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

[Krevnik]

For MANY purposes, this Ryzen-powered screamer is plenty of computer

Honestly, this is where Apple has put a lot of folks in a bind, IMO. That Ryzen-powered screamer is plenty of computer.

Back in 2008, folks like me were able to pick the Mac Pro because it wasn't much more than the high-end iMac (100$ more), but you got double the cores, upgradability, and the ability to use one of the nice QHD monitors that were coming down in price about then. So it didn't really matter if there wasn't a headless Core 2 Quad available. So we jumped up to workstation hardware because the price wasn't too crazy.

But with the i9 and Ryzen 9 CPUs nipping at the heels of workstation hardware, and the workstation hardware starting at quite a bit more than the prosumer hardware, there's a large gap that the Mac Mini is trying (but failing) to fill. eGPUs are still glitchy and twitchy compared to onboard video or built-in GPUs (especially over HDMI in my case where waking the monitor from sleep simply doesn't work right and results in a bad handshake).

I'm currently torn because the iMac simply doesn't fit my space anymore (need to share a monitor between a PC and Mac), and the Mac Mini options just aren't quite playing out how I'd like once I bring a GPU into the picture to handle acceleration that some of my apps use. So now I debate if I pay out through the nose for workstation class hardware I don't actually need, suffer with performance that won't last very long on the Mac Mini (and deal with eGPU quirks), or build a Hackintosh. Not a great position to be in, TBH.

 

[danwells]

Apple IS definitely trying to push the iMac into higher and higher parts of the market, and because they will never let a modular Mac compete with an iMac, that means that the Mac Pro gets pushed higher and higher as well. Apple strongly prefers iMacs and laptops (I think essentially for support reasons), and sees expandable Macs as something for a niche market that they can't serve with an iMac. Their goal has never been to give the user a choice, but rather to sell a "lifeboat" machine for the few users who need something more powerful than any iMac.

The 2008 iMac was using dual-core mobile CPUs (even on the most expensive model), so "no modular Mac competing with an iMac" only meant that anything with a quad-core desktop CPU was out of the way of the iMac. The highest-end CPU variant of the iMac was $2199, leaving plenty of room above it for non-competing Macs. It was pretty hard to option one much above $2500, too. As I recall, the only two options once you had the 3.06 gHz CPU were to add RAM (probably for a couple of hundred bucks), and to specify a larger hard drive (also not horribly expensive).

Now, the top iMac, even without counting the iMac Pro, will CTO to $3849 without buying RAM from Apple at inflated prices. Yes, it's a CTO - but it's a fundamentally different machine from the "base model" it's configured from - it has a different CPU, GPU and type of storage.

It's also a very powerful machine, with a top-end 8-core desktop CPU, a midrange GPU (assuming you choose the Vega 48), and the ability to accept 128 GB of RAM (unofficially).

Apple's also trying to protect the iMac Pro, by making it a better deal than the lower-end variants of the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro's price will probably become more understandable right in the part of the market where the iMac Pro isn't a real option (multiple GPUs, huge CPUs, tons of RAM).

This leaves very little territory for the Mac Pro - it's not supposed to be a choice, rather a machine for only the users who have an Apple-sanctioned (e.g. non-gaming) use for more power than any iMac. Agree or disagree with that strategy, it's Apple's strategy, and it has been since the first iMac. We'll never see a modular Mac cheaper unless the iMac Pro disappears and the iMac retreats from powerful desktop processors.

 

[ssgbryan]

No, the iMac isn't a very powerful machine - both the GPU and the CPU are thermally throttled.

Now, if they took the guts of an iMac and put it in a Mac Pro enclosure, then it would be a powerful machine.

 

[jinnyman]

Thermally throttled AIO is never going to be a true workhorse. Apple is ripping off prosumers.

 

[danwells]

The iMac Pro isn't badly thermally throttled, and I'd guess that we'll see a regular iMac in something like that chassis soon.

Technically, the regular iMac doesn't throttle much either, although it often remains in the clock speed range between base and boost (throttling would be going under base).

There's no question that the guts of a big regular iMac in a tower would go 15-25% faster by staying closer to boost clock more of the time, nor that a Threadripper Mac tower would provide good performance/$ if Apple priced it reasonably - but neither one will ever happen, because Apple prefers to sell iMacs.

Some of this is probably rent-seeking, while a lot of it is trying to increase stability and reduce support costs by limiting hardware configurations.

iMac haters can scream all they want, but Apple will continue to make the iMac the sweet spot in their desktop product line and use pricing to funnel buyers there, just as they have for over 20 years. The Mini will never get a decent (or replaceable) GPU, and will always be feature-locked in some way, and the Mac Pro will always be an exotic machine priced so sensible configurations are well above any iMac in price and power because Apple prefers to sell iMacs.

 

[jinnyman]

Yeah I guess so. Apple won’t change their strategy just soon. I just opt not to buy a mac desktop. My mini is going away soon and my hackintosh is what I’ve wanting for so long period.

 

[Macintosh IIcx]

iMac haters can scream all they want, but Apple will continue to make the iMac the sweet spot in their desktop product line and use pricing to funnel buyers there, just as they have for over 20 years. The Mini will never get a decent (or replaceable) GPU, and will always be feature-locked in some way, and the Mac Pro will always be an exotic machine priced so sensible configurations are well above any iMac in price and power because Apple prefers to sell iMacs.

I think you’re right.

I have been thinking about all the options, going Windows, getting a Mac Mini with eGPU, top iMac or iMac Pro but I will pass on all those. It is now down to either the Mac Pro or a Hackintosh. If the BTO options for the Mac Pro are reasonable priced, it could still make sense to me, otherwise I will try with a Hackintosh and reevaluate in 3 years time.

 

[deconstruct60]

in price and power because Apple prefers to sell iMacs.

I think you’re right.

It isn't just that Apple prefers it (selling completed systems as opposed to parts of a solution) and it also works economically for them and vast majority of users. If it was a financial failure and Apple liked/preferred making those models they would be in a unstable point. They aren't.

....If the BTO options for the Mac Pro are reasonable priced, it could still make sense to me, otherwise I will try with a Hackintosh and reevaluate in 3 years time.

Technically, it isn't just the BTO options. Apple doesn't haven't ship the Mac Pro in a fully completed state. Order a working subset and assemble to complete. The hackintosh is completely "order to assemble". If trying to keep as close to 'apples' to 'apples' as can then Mac Pro has a substantive subset of those assemble options too.

For example, I don't think Apple is going to sell a reasonably complete set of video card options directly on their BTO page. The gap between the 580X and the Vega II will be large, but there will be options Apple doesn't sell that will fit there ( even just sticking in the AMD GPU based product space).

I don't expect Apple to pre-install the Pegasus drive options either. Sell the kits probably on the Apple store and can buy on the same purchase order, but not pre-installed and tested. Even their own Wheels will drift away from 'build' system into build a larger purchase order zone.

 

[fuchsdh]

I still think it's possible Apple eventually sells a stripped-down version of the Mac Pro—fewer processor options, 6 DIMMs instead of 12, room for only one MXM module, smaller PSU kind of stuff—but I doubt that's ever going to get down to sub-$3000 pricing either way.

 

[Krevnik]

For example, I don't think Apple is going to sell a reasonably complete set of video card options directly on their BTO page. The gap between the 580X and the Vega II will be large, but there will be options Apple doesn't sell that will fit there ( even just sticking in the AMD GPU based product space).

Agreed. The revival of more standard PCIe slots means that if you are willing to give up the internal routing of DisplayPort to the existing TB ports, you can fit things like a VEGA 56/64 into the case. Add in an Alpine Ridge or Titan Ridge card from Gigabyte and it should be possible to drive an UltraFine 5K that way, like you can with an eGPU.

The trick I think is how to get them supplied with power. It’s not clear if you will be able to get 6+2 pin cables working easily. Or if someone will need to build an adapter for the MPX slot. There’s a couple parts to the Mac Pro that are visible in pictures, that Apple hasn’t adequately explained, including what looks like a door over the PSU space? (EDIT: Okay, I see the power connectors now while reading the rest of the thread, nice catch who spotted those)

GPU sag is another worry. Apple has stuff mounting in a more robust way with their modules, but you can’t leverage their solution for off the shelf GPUs.

I still think it's possible Apple eventually sells a stripped-down version of the Mac Pro—fewer processor options, 6 DIMMs instead of 12, room for only one MXM module, smaller PSU kind of stuff—but I doubt that's ever going to get down to sub-$3000 pricing either way.

See, if Apple could produce the 8-core with 4-5 slots instead of 8, one of those being an MPX slot, and sell it for 3000-4000$ (the current Mac Pro’s pricing), I’d be all over it. That’s a trade-off that’s a lot easier to make for folks.

Although these days, I kinda wish the G4 Cube design would make a comeback. Throw an ITX-sized GPU in there (580 and Vega 56 would work) and I’d be set, honestly. Or gone with the 2013 Mac Pro design as a sort of headless i7/i9 box. I’d buy one of those if it could handle a Vega 56 + 9900K + 4 TB3 ports (two buses) in a heartbeat.

I like what Apple did with the 2019 Mac Pro from an engineering perspective. The design is more flexible in some ways than the original tower. But that price bump to make it more expensive than the iMac Pro has me stumped on where my money should go, TBH.[/S]

 

[Macintosh IIcx]

I like what Apple did with the 2019 Mac Pro from an engineering perspective. The design is more flexible in some ways than the original tower. But that price bump to make it more expensive than the iMac Pro has me stumped on where my money should go, TBH.

This is how I look at it: Let’s say that for instance $4500 is fair price for what you get with the base Mac Pro 2019. The question then becomes whether you are willing to pay that additional $1500 fee to get a truly expandable Mac. Is it something you feel can justify or not? I’m still undecided, but it helps to break things down into smaller parts when faced with a tricky decision.

(... and yes, I’m well aware some will say that the additional fee is more like $2000 or $2500, so set it according to your own evaluation).

 

[CWallace]

There should be nothing technically preventing Apple from doing a future "step-down" model in the same case that has a smaller power supply and less PCI slots and tops out with the 16-core W-3245M and a mid-range video card (Vega 64-class) that starts at $4000 for the 8-core with 32GB, 512TB SSD and "entry-level" video.

Then they can have the current design for the "big jobs" starting with 24 cores, 128GB, 1TB and mid-range video for whatever ($8000?) that can then scale to the five figures with 28+ cores, terrabytes of RAM and SSD storage and multiple top-end video cards.

The real hold-up will just be the will to do so. And considering how Tim likes to have products for all niches (why he keeps stuff around that should have been End of Life years prior), I'd argue if anyone would do it, it would be him.

 

[fuchsdh]

There should be nothing technically preventing Apple from doing a future "step-down" model in the same case that has a smaller power supply and less PCI slots and tops out with the 16-core W-3245M and a mid-range video card (Vega 64-class) that starts at $4000 for the 8-core with 32GB, 512TB SSD and "entry-level" video.

Then they can have the current design for the "big jobs" starting with 24 cores, 128GB, 1TB and mid-range video for whatever ($8000?) that can then scale to the five figures with 28+ cores, terrabytes of RAM and SSD storage and multiple top-end video cards.

The real hold-up will just be the will to do so. And considering how Tim likes to have products for all niches (why he keeps stuff around that should have been End of Life years prior), I'd argue if anyone would do it, it would be him.

Releasing a high-end model and then a cut-down model a year or two into the design's lifespan seems like a solid idea of capturing as much of the high-end potential revenue as you can before migrating it down to new customers, and fewer potential lost engineering resources. I don't see them doing that and then going even higher with the current model, though—I think it'd be more akin to the classic Mac situation where you basically had a single-CPU and dual-CPU configuration and then customized it from that base floor.

But of course there's nothing technical stopping Apple from doing anything, it's just time, will, potential returns on investments.

We should really jump into a "Waiting for Mac Pro 8,1" thread because while it'll be exciting once a new Mac Pro finally comes out, I'm really curious to see what the future holds with support and refining the scope of the Mac line.

 

[Krevnik]

The real hold-up will just be the will to do so. And considering how Tim likes to have products for all niches (why he keeps stuff around that should have been End of Life years prior), I'd argue if anyone would do it, it would be him.

The iMac Pro was probably an easier sell because it didn’t need a lot of retooling to make happen and filled a very real gap the 2013 MacPro was creating with the lack of refresh. A hypothetical “Mac Less-Pro” would probably need to lean on the existing Mac Pro tooling as much as possible. Who knows how that’ll play out.

I guess the question is, how many want a smaller Xeon setup, versus an upscaled Mini with the ability to dissipate heat from more than ~80 watts of CPU/GPU load?

I don’t know about other folks, but I’d be up for a Trashcan revamp in the 2000-2500$ range with an i7/i9, replaceable SSD and RAM, and ideally some sort of GPU module. If they can put a 5700/5700XT class GPU in there and manage the thermals, perfect for me.

I’ll take a smaller Mac Pro too, and for now a 2018 Mini + Vega 56 is doing the job, but I’d love for it to be a smaller, more contained thing, like my Mini ITX gaming rig.

 

[mattspace]

I still think it's possible Apple eventually sells a stripped-down version of the Mac Pro—fewer processor options, 6 DIMMs instead of 12, room for only one MXM module, smaller PSU kind of stuff—but I doubt that's ever going to get down to sub-$3000 pricing either way.

4 DIMMs for 128GB, 1 MPX bay, plus the single slot for the MP2019 I/O card, iMac CPUs - would be a machine the photography / design / freelance crowd would be all over.

 

[Krevnik]

4 DIMMs for 128GB, 1 MPX bay, plus the single slot for the MP2019 I/O card, iMac CPUs - would be a machine the photography / design / freelance crowd would be all over.

I'd maybe add one full length slot for I/O cards. I'd probably put a USB card in there, but having access to a PCIe SSD card, or use it as a way to get 10GbE, etc would allow some customization and focus on what someone wants beyond the base 4 TB3 ports and 2 USB-A ports. I find the Mac Mini runs out of ports quickly if you have a pair of displays.

 

[apolloa]

The iMac Pro was probably an easier sell because it didn’t need a lot of retooling to make happen and filled a very real gap the 2013 MacPro was creating with the lack of refresh. A hypothetical “Mac Less-Pro” would probably need to lean on the existing Mac Pro tooling as much as possible. Who knows how that’ll play out.

Why would anyone care how it plays out because it’s never going to happen! Apple have very VERY clearly stared to the world its target market for the new Mac Pro and what it is and capable of, you all need to accept that and just move on with your life’s..
Of course you can speculate as much as you want, but don’t go ever believing Apple is ever going to make the Mac Pro ‘you’ want.

 

[Krevnik]

Why would anyone care how it plays out because it’s never going to happen! Apple have very VERY clearly stared to the world its target market for the new Mac Pro and what it is and capable of, you all need to accept that and just move on with your life’s..
Of course you can speculate as much as you want, but don’t go ever believing Apple is ever going to make the Mac Pro ‘you’ want.

You’re getting aggressive with someone who agrees it’s not going to happen. Chill out.

 

[apolloa]

You’re getting aggressive with someone who agrees it’s not going to happen. Chill out.

Maybe, but I have seen an awful lot of moaning and complaining since the new machine was launched.

 

[Krevnik]

Maybe, but I have seen an awful lot of moaning and complaining since the new machine was launched.

Sure, and that’s to be expected because it doesn’t fill the same sized niche that the cMP *could*, due to the price. I even went into this not that far back in the thread. The cMP lived in a sweet spot the 2019 Mac Pro does not, and so people are understandably feeling left out of the market.

As someone else mentioned, Apple “made the xMac group bigger” with the 2019 Mac Pro, and I agree with that statement. But the point I was trying to make (with some subtlety) in the quoted post was that the iMac Pro mostly exists because it required almost no retooling, and serves as a stopgap for the Mac Pro, and makes a lot of business sense. A “Mac Pro Mini” would need to be able to leverage similar sharing of manufacturing tooling to have a snowball’s chance of happening.

Personally, I’d be happy with something that filled the niche that the G4 Cube attempted to fill, and the Trashcan would make a good foundation for such a beast. Not that I expect Apple to do it, but it would be nice if they did, and they could reuse some of the tooling for the Trashcan if they haven’t already trashed it all. That’s all. *shrug*

 

[mattspace]

I'd maybe add one full length slot for I/O cards. I'd probably put a USB card in there, but having access to a PCIe SSD card, or use it as a way to get 10GbE, etc would allow some customization and focus on what someone wants beyond the base 4 TB3 ports and 2 USB-A ports. I find the Mac Mini runs out of ports quickly if you have a pair of displays.

The MPX bay is 2 slots, so it can be a standard gpu, plus a pci card for M2 storage - it only needs to use 2 slots if you’ve got a dual gpu MPX module in it, and the 2019 I/O card is just a standard pci card, so you could theoretically ditch it, and liberate a slot for just USB if you wanted.

Once you start putting more slots in it, you get into the “just buy a Mac Pro" territory. I’m trying to think of something that just looks, on paper like a screenless iMac with upgradable internal graphics, which takes advantage, and boosts volumes, of parts Apple is already making.

 

[norsemen]

it should be possible to drive an UltraFine 5K that way, like you can with an eGPU.

Only eGPU which can drive the LG UltraFine 5K today is the BlackMagic EGPU

 

[Krevnik]

The MPX bay is 2 slots, so it can be a standard gpu, plus a pci card for M2 storage - it only needs to use 2 slots if you’ve got a dual gpu MPX module in it, and the 2019 I/O card is just a standard pci card, so you could theoretically ditch it, and liberate a slot for just USB if you wanted.

Once you start putting more slots in it, you get into the “just buy a Mac territory. I’m trying to think of something that just looks. On paper like a screenless iMac with upgradable internal graphics, which takes advantage, and boosts volumes, of parts Apple is already making.

The problem is that even the non-Duo blocks the second PCIe slot. Having 1 full length slot with the MPX slot changes the dynamics a lot, considering you can’t use either of the Promise internal bays, and will be more reliant on external I/O vs the Pro and only 4 rear ports vs the iMac.

Pushing folks to non-Apple GPUs if they need more I/O is a weird statement for Apple to make, considering the effort made to keep Thunderbolt 3 relevant for display output in the Mac Pro.

Only eGPU which can drive the LG UltraFine 5K today is the BlackMagic EGPU

You cut out the important bit when you quoted: the Thunderbolt card. Gigabyte produces two (Alpine Ridge and Titan Ridge) variants that include dual DisplayPort inputs. Can’t do it without that, I agree.

 

[apolloa]

Sure, and that’s to be expected because it doesn’t fill the same sized niche that the cMP *could*, due to the price. I even went into this not that far back in the thread. The cMP lived in a sweet spot the 2019 Mac Pro does not, and so people are understandably feeling left out of the market.

As someone else mentioned, Apple “made the xMac group bigger” with the 2019 Mac Pro, and I agree with that statement. But the point I was trying to make (with some subtlety) in the quoted post was that the iMac Pro mostly exists because it required almost no retooling, and serves as a stopgap for the Mac Pro, and makes a lot of business sense. A “Mac Pro Mini” would need to be able to leverage similar sharing of manufacturing tooling to have a snowball’s chance of happening.

Personally, I’d be happy with something that filled the niche that the G4 Cube attempted to fill, and the Trashcan would make a good foundation for such a beast. Not that I expect Apple to do it, but it would be nice if they did, and they could reuse some of the tooling for the Trashcan if they haven’t already trashed it all. That’s all. *shrug*

As I said speculation is fine, it’s just annoying to see people complain constantly Apple don’t make what they personally want and so they just moan and slander the machine they have made, or even those who will buy them! It’s like some sort of jealous spite. People need to move on.

 

[deconstruct60]

There should be nothing technically preventing Apple from doing a future "step-down" model in the same case that has a smaller power supply and less PCI slots and tops out with the 16-core W-3245M and a mid-range video card (Vega 64-class) that starts at $4000 for the 8-core with 32GB, 512TB SSD and "entry-level" video.

If massively chopping down on slots and capping at 16 cores there isn't much need for the W-3200 series. The W-2100 series topped out at 18 cores; which is greater than 16 so could cover that anyway. The "extra" x16 is tossed when you toss the additional slots.

If Intel follows up with a W-2200 the pricing on the W-3200 in the overlapping core count range probably isn't going to work too well. ( current snapshot coreercentage : 8:11% , 12:27% , 16:48% , 24:2% , 28:11% ) 8-12 cores is a critical block to make the product "work".

While probably not the best sampling demographic but this thread about how many cores do you want.
basically will be a "Mac Pro" killer because most folks only want 16 cores or less. Apple has to "suck in" the 8-10 core folks that want slots in to make the top quarter of Mac Pro target market viable.


That would also highly overlap with the iMac Pro. So deeply eating into both probably makes it a non starter. The iMac Pro has the "hate all in ones" differentiation factor so the overlap there is way less.

Then they can have the current design for the "big jobs" starting with 24 cores, 128GB, 1TB and mid-range video for whatever ($8000?) that can then scale to the five figures with 28+ cores, terrabytes of RAM and SSD storage and multiple top-end video cards.

24 cores and up barely makes it into the double digits percentage. It is pretty close to "nobody". Remember the Mac Pro only has a single digit of the Mac market. 10% of a single digital is quite likely less than a single digit.

2009-2013 ... Mac Pro was in single digits range back then too. So this isn't a "chicken and egg" thing that Mac Pro is going to bust back up into double digits again. It isn't, even with this new system. Which is probably primarily why Apple has stuck a "low volume" tax on it. Nor

The real hold-up will just be the will to do so. And considering how Tim likes to have products for all niches (why he keeps stuff around that should have been End of Life years prior), I'd argue if anyone would do it, it would be him.

This "fill lots of niches" notion doesn't really hold up. Tim is more of a fan of selling the previous , older, "now cheaper to make" model than Jobs was. Lots more products got "Steve'd" in Jobs day because the limit on Mac models was held pretty rigidly small. If something "new" came then something "old" had to go. Cook has allowed more older stuff to float for longer periods of time. Examples: MBP 13" 2012 for about 2-3 years after "Retina" models came. The iPhone 5 in tweaked forms of 5C , SE . The entry level iPad with two year old series processors. Recently the MBA retina while what is effectively almost 3 year old MBA "classic" floated at the $999 point.

Almost none of the entries aren't a "new niche" filling. There is substantive possible fratricide at the 13" laptop level but if Cook was looking to fill lots of niches there would be twice as many Mac , iPhone models as there are now.