not the one which is currently out) fill in that spot? It offers a display + workstation hardware. Sure, you can't upgrade it, but it does fill the spot...

iMacs work for many people .
But when an iMac doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you at all .
It's a unique and peculiar design, while a tower is not .

 

[fuchsdh]

Inflation is not a thing on the tech sector, deflation is.

Not really the point, but I’d argue with that premise either way (consumer tech =/= Pro tech, which continues to get more expensive when it’s more specialized.) And anyhow, $6K *is* way less than $19K, so your argument is?

The point is people are comparing the price of the previous Mac Pro when the previous Mac Pro was a completely different product. I get being upset that Apple doesn’t make that midrange tower workstation anymore, but the price difference is explained by its dramatically boosted capabilities. You pay for what you get.

 

[wallysb01]

The cost of chip fabrication facilities certainly is going up. The number of players in the game are dropping because the "cost to play" is raising. It isn't all 'down'. That's a dated maxim.

Exascale SuperComputers is another area costs aren't going down.

If sitting in some workload area that is matched to the improvement still available things are close to the decline stage. But if in area where starting to bump up with physics constraints and/or the scale is extreme ( ultra small or ultra big ) things are getting tougher.

Sure, there are aspects of building a computer that have more tradition cost appreciation due to inflationary policy, energy costs, labor costs, etc. However, the efficiency/power gains even now that YoY improvements by chip makers has slowed, is still WAY above even tinfoil hatters estimates of inflation. Thus, what you get for you money keeps improving, which equates to deflation.

not true.

20 years ago i paid about 2999 for a good gateway computer. top of the line.
2 years ago i paid about 2999 for a good custom built system. top of the line.

Exactly! So 20 years ago you paid about $4600 in 2019 dollars for a drastically worse machine. That's deflation.

 

[fuchsdh]

I keep having this fantasy where nMP (can we call it that anymore?) - 6,1 is still in production. You'd see them everywhere, sitting unobtrusively in an alcove, quietly connected to and monitoring everything in that space.

I have a real soft spot for that machine. Maybe the modding community will do something with that beautiful shell.

If only they weren't beholden to the shareholders - we could have Xserve, Mac Pro, a cut down tower that's just the Mac, the cylinder, and all the rest.

One can dream. Hey, we just got Mac Pro and Xserve back.

The shareholders aren’t really the problem there—it’s that Apple simply doesn’t have the bandwidth to produce six desktop computers for what are far less than 40% of its Mac sales at this point. They should be working on simplifying their lineups more than complicating them, and they still have to demonstrate that they’ve fully gotten back to reasonable update schedules on the lines they have.

 

[wallysb01]

Not really the point, but I’d argue with that premise either way (consumer tech =/= Pro tech, which continues to get more expensive when it’s more specialized.) And anyhow, $6K *is* way less than $19K, so your argument is?

$6K today for a way better computer than what you got for $19K in 2019 dollars is deflation. That's not really an argument, its a fact. What stems from that though, is that comparing computers across time requires adjustment for prices relative to performance from that era. Otherwise, you'd end up comparing workstations from 8 years ago with laptops and a small external HDD array. Or rather, just don't do it. Comparisons across time are just not useful. We are debating if buying a 2009 Mac Pro was a better deal than buying a 2019 Mac Pro. That argument is fruitless. What is useful is to know if buying a 2019 Mac Pro, relative to other options today, is the right path for you and your workflow.

The point is people are comparing the price of the previous Mac Pro when the previous Mac Pro was a completely different product. I get being upset that Apple doesn’t make that midrange tower workstation anymore, but the price difference is explained by its dramatically boosted capabilities. You pay for what you get.

I'm with you until the second half there. The price difference, I think, isn't really explained by the difference in capabilities. Capabilities were always going to be higher, its like a 10 year difference after all. And while, yes, you always kind of get what you pay for, I think the problem here is that the high entry point comes with a lot of capabilities even relatively high end "pro" users don't need and are thus paying extra. 12 DIMM slots, great. But honestly, if you don't plan to put > 96GB, even 192, of RAM in there, its doing nothing for you. 6x16 is cheaper than 12x8. 6x32 is pretty much a push with 12x16 even. It takes a monster work flow to have that pay off. Same with the GPU issue. You're paying for 4 slots, the PSU to handle it, the case around it. So if you populate only 1 or 2, you're paying for stuff you don't need. And a duel GPU, 192GB computer, with what ever CPU option, is a beast! And that's probably the break even configuration of utilizing what you're paying for.
[doublepost=1559740142][/doublepost]

The shareholders aren’t really the problem there—it’s that Apple simply doesn’t have the bandwidth to produce six desktop computers for what are far less than 40% of its Mac sales at this point. They should be working on simplifying their lineups more than complicating them, and they still have to demonstrate that they’ve fully gotten back to reasonable update schedules on the lines they have.

On that last point. Updating the iMac Pro with the availability of Cascade Lake CPUs, and thus availability of the Mac Pro, will go a long way to helping show Apple is committed to timely updates of the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro. It will also give folks in the $3-5K price range something current to buy, even if they aren't in love with AIO form factors.

 

[barmann]

Not really the point, but I’d argue with that premise either way (consumer tech =/= Pro tech, which continues to get more expensive when it’s more specialized.) And anyhow, $6K *is* way less than $19K, so your argument is?

The new MP isn't specialized though .
Which is a good thing .
But the 6k base MP is not even midrange these days .
Once you add a bit of CPU, GPU, RAM and storage upgrade to make it midrange, you look at a very different price point .

The point is people are comparing the price of the previous Mac Pro when the previous Mac Pro was a completely different product. I get being upset that Apple doesn’t make that midrange tower workstation anymore, but the price difference is explained by its dramatically boosted capabilities. You pay for what you get.

The new MP ( do we have an official abbreviation yet ? ) is a different product compared to the cMP, but not completely different .
I don't think the tcMP should be mentioned in that respect ; it was a dud from day 1 .

Compared to the cMP, we now have a stronger PSU - and that's about it , for all we know .
Considering the cMP was introduced in 2006, a few improvements and innovations here and there, a little more RAM and faster storage , all that is to be expected and doesn't justify a price hike that great . If any .

I think the MP pricing is 99% based on marketing strategy .

 

[fuchsdh]

On that last point. Updating the iMac Pro with the availability of Cascade Lake CPUs, and thus availability of the Mac Pro, will go a long way to helping show Apple is committed to timely updates of the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro. It will also give folks in the $3-5K price range something current to buy, even if they aren't in love with AIO form factors.

Yeah I presume they’ll update the iMac Pro at the same time this fall and benefit from the people buying it who can’t justify the Mac Pro.

There’s also whether they update the mini this fall as well. If they don’t they’re going to go right back to undoing all the positive steps they’ve been taking the past 12-18 months.

 

[Zdigital2015]

$6K today for a way better computer than what you got for $19K in 2019 dollars is deflation. That's not really an argument, its a fact. What stems from that though, is that comparing computers across time requires adjustment for prices relative to performance from that era. Otherwise, you'd end up comparing workstations from 8 years ago with laptops and a small external HDD array. Or rather, just don't do it. Comparisons across time are just not useful. We are debating if buying a 2009 Mac Pro was a better deal than buying a 2019 Mac Pro. That argument is fruitless. What is useful is to know if buying a 2019 Mac Pro, relative to other options today, is the right path for you and your workflow.



I'm with you until the second half there. The price difference, I think, isn't really explained by the difference in capabilities. Capabilities were always going to be higher, its like a 10 year difference after all. And while, yes, you always kind of get what you pay for, I think the problem here is that the high entry point comes with a lot of capabilities even relatively high end "pro" users don't need and are thus paying extra. 12 DIMM slots, great. But honestly, if you don't plan to put > 96GB, even 192, of RAM in there, its doing nothing for you. 6x16 is cheaper than 12x8. 6x32 is pretty much a push with 12x16 even. It takes a monster work flow to have that pay off. Same with the GPU issue. You're paying for 4 slots, the PSU to handle it, the case around it. So if you populate only 1 or 2, you're paying for stuff you don't need. And a duel GPU, 192GB computer, with what ever CPU option, is a beast! And that's probably the break even configuration of utilizing what you're paying for.
[doublepost=1559740142][/doublepost]

On that last point. Updating the iMac Pro with the availability of Cascade Lake CPUs, and thus availability of the Mac Pro, will go a long way to helping show Apple is committed to timely updates of the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro. It will also give folks in the $3-5K price range something current to buy, even if they aren't in love with AIO form factors.

It will be a completely redesigned iMac Pro that uses the Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR industrial design language before we see a Cascade Lake Xeon W update. Every CPU in the Xeon W-32xx range has a higher overall TDP, but the 16 and 24 core versions (W-3245, W-3265) both have a 205w TDP which the current iMac Pro chassis, even with its dual fan thermal system, will not be able to dissipate, especially with an upgrade Vega II onboard, which will probably be the only GPU option. Given those constraints and the move from LGA-2066 to the LGA-3467, which is going to mean a completely new motherboard and power system to support that socket.

I think we are looking at least another 18-24 months before we see a new iMac Pro, which I suspect will incorporate a 6K display of some sort as a differentiator from the iMac 5K. Once Apple has recouped some of the R&D costs for the XDR display, I can see it going into a revised, even more Pro iMac Pro, probably at a higher price entry point as well, possibly starting at $5999, which Apple will tell us is breakthrough pricing because it uses the XDR display.

The iMac will get the same industrial design and a more capable 5K display (HDR/XDR/HLG), but not quite as good, along with the T2 upgrade and a move to all flash storage.

 

[wallysb01]

The new MP isn't specialized though .
Which is a good thing .
But the 6k base MP is not even midrange these days .
Once you add a bit of CPU, GPU, RAM and storage upgrade to make it midrange, you look at a very different price point .



The new MP ( do we have an official abbreviation yet ? ) is a different product compared to the cMP, but not completely different .
I don't think the tcMP should be mentioned in that respect ; it was a dud from day 1 .

Compared to the cMP, we now have a stronger PSU - and that's about it , for all we know .
Considering the cMP was introduced in 2006, a few improvements and innovations here and there, a little more RAM and faster storage , all that is to be expected and doesn't justify a price hike that great . If any .

I think the MP pricing is 99% based on marketing strategy .

Right, I think we have compare the SP cMP config to the ncMP(new cheesgrater MP, or new classic MP?) and adjust for time. cMP had 4 DIMMs, when the number of channels was 3 (correct?), now the number of channels is 6, but we can have filled the max 2 DIMMs per channel. So it was channels + 1 then, 2x channels now. Thats an improvement as the equivalent would have been 6 DIMMs but it was 4 then. Then the GPUs. We had a possibility of 2 then, now we have 4. 4 GPU workstations then was extremely rare, and even 2 was a bit fringe. I'm going to put this in a similar segment of the DIMMs, better, but highly impacted as we should probably have expected at least 3 by now.

So, over all, yeah, it went up some, but IMHO, not enough to justify about 2x price tag in an environment where the same money should get you A LOT MORE after ~7-8 years...
[doublepost=1559742684][/doublepost]

Yeah I presume they’ll update the iMac Pro at the same time this fall and benefit from the people buying it who can’t justify the Mac Pro.

There’s also whether they update the mini this fall as well. If they don’t they’re going to go right back to undoing all the positive steps they’ve been taking the past 12-18 months.

Yes, the mini is a good point. That should have been updated with the iMacs, but I'm not exactly surprised it wasn't. They need to fix that ASAP.
[doublepost=1559743220][/doublepost]

It will be a completely redesigned iMac Pro that uses the Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR industrial design language before we see a Cascade Lake Xeon W update. Every CPU in the Xeon W-32xx range has a higher overall TDP, but the 16 and 24 core versions (W-3245, W-3265) both have a 205w TDP which the current iMac Pro chassis, even with its dual fan thermal system, will not be able to dissipate, especially with an upgrade Vega II onboard, which will probably be the only GPU option. Given those constraints and the move from LGA-2066 to the LGA-3467, which is going to mean a completely new motherboard and power system to support that socket.

I think we are looking at least another 18-24 months before we see a new iMac Pro, which I suspect will incorporate a 6K display of some sort as a differentiator from the iMac 5K. Once Apple has recouped some of the R&D costs for the XDR display, I can see it going into a revised, even more Pro iMac Pro, probably at a higher price entry point as well, possibly starting at $5999, which Apple will tell us is breakthrough pricing because it uses the XDR display.

The iMac will get the same industrial design and a more capable 5K display (HDR/XDR/HLG), but not quite as good, along with the T2 upgrade and a move to all flash storage.

I really hope you're wrong. I mean, yes, they need to redesign some aspects to cool off these higher Wattage processors, but they do not need that new display in there. OMG, that would make this thing just silly expensive, like $8K or something.

And as far as the iMac becoming the Mac Pro + XDR in an AIO package, that wouldn't be awful sometime in the future, but Apple needs to not wait for that. The price, as mentioned above would be an issue independent of anything else and it would need non-XDR display options to fix that, I think. But for now, Apple really could use some sort of option in the $3K-6K gap they have created. 12-18 months to fill that gap is way, way too long.

 

[fuchsdh]

Right, I think we have compare the SP cMP config to the ncMP(new cheesgrater MP, or new classic MP?) and adjust for time. cMP had 4 DIMMs, when the number of channels was 3 (correct?), now the number of channels is 6, but we can have filled the max 2 DIMMs per channel. So it was channels + 1 then, 2x channels now. Thats an improvement as the equivalent would have been 6 DIMMs but it was 4 then. Then the GPUs. We had a possibility of 2 then, now we have 4. 4 GPU workstations then was extremely rare, and even 2 was a bit fringe. I'm going to put this in a similar segment of the DIMMs, better, but highly impacted as we should probably have expected at least 3 by now.

So, over all, yeah, it went up some, but IMHO, not enough to justify about 2x price tag in an environment where the same money should get you A LOT MORE after ~7-8 years...
[doublepost=1559742684][/doublepost]

Yes, the mini is a good point. That should have been updated with the iMacs, but I'm not exactly surprised it wasn't. They need to fix that ASAP.
[doublepost=1559743220][/doublepost]

I really hope you're wrong. I mean, yes, they need to redesign some aspects to cool off these higher Wattage processors, but they do not need that new display in there. OMG, that would make this thing just silly expensive, like $8K or something.

And as far as the iMac becoming the Mac Pro + XDR in an AIO package, that wouldn't be awful sometime in the future, but Apple needs to not wait for that. The price, as mentioned above would be an issue independent of anything else and it would need non-XDR display options to fix that, I think. But for now, Apple really could use some sort of option in the $3K-6K gap they have created. 12-18 months to fill that gap is way, way too long.

The iMac Pro already uses downclocked variants of some of its processors. It’s not inconceivable they could swing them in the same chassis (especially if the Mac Pro means they leave the super-high core SKUs to that model. In 2018 the iMac Pro was the only pro offering, it’s not under the same pressure now, especially as they’ve said the Mac Pro is the machine for running turbo all the time.)

To me it seems like it would make more sense for them to redesign the chassis in a way that, like with the current model, they’re mostly sharing production/tooling similarities with the iMac.

 

[askunk]

Given the MP is out of my reach (I was ready to spend up to 4.500/4.600$ for a 1TB SSD base model with at least a Vega 56), I will have to move towards an iMP and resign all hopes to fix it on my own in case of a broken component or upgrade its RAM or GPU with time (let alone the CPU)...

The problem is that the iMP now has been ageing for about two years. It follows an 11 years old design, albeit it has a better cooling, that belongs to the iMac, which is very likely to be the last, reducing even further the used value of the machines (iMac and iMP) if I wanted to engage in a shorter computer turnover for my studio.

I know it's still a powerful computer, but I have to confess that it would feel strange to buy a two years old computer after having waited for the MP for years.

Apple will surely update the case for the next iteration. I don't think they will go (unless they do two models) for the 32" XDR screen, it would make the machine far too expensive and kill even more the Prosumer market.

Very likely, they will upgrade the iMP before the iMac. It would be strange to have a consumer machine with a better design than a much more expensive Pro Mac. Therefore, I would expect Apple to update the iMP with new CPUs and perhaps a 7nm Vega GPU 32GB option before the new iMac appeared.

The question is: what do you think the timeframe would be?

iMP in November 2019, along the MP? (a silent CPU upgrade with the same chassis or a redesigned one?)

redesigned iMP in January/February 2020?

redesigned iMac in March/June 2020?

 

[wallysb01]

The iMac Pro already uses downclocked variants of some of its processors. It’s not inconceivable they could swing them in the same chassis (especially if the Mac Pro means they leave the super-high core SKUs to that model. In 2018 the iMac Pro was the only pro offering, it’s not under the same pressure now, especially as they’ve said the Mac Pro is the machine for running turbo all the time.)

To me it seems like it would make more sense for them to redesign the chassis in a way that, like with the current model, they’re mostly sharing production/tooling similarities with the iMac.

Right, given that the iMac Pro can't even use the 140W regular 2145 and rather a custom, down-clocked versions (2145B), its obvious the iMac Pro can really only cool maybe 100-120W range. However, ALL of the Cascade Lake Ws are 160W and above. So, we'll get more threads, potentially, but clock rates can't budge and may even go down. We'll see if they do anything to improve the thermals, but the case has its limitations.

 

[filmak]

Right, given that the iMac Pro can't even use the 140W regular 2145 and rather a custom, down-clocked versions (2145B), its obvious the iMac Pro can really only cool maybe 100-120W range. However, ALL of the Cascade Lake Ws are 160W and above. So, we'll get more threads, potentially, but clock rates can't budge and may even go down. We'll see if they do anything to improve the thermals, but the case has its limitations.

They may redesign the back side of the iMacPro like the new cheesegrater style of the 7,1 MacPro and the new display and solve the throttling and overheating problems. This would work for the iMac too.

 

[fuchsdh]

Right, given that the iMac Pro can't even use the 140W regular 2145 and rather a custom, down-clocked versions (2145B), its obvious the iMac Pro can really only cool maybe 100-120W range. However, ALL of the Cascade Lake Ws are 160W and above. So, we'll get more threads, potentially, but clock rates can't budge and may even go down. We'll see if they do anything to improve the thermals, but the case has its limitations.

I guess the question is whether they’d move the iMac Pro to a new chassis after just two years or try and ride it out (the flip side of this is they can’t swap the iMac line until they’re willing to eat the cost of moving to flash storage that they’ve been weirdly reticent to do. So if part of the appeal for Apple is reusing shells than that might be a bigger consideration.)

One thing that I think is clear from the Mac Pro is that they felt the burn from the “thermal corner” and seem to have planned for the potential of hotter chips in the future so as not to hose their update work. It’d make a certain amount of sense for Apple to apply the same thoughts to their iMP lineup—build something that can handle these chips and something a little hotter so Intel’s issues or a hot AMD architecture don’t force excessive compromises.

They may redesign the back side of the iMacPro like the new cheesegrater style of the 7,1 MacPro and the new display and solve the throttling and overheating problems. This would work for the iMac too.

It’s hard for me to imagine them expanding the rather brutal functional design to more products at this point, but who knows...

 

[danwells]

I'm guessing we're looking at one more set of pro hardware late this year (October/November)...

New iMac Pro (I would have confidently said using the new 32" monitor until the monitor came out at $5000 alone). Maybe they'll still manage to do it somehow - and here's a possibility.

The 27" 5K display had an absurdly high retail value when the first 27" iMacs came out - as I recall, Dell or someone had the only monitor of similar specs, and it sold for more than the iMac. Apple was selling the Thunderbolt display for $999 when there were $1799 iMacs that incorporated the same display (before the Retina iMac).

Apple often takes a low margin on the internal display in an iMac, at least at first - as the display sits around for years, it becomes cheaper to manufacture. The standalone XDR display probably has a very high margin, since it's competing in a low-volume/high-margin market. Maybe, with those factors, Apple can squeeze the XDR display or a version of it into a ~$6000 iMac Pro by the fall.

Apple targets a 40% margin, which gives them $3600 to spend on parts for a $6000 iMac Pro. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual cost to Apple of an XDR display panel is around $2000 (they're probably making 50% on the low-volume display, and they need $500 or so to house and power the display).

That gives them only $1600 to spend on parts for the rest of the iMac Pro, which isn't enough - BUT they have two pieces of wiggle room - one is that they've proven that they are willing to take low or no margin on the display in an iMac at first. That means that they subtract the $2000 display first, then need to make 40% on the other $4000. That gives them $2400 for the rest of the computer.

The second bit of wiggle room is the Apple Tax - very few people buy an iMac Pro without upgrading RAM or storage (on which Apple makes much more than a 40% margin). If the average iMac Pro buyer spends $1500 on overpriced RAM and storage, and Apple makes 60% on the RAM and storage (2TB drive and 64 GB of RAM is $1000, while 128 GB of RAM alone is $2000), they have $300 of "extra" margin to play with in the difference between 40% and 60% on the upgrades. They're now left with $2700 in parts plus the display to build an iMac Pro, which they can do. This assumes that CPU and GPU upgrades are sold at Apple's customary 40% markup - if they're overpriced as well, Apple may gain another bit this way.

The second piece of pro hardware I'm expecting/hoping for is the 16"+ MacBook Pro Ming-Chi Kuo has been predicting. The only way we get that this year is as an extra model added to the top of the line - they won't replace the 15" so soon after speed-bumping it, but they could (and often do) add a model above the 15", which will "trickle down" and replace the 15".

If we see the first 16" in October/November as a high-end model, by the May speedbump next year, the 16" will replace all but a $2299 15" (which might linger another year). A ~14" of similar design will appear within a year of the first 16". This was how they introduced the Retina MBP - an extra model not long after a speed bump, then bringing the new machine across the line gradually over a year or so.

The first 16" MBP will probably carry a very high starting price, but generous standard equipment. The Retina MBP was $2799 for the faster model, which used the same processor as a $2199 Unibody MBP. However, the Retina model came with a 512 GB SSD instead of a hard drive, an expensive upgrade at the time. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the 16" MBP start at $3299 or more, but come with a terabyte of storage, 32 GB of RAM or both standard.