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

[filterdecay]

It's being replaced because it was a solution for a problem than nobody had (a tiny workstation without any expandability). "R&D" is a sunk cost - you don't replace something after six years because it cost too much to develop seven years ago.

You replace it because it is a lemon that isn't selling, and your most prized customers are buying Z-series by the truckload.

They would need to redo all of the designs for it. Its why it stagnated after 1 iteration. New videocards would need to be designed to be part of the design. New chipsets for cpus motherboards would need a custom design to fit in the case. What if the thermal load and power supply needs changed? New design. All of that is extra r&d - every 18 months - forever. They are ****ing morons for doing this in the first place. And they forever lost my respect as an innovative company for doing it. Steve is dead and so is apple.

I use mac everyday to help me with my work. But thats all this company is to me. Im happy to buy the new one but this trashcan will never be updated again and whoever thought it up shouldn't be working.

 

[AidenShaw]

They would need to redo all of the designs for it. Its why it stagnated after 1 iteration. New videocards would need to be designed to be part of the design. New chipsets for cpus motherboards would need a custom design to fit in the case. What if the thermal load and power supply needs changed? New design. All of that is extra r&d - every 18 months - forever. They are ****ing morons for doing this in the first place. And they forever lost my respect as an innovative company for doing it. Steve is dead and so is apple.

Good points - thanks.

I wonder if in a year or so people will be blasting the MPX modules as another misguided design - intended for vendor lockin, and fixing the non-existent problem with auxiliary PCIe power cables - and the horrible mistake of requiring T-Bolt to carry video signals.

(Video on T-Bolt as an option for laptops is good, but requiring it for workstations is just a complication.)

 

[filterdecay]

Good points - thanks.

I wonder if in a year or so people will be blasting the MPX modules as another misguided design - intended for vendor lockin, and fixing the non-existent problem with auxiliary PCIe power cables - and the horrible mistake of requiring T-Bolt to carry video signals.

(Video on T-Bolt as an option for laptops is good, but requiring it for workstations is just a complication.)

probably but I dont care. That extra slot is probably just power only. So nobody is gonna design cards for it but it can be used as a regular pci-e slot so who cares. We just paid for it.

 

[ManuelGomes]

I find it ingenious as I hate cables inside myself. All nice and tidy inside.
And since you can still use regular cards, unless they need additional power

 

[pinchu71]

I find it ingenious as I hate cables inside myself. All nice and tidy inside.
And since you can still use regular cards, unless they need additional power

There are power connectors as well for regular videocards , and mpx modules also has displayport out

 

[Mago]

yes because people buy a $6000 MacPro to use GarageBand...

I meant to say Logic Pro.X it's a CPU-only heavy hog.

 

[CWallace]

I meant to say Logic Pro.X it's a CPU-only heavy hog.

Evidently so are some of the plugins. Jason Snell has commented on how he hits all 8-cores on his iMac Pro when de-noising the participants on his podcasts.

 

[barmann]

Most workstation buyers have specific needs that will require building to order anyway, so banging on Apple for what placeholders they put in the base config seems pointless. As others have noted, workstations are expensive.
IMO, the cMP was a prosumer machine that many used as a workstation. Not the same thing.

The cMP was a workstation, the tcMP was a prosumer thing , you might have confused the two .
The new MP is a workstation again .

Also, workstations are not expensive .
They can become expensive when you put expensive stuff inside them .

Fortunately , Apple did not do that .
Unfortunately , they doubled the price regardlessly, as the take their customers for granted .

 

[barmann]

I wonder if in a year or so people will be blasting the MPX modules as another misguided design - intended for vendor lockin, and fixing the non-existent problem with auxiliary PCIe power cables - and the horrible mistake of requiring T-Bolt to carry video signals.

Why wait a year to bitch about it ?

MPX modules suck right now, and the new MP hasn't even be released yet , or even use by anyone .
They will be silly expensive, offer less performance than comparable products, and will never be updated .

MPX modules don't have to used/bought with the new MP though, I assume , and the slots can still be used for more sensible components - I guess .

The real issue - to me - remains to be the pricing - the performance sweetspot will be the model one tier above the base model, probably will be 7k-8k .

And then there is the usual mandatory OSX upgrade , which is more likely to keep me from buying the posh MP than anything else .
That's where Apple really dropped the ball - backwards compatibility .

 

[Flaming Gerbil]

From MacWorld article:

Apple’s Pro products are becoming less and less attainable for the professionals they’re made for

If Apple made a $2,000 version of the Mac Pro you can bet that lots of Mac fans would talk themselves into buying one.

Instead, we have a monument to everything people think Apple is: overpriced luxury sold to people who don’t know better. And maybe they’re right. Apple is basically telling aspiring artists and developers that they can’t afford the best Macs and probably never will. That’s a tough pill to swallow.
​

 

[vailr]

The Best Mac Apple Isn't Making...

 

[flat five]

The Best Mac Apple Isn't Making...

I just hope at some level, you all who are wanting a cheap, officially supported, hobbyist/tinkerer XMac... realize how incredibly slim the chance is that Apple will make one..

..and don't get too hung up on your wish.

----

look, I get it.. this 7,1 is far out of range for what many people are willing to spend on a computer.. I think every single person posting here and elsewhere understands this too..

so how many times do you have to keep pointing out that MacPro is too expensive? who are you trying to convince? everybody, including Apple, already knows this..

are you just going to keep posting how expensive it is for the next few years? or do something else more productive instead?

 

[0388631]

They are ****ing morons for doing this in the first place. And they forever lost my respect as an innovative company for doing it. Steve is dead and so is apple.

Steve might have tried something similar to this new Pro. However, I'm inclined to further the words of the poster you've quoted and state people will keep buying the Z workstations by the truckload. The Afterburner card is nothing special and it's just an Apple branded version for their software. RED has something for their proprietary video formats, too. FPGAs for editing are freely available these days provided you can drop $7-10K without sweating.

At this point I'm still not sure why you'd want to get a Mac Pro since it's likely to be single socket limited until its next refresh where they may introduce a dual socket. With the Z you can get dual 8180s. 56 cores with 112 threads. And if AMD Epyc units come on board, 64 cores a processor, two to a board, and you can get 128 cores with 256 threads.

Windows 10 Pro for Workstation allows up to 4 sockets. 256 core limit, which brings you up to 512 threads total. That is some serious horsepower.

 

[BlueTide]

are you just going to keep posting how expensive it is for the next few years? or do something else more productive instead?

Well, if you want to do something more productive, you just use something else and forget the Mac Pro.

 

[flat five]

Well, if you want to do something more productive, you just use something else and forget the Mac Pro.

yeah.. even using a macbook air is far more productive than pretending you’re using a computer that doesn’t exist... not to mention the hundreds (or thousands) of other alternative, and more affordable options available

i mean, if you need this computer and can justify the cost then go for it..

if you need this computer and can’t justify the cost then seek alternatives..

if you don’t actually need a computer like this and can’t justify the cost then just keep complaining i guess.. but the strength of your opinion is just getting weaker by the day.. to the point where maybe it’s just best if you keep it to yourself because nobody is going to care.. except other people that fall in this same group

 

[deconstruct60]

Good points - thanks.

I wonder if in a year or so people will be blasting the MPX modules as another misguided design - intended for vendor lockin, and fixing the non-existent problem with auxiliary PCIe power cables -

Vendor lockin? We'll see if Apple doesn't open up usage for non Apple enclosures. Blackmagic might use MPX for their eGPU designs over time. ( more flexible that current ones in that the GPU could be upgraded. ). Several dozen pages back in this thread there were some Windows PC designs that were using MXM cards for embedded GPUs. For 'big' GPUs MPX is better than MXM. ( MXM ... yep a defacto vendoor standard; not an open standards committee. ). Will all box with slot vendors adopt MPX bays by default. Probably not. But wil nobody else use this? That remains to be seen as some folks are using solutions that don't scale quite as well right now and could easily adopt these ( if Apple isn't being anal about usage of the design. )

Things like moving MPX modules to other Macs in the line up wouldn't hurt the Mac ecosystem at all. Once they do that that opens the door to many more systems outside of the Mac space. And hence rather dubious total lock-in properties.

Aux cables versus simply just plugging in a card and it works; the latter is backsliding into worse ease of use dynamics. Chuckle. Then the PCI-e standard must be screwed up because it puts 75W onto the slot. If power via the slot is so horrible why put any power on the slot? Different from calcified standards from the 80s isn't necessarily horrible.

and the horrible mistake of requiring T-Bolt to carry video signals.

chuckle.
By 2021-22 most new high end workstations will have incorporated putting video signals on Thunderbolt protocol.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1459...-20-standard-bandwidth-for-8k-monitors-beyond

It is just so "bad" of an idea it has been adopted into a commonly used on high end workstation video standard. But I'm sure the whole "thunderbolt is bad and going to die " crowd would be still be flogging that meme mule in 2021-22 still.

The Mac Pro 2019 is pragmatically at the base foundation video out design where the others are only going to get to later as they merge in with DP v2.0

(Video on T-Bolt as an option for laptops is good, but requiring it for workstations is just a complication.)[/QUOTE]

USB4
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14048/usb4-specification-40-gbps-type-c-tb3

which means this "Alt" mode probably isn't needed at much anymore.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13088/virtuallink-announced-standardized-connector-for-vr-headsets
(don't need a variant which 'hijacks' the USB 2.0 wires if can do multiple protocols on the high speed lanes. )

 

[0388631]

chuckle.
By 2021-22 most new high end workstations will have incorporated putting video signals on Thunderbolt protocol.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1459...-20-standard-bandwidth-for-8k-monitors-beyond


It is just so "bad" of an idea it has been adopted into a commonly used on high end workstation video standard. But I'm sure the whole "thunderbolt is bad and going to die " crowd would be still be flogging that meme mule in 2021-22 still.

What does Display Port 2.0 have to do with Thunderbolt 3? Thunderbolt 1 and Thunderbolt 2 used the Display Port connection. Thunderbolt 3 uses repurposed USB Type C connectors.

Max data rate:

TB 2: 20 Gb/sec
TB 3: 40 Gb/sec
DP 1.4: 32.4 Gb/sec
DP 2: 40 Gb/sec
USB 4: 40 Gb/sec


Thunderbolt was an Intel-Apple venture. Display Port isn't. Neither is USB. Do you mean the transfer speeds? Because a lot of the specs were put forward before TB 3. People complained because of how locked in Thunderbolt is, and it still is with Intel opening it up. As they require the ability to dig into code running the protocol.
[doublepost=1561940078][/doublepost]

If there is DAW software that has a big capacity footprint it can go on its own drive.

Yeah doesn't the latest Komplete use something like 800 GB if you install the full set?

 

[AidenShaw]

chuckle.

The key word was "requiring" video signals.

If video signals were optional, there would probably be a bunch of add-in-cards, and more choice in devices at a cheaper cost.

What does Display Port 2.0 have to do with Thunderbolt 3?

Display Port 2.0 is not T-Bolt3 - although the physical layer uses T-Bolt3 protocols in a very different fashion from normal T-Bolt3. (Kind of has to, since DP 2.0 needs twice the bandwidth of T-Bolt3)

 

[0388631]

Display Port 2.0 is not T-Bolt3 - although the physical layer uses T-Bolt3 protocols in a very different fashion from normal T-Bolt3. (Kind of has to, since DP 2.0 needs twice the bandwidth of T-Bolt3)

That's not what I was asking. Why is he talking about TB 3 and then linking to DP 2.0?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't data simply data? Why would DP 2.0 that has yet to come out need 80 Gb/sec transfer to match TB 3's 40 Gb/sec transfer rate? That would also imply all display and transfer formats need twice whatever prior TB variants offered up.

TB3 in the manner Apple uses will remain on Apple. TB3 as a data interface will come to PCs but the way TB operates on Mac hardware will not. TB3 is based off of DP 1.2 and uses two 1.2 streams in a compact near universal fitment with the inclusion of a controller chip. DP 2 matches with one stream that TB3 needs with two 1.2 streams in one. TB 4 will use two 2.0 streams and be more future proof.

Edit: Sorry, it appears TB3 maxes out at 10 Gb/sec for pure data, not audio and video signal, where the combined rate is 40 Gb/sec.

 

[0388631]

The real issue - to me - remains to be the pricing - the performance sweetspot will be the model one tier above the base model, probably will be 7k-8k .

Gonna quote this for posterity.

If Cupertino still reads this site, I'm sure they'll take this into consideration.

 

[ekwipt]

Yeah doesn't the latest Komplete use something like 800 GB if you install the full set?

Yes but most people put their samples on a seperate drive (I know I do), but some of the content cannot be moved. Logic Pro X now has a feature to move samples and content on to a seperate drive as well. I still think for the Mac Pro 512Gb should've been minimum

 

[0388631]

Yes but most people put their samples on a seperate drive (I know I do), but some of the content cannot be moved. Logic Pro X now has a feature to move samples and content on to a seperate drive as well. I still think for the Mac Pro 512Gb should've been minimum

Yeah I remember reading that. It's not just DAW/VST stuff. A lot of other industries develop software that prevents it or parts of it being on anything other than the boot drive. I'd say 750 GB would or should be the minimum. Hell, make it 1 TB. Samsung makes some of the fastest NAND modules and one of the best controllers utilizing MLC memory and I'm sure they could strike a deal with Apple for it.

Though I think we're talking about a fringe product here? In the DAW sphere, I don't think many come close to what Native Instruments puts out. Komplete has always been one of the best I've played with in the past albeit much older versions. It's a complete and very expensive set of tools to do just about anything when combined with a good DAW and a skilled operator. It very much is like having an army of musicians under your fingertips, orchestras included.

 

[fastlanephil]

I meant to say Logic Pro.X it's a CPU-only heavy hog.

Not according to this testing done by VSL. “ Logic performed significantly better than every thing else, with or without VE Pro”. This included Logic Pro X, Cubase 10, Studio One, Digital Performer 9 and Reaper 5.

https://vi-control.net/community/threads/daw-performance-test-results.82659/

 

[goMac]

and the horrible mistake of requiring T-Bolt to carry video signals

Worth noting the 7,1 gives you options here.

You can run it without any MPX modules and demote Thunderbolt to data only, if you don’t feel like using it as a video port. Stick any PCIe card you want in, machine will still run with data only Thunderbolt.

Or you can keep a stock MPX module installed as a “just in case card” for doing video over Thunderbolt, but keep your displays plugged directly into the standard PCIe GPU.

 

[fokmik]