Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The base machine we all think it should be (more storage, better graphics etc) will eventually come to be .... next time around on the next upgrade a few years from now.
Remember ... The base Trashcan was a horrible deal too in its day for what you got. 4 cores etc
 
Because one of the target markets for this system is as a digital audio workstation (DAW) and for pure DAW workloads the Vega 56 is relatively overkill and would only raise the base price higher still. ( Anyone who thinks Apple would have upgraded to Vega 56 and not upgraded the base price is smoking something. If the bill of material price went up Apple would increase the price. This system just have a big fat margin on them probably due to the relatively low run rate and there is no "tap dancing" around that by stuff higher priced parts into the entry system).

Another market is the cloud developer virtualize macOS instance business. Again. if some kind of iOS device integration testing workloads is Vega 56 going to make much of a big impact if there is no user locally connected to the machine?




SSD I think is in a very similar boat. Those with high end NAS/SAN set ups. All basically doing is booting the OS off the drive and 256GB is just fine for that. For the extra $700-800 to get to 1TB local SSD they could be well on their way to a dual 10GbE card or a 40GbE one.

Also quite likely that the Promise J2i and two 2.5" 500GB SATA SSDs (+ 2 adapter sleds) will be cheaper than $700-800 too. Even if needed more space for local apps there is a path that more than few will take. ( especially if already have a few 2.5" SSD sitting in much older Mac Pro sending into e-waste/recycling )

As long as Apple sticks to their far over market rate SSD pricing they push from entry customers not to have to pay for their 1TB drivers is going to be quite high. The are numerous SATA and PCI-e SSD options with the internal base provisioning that the new Mac Pro provides. So many internal level system folks will do just that. The folks largely spending other people's money will simply just go with the BTO option.


With both the video cards and SSDs more than likely Apple is looking for some of the folks coming off the older Mac Pro to move one (or both ) up as part of the stretch to get to justify $6K for the more constrained budgets. [ e.g., Folks who bought "Mojave " cards for older systems. Folks who have used 2+ SSDs on older system. Those folks will migrate hardware at the entry level system configuration to a more usable system. ]

Re graphics cards I'm guessing the 580X is the lowest graphics card that could still power the XDR 6K monitor? I think for audio they should've offered something passively cooled if possible... They should start with the 512GB RAM as a base IMO, 256Gb is way to low for this machine, maybe on a laptop it would make sense
 
Last edited:
Re graphics cards I'm guessing the 580X is the lowest graphics card that could still power the XDR 6K monitor? I think for audio they should've offered something passively cooled if possible... They should start with he 512GB as a base IMO, 256Gb is way to low for this machine, maybe on a laptop it would make sense

I believe all the MPX GPUs are passively cooled. Rather, they have no fans of their own, and are cooled by the airflow of the system fans.

That's why they have monster heat sinks on them.
 
I believe all the MPX GPUs are passively cooled. Rather, they have no fans of their own, and are cooled by the airflow of the system fans.

That's why they have monster heat sinks on them.

Amazing for a Quad GPU
 
Re graphics cards I'm guessing the 580X is the lowest graphics card that could still power the XDR 6K monitor?

That is probably not it. the base criteria is that it needs to be able to fill 6 DisplayPort streams. ( 2 each for the two standard Thunderbolt controllers and two outputs on the card itself. ). The nominal design for the general market 580 card was 5 ports ( can't clog up too much of the edge with ports ). Getting a frame buffer for 6 streams wouldn't be a big step from that. ( as opposed to cards further down the line where only 3-4 ports usually provisioned. )

The whole point is can't power the XDR 6k unless driving Thunderbolt ( as it is a Thunderbolt display).

The 580X enables there to be some ports for non Thunderbolt displays on the edge. Which is probably a much higher fraction of the entry level buyers ( which have existing displays to tap iinto or use a mainstream display which probably has HDMI as an option. )

Advanced color grading (with XDR display) using a 580X is highly likely not the core target market at the entry point range. More computational "horsepower" makes a substantive difference once layering lots of effects and adjustments.


I think for audio they should've offered something passively cooled if possible...

If not throwing 3D effects, driving some 6K-8K utlra color monitor , or doing much computation on the card then the 580X isn't probably isn't going to make that much noise. This is also a "half height" MPX module ( only double wide). This really isn't a module want to stress to its upper limits as the cooler isn't as big.


They should start with the 512GB RAM as a base IMO, 256Gb is way to low for this machine, maybe on a laptop it would make sense

Actually that is reversed. The Mac laptops only allow one drive. This system allows many internal drives. If there is DAW software that has a big capacity footprint it can go on its own drive. There is little reason why it has to go on the same drive as the OS. In fact, for the "princess and the pea" folks who want to throw money at minimal latency you do not want it on the OS drive. ( it could be tossed on Optance 9xx drive and there would even lower latency than any drive that Apple offers. )
 
  • Like
Reactions: ekwipt
To my experience, the 256GB SSD seems just a tad too small as a boot drive given the nature of files and sizes, even storing nearly everything on a SAN, but I suppose it will do.

In heavy VM contexts even the OS is on the SAN. THis new Mac Pro isn't geared toward Netboot as a primary option though. Besides this it doesn't have toe SAN/NAS as there are a couple of internal drive storage options. There is no "one and only one drive" philosophy built into this new Mac Pro at all.

Remember that starting with macOS 10.15 that Apple is splitting off the OS into a separate directory tree in the APFS container. The "user files" / apps / etc are all over in another directory tree in the same container. That is just illustrative of just how little absolutely "need" to have a working system booting off a local drive. If want to symlink other drives/volumes into one starting point tree to follow in the Finder that is relatively easy to do.


The base install of MacOS only take about 19GB, IIRC.

So that leaves approximately 200GB of space. That's relatively a lot. It is an order of magnitude more space than the OS. If not going to use some of the default Apple apps ( Garage Band ... etc) then can get ride of them.

I was just thinking if you were a FCPX, Premiere or Resolve customer along with any supporting apps (Logic Pro X, Motion, Compressor, Creative Cloud, et al) that downloading any additional content that they provide would take quite a bit of extra storage.

Which can all just easily go on a separate drive. The audio folks probably want it on a separate drive anyway.

Also, any swap space you might be using as well, especially with a 64GB DRAM and up system.

OS swap space? Don't really pay $6K to spend most of that swapping to disk. 256GB would be a big cap on memory though ( if system goes to sleep/hibernate and store RAM onto disk). Systems destine for >128GB of RAM, yes 256GB is on verge of "too small". However, the entry system only has 32GB (and 48 and 96 would work also if careful with not putting "porky pig" apps on the drive.

Folks trying to stuff 1.5TB into this thing will probably need a 2TB drive if not tweaking the hibernation settings off (will be interesting to see if Apple's BTO webpage flags conflicts like this or they warn about that in documentation. I can see the barebones crowd getting themselves twisted over this; although there will probably be work arounds for that too. )


"swap space" as in 'working space, scratch disk" again no good motivation at Apple SSD $/GB pricing to buy that from Apple anyway.
 
Since the NAND modules on the Mac Pro are easily user-accessible, I am dearly hoping that third-party solutions will become available from folks like OWC and others.

That is probably unlikely. What Apple has done with the daughter card NAND modules is chop the normal SSD into two pieces. SSD controllers are particularly configured to work with a subset of NANDs. All NAND chips are not equal. The the write , wear , etc characteristics differ between different vendors.

It is more akin to someone making replacement disk platters for a HDD drive they didn't build/design themselves. I think the expectations are way out of management if expected a 3rd party market for that.


Something more reasonable would be perhaps an expectation that Apple might sell these modules outside the tight repair supply chain over the longer term. They may not but that would be far more practical.

Based on reports, the connector is proprietary (to even other Macs like the iMac Pro) which means it is probably also patented,

The connector is far from being the critical path to making this 'work". The NAND have to match up and the custom Apple buffer chip would have to be duplicated. Relatively, the connector isn't a big deal and frankly a design patent is likely highly limited in usefulness.


but it doesn't make sense to me to make them easily-replaceable if there are no plans to offer an upgrade path after the initial BTO configuration ships to the customer.

It makes lots of sense for managing repair costs. ( don't need to replace whole motherboard for a wore out NAND chip .... which will fail over an extended period of time). Likewise folks who have "data destruction" protocols when retiring systems ( send the daughter card to the shredder at the service life ).

Folks with very high drive writes are going to need options over time.

And frankly it is also a play to using more affordable NAND chips to get to 4TB than if they were restrited to just using four NAND chips ( instead of eight).


And "upgrade path" probably would require a complete back-up to another storage disk, perhaps technician daughter card pairing to T2 , and a complete restore. [ it is not going to be put the old drive in a temporary container or "dock" and CCC/SuperDuper/Clone the bits to the new drive. ]. It isn't going to be Formula 1 like disk swaps even if Apple eventually enables it.

The other factor is logistics. How many folks are going to buy later and what sorts of inventory would Apple need to keep around to fill both parts repair and upgrades ( remember that folks have a myriad of other options to increase capacity so there is no 'herding' people into the upgrades Apple might offer. ) . Apple generally does not like inventory. The part prices would probably not go down over time. $800 1TB module in 2019 , 2020, .... 2026, 2027 ... in those latter years how many are they going to sell ?
[doublepost=1561521766][/doublepost]
Will the T2 accept strangers in there?

Probably not. The security integrity will probably need some validation. Wo Fat's chop shop NAND modules probably isn't going to meet with Apple security team review or the T2 SSD controller team's firmware requirements. Pragmatically these are the "internals" of a SSD that are dealing with here.
 
The BTO SSD capacities are striped across two NAND modules for better performance.

Not much evidence that Apple is doing this for performance.

The current specs page for the Mac Pro says

"...
Up to 2.6GB/s sequential read and 2.7GB/s sequential write performance. ... "

https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/


Meanwhile at the new page for MBP touch bar modles

"..

Up to3.2GB/ssequential read speed
Up to2.2GB/ssequential write speed
.... "
https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/


More likely the Mac Pro ( and iMac Pro) design is far more aimed at larger upper capacity bound than the MBP. There is a decent chance it is aimed at better wear life ( as more workloads may involves larger "drive writes per day" metrics than most of the workloads on the MBP's. ). If not wear then possibly more consistent latency.

It is not however for the ultimate "faster than any Mac' performance. Apple is putting quite fast SSDs in all the Macs with T2 in them. They aren't gimping lower priced systems on this aspect. ( Probably just as well given their far higher than market rate $/GB SSD pricing. )

I suspect the one versus two may have something to do with choosing NANDs from the MBPs ( or other Macs) to match the T2 and the tuning that Apple has done for those NANDs. The dual cards are perhaps a different set of NAND being used and tuned for the iMac Pro and Mac Pro. The SSD controller in the T2 may not deal with two of those 256GB modules with the specific NAND chips chosen for them (so no 512GB option) .


Which makes the single 256GB one in the base configuration even more insulting. At least use two 128GB (or better yet, two 256GB for a 512GB base).

Apple does quite well with the "one" card in the MBP with the exact same T2 chip.
 
I suspect the one versus two may have something to do with choosing NANDs from the MBPs ( or other Macs) to match the T2 and the tuning that Apple has done for those NANDs. The dual cards are perhaps a different set of NAND being used and tuned for the iMac Pro and Mac Pro. The SSD controller in the T2 may not deal with two of those 256GB modules with the specific NAND chips chosen for them (so no 512GB option) .

The MacBook Pro uses dual cards as well. Or at least whatever you want to call them once they've been soldered on.

I don't know about the Mac Mini, but it's possible it does too.
 
Amazing for a Quad GPU

Not so much when each of the MPX bays soaks up basically 4 slot width of space. So two together is 8 slots. ( 4 double wides would also be 8 slots ). They aren't particularly getting it into a smaller amount of space. They are just probably getting more efficient air flow and so cooling those 4 with less overall noise ( and less gyrations to baffle the noise. )

'Amazing' may actually apply more to the cost. 2 ( or maybe 4 ) active Infinity Fabric links probalby cranks up the costs pretty high. The bigger problem may be the $/Performance than some kind of 'cooling' problem.
 
The MacBook Pro uses dual cards as well. Or at least whatever you want to call them once they've been soldered on.

2019 15" teardown. Step 3. 4 NAND chips.

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Pro+15-Inch+Touch+Bar+2019+Teardown/123653

Not eight. Step 8 iMac Pro teardown ( each 'daughter card' has 4 chips ).

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac+Pro+Teardown/101807


Denser NAND? Probably yes as they can get to 4TB with four. [ Unless there is some magic with the Vega options that recovers enough GDDR5 space back for more NAND there isn't much "empty space' on this board for more NAND chips. ]. Stack more dies in a package and/or doing 3D implementation on die will lead to more expensive NAND chips and loose some of that parallel access ability.

Stacked dies might be generally controlled like "dual cards" but doesn't quite have the same paralleism if pin count the same and defiantly doesn't have the same long term thermals (even if had dual pins.).



I don't know about the Mac Mini, but it's possible it does too.

same issue in that limited to 4 . Step 8

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Mac+mini+Late+2018+Teardown/115210
 
@decontruct60 don't you feel like you're making excuses for Apple regarding the 256GB RAM (I mean you make well thought out and possible reasons) but for a $6000 machine, they could've easily started at 512GB. I mean the iMac Pro starts at 1TB!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan
2019 15" teardown. Step 3. 4 NAND chips.

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Pro+15-Inch+Touch+Bar+2019+Teardown/123653

Not eight. Step 8 iMac Pro teardown ( each 'daughter card' has 4 chips ).

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac+Pro+Teardown/101807


Denser NAND? Probably yes as they can get to 4TB with four. [ Unless there is some magic with the Vega options that recovers enough GDDR5 space back for more NAND there isn't much "empty space' on this board for more NAND chips. ]. Stack more dies in a package and/or doing 3D implementation on die will lead to more expensive NAND chips and loose some of that parallel access ability.

From iFixIt:
"Toshiba TSB3226AW8815TWNA1 and TSB3226XZ2939TWNA1 flash storage (256 GB total)"

That's two. But it's likely that the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro use larger cards with more NAND chips on them.
 
I guess the basic MacPro configuration is meant for server use that's why the basic config is that "low".
I mean is for CPU-only workloads and aimed at DIYers which likely will upgrade it to dual Vega 64, RxVII or the ones that are okay with just CPU power and likely will upgrade it to 14-28 core Xeon to work with apps like garage band or apps that do not rely on GPU acceleration as baseline tensorflow
 
I should clarify, they currently have the tcMPs, but they want the new MPs, and MDs have said yes.. if they can cut costs and headcount, which is obviously not going to happen. MDs suggested if they could use iMac Pro’s, but I think they’d hate the screen (they really love their damned 32” screens for some reason, and they can’t fit two on the desk)


If only there was utility software for iMacs to cut power to the monitor...

You could stick it under a desk, and get better thermal performance to boot :D

Though I suppose you could opt for radical surgery...and do an electro-monitor-ectomy.
 
Remember that a $3000 Z8 performs like a $500 computer - it's a 1.6 gHz quad-core with 8 GB of RAM, a hard drive and a nonfunctional GPU. Some of the difference between $3000 and $6000 is spent on the functional base configuration, so a $6000 Mac Pro performs like a $2000-$3000 computer, and you will have to upgrade some, but not necessarily all of the pieces (there is no upgradeable piece from the $3000 Z8 that is likely to be part of a functional Z8) . Some more goes to the power supply (the Z8 can have a power supply like the Mac Pro, but it's an upgrade) and cooling, and to a fancier motherboard with more built-in I/O.
But one can buy a $3,000 Z8 (one can buy them for less too).

I haven't used a Z8, so I'm not sure how loud they are, but I strongly suspect that it roars like a jet engine - I've used a bunch of non-Apple workstations, and most of them are built for engineering and they're LOUD. Apple spent a bunch of money avoiding that because they were aiming at the video market.
I owned a Z600 and currently own a Z620 and Z440. None of them were loud. In fact they're very quiet. The Z620 is configured with dual 8-core processors, 192GB of RAM, a 256Gb and 512GB Z-Turbo drive along with a 1TB spinner. It is used for virtualization work. It runs very quiet, don't even realize it's there. While I don't have any experience with an 8 series Z workstation I can say from my experience with similar models I can surmise that the Z8 is probably quite quiet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan
But one can buy a $3,000 Z8 (one can buy them for less too).

Then that's what people who want a 1.6 ghz quad core workstation for whatever very strange reason should do.

Apple doesn't make every computer. They don't make strange workstation configurations that don't make sense. If you want one, that apparently is what HP is for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Derived
I mean is for CPU-only workloads and aimed at DIYers which likely will upgrade it to dual Vega 64, RxVII or the ones that are okay with just CPU power and likely will upgrade it to 14-28 core Xeon to work with apps like garage band or apps that do not rely on GPU acceleration as baseline tensorflow

yes because people buy a $6000 MacPro to use GarageBand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aldaris
What "sense" is there to a $6000 workstation with 8 cores, 32 GiB, a proprietary 256 GB SSD, and a weak graphics card?

It's at least the type of machine I would use as a workstation.

You can argue about the price of a truck. Just don't go find a Ford Fiesta, stick a "truck" sticker on it, and go "Why can't Apple make trucks that cheap?"

If someone sold a Nintendo Switch as a "workstation" it would also be ridiculous to ask where Apple's $300 Mac Pro is.
 
Then that's what people who want a 1.6 ghz quad core workstation for whatever very strange reason should do.
By strange reason do you mean buying a system that meets my needs?
Apple doesn't make every computer. They don't make strange workstation configurations that don't make sense. If you want one, that apparently is what HP is for.
What do you call the base configuration Mac Pro?
[doublepost=1561595853][/doublepost]
It's at least the type of machine I would use as a workstation.

You can argue about the price of a truck. Just don't go find a Ford Fiesta, stick a "truck" sticker on it, and go "Why can't Apple make trucks that cheap?"

If someone sold a Nintendo Switch as a "workstation" it would also be ridiculous to ask where Apple's $300 Mac Pro is.
The Z8 is not a Ford Fiesta. Neither is the Z6. Nor is the Z4. I suggest you familiarize yourself with HP's Z series before making foolish statements.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.