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

[danwells]

I suspect that the base configuration uses either slower flash, a non-RAID configuration or both. The other configurations should be exactly like the iMac Pro, but Apple has no 128 GB (or 256 GB, if it'll run on one module) modules in that configuration lying around. Even chips that small, but that fast may be hard to come by... Most interest in seriously fast PCIe storage (other than Optane) is in larger capacities.

If the base configuration uses a single module, why doesn't Apple go with 512 GB and one module they already have from the base iMac Pro? Surely that's cheaper than producing a custom module half the size for a few thousand machines annually (most Mac Pros are going to get upgraded storage unless I'm seriously mistaken - even as a boot-only drive, 256 GB is cramped on a machine like that).

One off-the-wall configuration possibility is that the 256 GB Mac Pro uses no modules at all? What if they simply soldered the 256 GB SSD from the MacBook Pro to every Mac Pro motherboard? If you put modules in, it either deactivates, gets used as some odd sort of cache (what could it cache, being slower than primary storage), or gets used to automatically back up certain OS files? Unlikely, but makes more sense than making a weird low-capacity module to punish choosers of the base configuration.

 

[danwells]

Apple has never made a Mac with a desktop Intel processor and no screen... Both the current 6-core Minis and the 2012 quad-cores use mobile chips (the current model stretches definitions a bit - Intel calls it a mobile chip, but it's got a 65 watt TDP). Every Mini Apple's ever made has been outperformed not only by iMacs, but by their best MacBook Pro of the same generation (or PowerBook if you want to go back that far).

This is part of their strategy to push the iMac as their preferred desktop Mac. They leave a huge hole (exactly the size of the entire desktop CPU lineup) in what you can get without buying an iMac. You either get something that closely resembles the 13" laptop line (with occasional forays into low-end 15" territory) or a Xeon workstation. Everything in between is exclusively iMac territory.

We may not like it, but we're not going to change it... Apple would rather sell an iMac.

 

[deconstruct60]

Does anyone know why the Modular Mac Pro is quoted as having slower SSD speeds compared to iMacPro?

From Apple's tech specs page
Modular Mac Pro - 2.6GB/s read — 2.7GB/s write
iMacPro - 2.8GB/s read — 3.3 GB/s write

In general, SSDs with the same basic infrastructure and SSD controller tend to vary in bandwidth by capacity. If the read and write speeds are relatively near witch there there is some parallelism built into the SSD (i.e. read/write to different NAND chips and/or dies at the same time). More capacity can mean more NAND chips or that there are pragmatically more dies/layers in the chips. Going a bit 'wider' in the read/write gets a bump in speed.

It would be reasonable for Apple to be list the entry read/write speeds for the Mac Pro (or expected most common one). ( as something folks should expect to get if buy the more expected configuration. Otherwise can run into regulator problems by over promising. )

The Mac Pro entry capacity is 256GB and is relative small compared to the iMac Pro 1,000GB. The Mac Pro has 4 NAND chips to implement the SSD and the iMac Pro has 8 ( 4 on each daughter card). That would be odd if they were the same capacity ( there are no footnotes on the current tech specs page so it is unclear what exactly they are measuring). The bigger gap between the two in write versus read is highly suggestive that what we are looking at here is a NAND chip difference count. ( the much slower writes are easier to spread out of more chips. )

The T2 chip and the 512GB (and up) daughter cards are probably the same in both the Mac Pro and iMac Pro. Once take two and pair them with the same SSD controller the speed should come out to be the same. The I/O Hun (PCH ) chip in the Mac Pro is probably a bit oversubscribed with the 10GbE and SATA links so a small chance Apple tuned down the bandwidth just a bit. I think the one ( versus two) cards is a big enough tune down (and high bandwidth networking and storage can be done on the PCI-e slots if an balance issue. ) without having to be a 'throttle' in the T2 firmware.

The multicore rendering of the iMacPro 10core is slower than my not overclocked 8core i9-9900k in my PC, which I wasn't expecting. CinebenchR20 - iMacPro 4520, PC 4950. So 10core iMacPro is 91% of the speed of i9-9900k. weird no?

if your CPU renderer has a significantly large single thread section between "forking" out parallel subthreads ... then it isn't very surprising. How much overlocking was applied would also be contextually releveent since the core count is relatively close. However, I don't think the Mac Pro is going to make a huge dent there versus a highly overclocked 9900K if particularly don't need that many cores. The iMac Pro can turbo up to 4.5GHz. That is higher than any of the next Mac Pros (very close though 4.4GHz.). The new Mac Pro aren't "hot rod", single threaded drag racing systems.

Stepping up the Mac Pro to 12 cores probably should best the 9900K with core count for the parallel sections. (same on iMac side with 14 ). The price point will be higher.
[doublepost=1568041598][/doublepost]

non raid 0 in the base??

Any SSD that whose write bandwidth is relatively close to the read bandwidth is already using a variation of "RAID 0".
It would be a stripe width issue not whether were striping at some level. The two NAND chip daughter cards aren't independent SSDs so it is the same fundamental "internal RAID" that all high performance SSDs are using.

Stacked off of the PCH vs CPU pci-e?

The T2 also has duties as the "System Management Controller" (SMC) in addition to SSD controller duties. So it is already hooked to the PCH since that is where SMCs go and highly coupled to the initial boot up phase.

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple has never made a Mac with a desktop Intel processor and no screen... Both the current 6-core Minis and the 2012 quad-cores use mobile chips (the current model stretches definitions a bit - Intel calls it a mobile chip, but it's got a 65 watt TDP).

Which is the same TPD as the desktop chip.

i7-8700B (65W )
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...8700b-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-60-ghz.html

i7-8700 (65W )
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...-8700-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-60-ghz.html

It is feature for feature the same except for the 'B' version being in a ball grid mount chip and the other pins and sockets. Ball gird mount points being about the only thing that makes this 'mobile. ( Intel puts an specs cap on the support RAM capacity to 64GB. ) [ slightly humorous is the plain 8700 has embedded options and the 8700B doesn't. I'm sure that is in terms of more long term support since buy-fixed-and-deploy is how most embedded systems roll out. ]

This smells of Apple (and maybe 1-2 others ) asking Intel to put desktop CPUs into a mobile package that better matched the Mini restrictions. Soldered CPU and only two DIMMs slots to reduce z-height and footprint space.

At one point, Apple asked Intel for a mobile processors that clocked higher and ran hotter than normal mobile chips ( on the iteration of iMac right before they switched to desktops chips). This is about the same slippery slope zone. (same product Intel has just small tweak for a few system maker(s). )

The 2012 Mac Mini was back in the 45W range ( https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...3720qm-processor-6m-cache-up-to-3-60-ghz.html ). That actually was in mobile TDP zone.

This is part of their strategy to push the iMac as their preferred desktop Mac. They leave a huge hole (exactly the size of the entire desktop CPU lineup) in what you can get without buying an iMac. You either get something that closely resembles the 13" laptop line (with occasional forays into low-end 15" territory) or a Xeon workstation. Everything in between is exclusively iMac territory.

That is a bit dated picture. At this point the mini does have a 'desktop' class CPU. It is the GPU that is being used as the major differentiator with the iMac on the lower half. Memory capacity at the higher ends gets added on top.

I think Apple knew they were going to grow the xMac gap by increasing the Mac Pro entry price over 100%. So they are shrunk the bottom of that zone a slightly with the "Pro jobs" Mini.

Similarly, the iMac Pro and Mac Pro do significantly overlap if mainly just have CPU + RAM focused workloads. If there are expensive PCI-e cards or extreme multiple GPU workloads then the Mac Pro tips the scales between it and the Mac Pro. That part has some ground ( both by customers moving that way and by Apple tilting the field a bit. )

 

[Krevnik]

This smells of Apple (and maybe 1-2 others ) asking Intel to put desktop CPUs into a mobile package that better matched the Mini restrictions. Soldered CPU and only two DIMMs slots to reduce z-height and footprint space.

Exactly. AnandTech pointed this out when the chips were announced: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12632/intel-core-b-processors-8th-gen-bga-with-65w-tdp

They also comment about just how much above TDP the 8700 can go when boosting. 120W is nearly double the TDP, and the comments they make around boost limits when capped at 65W by the BIOS are applicable to the Mini as well. Apple doesn't seem to be capping it, but the cooling can only seem to handle ~80W of power going through the CPU before it starts getting overwhelmed. So the 8700 will do better than the 8500 in the Mac Mini through better binning, but it won't keep up with the socketed 8700 in a machine with a good cooler.

I think Apple knew they were going to grow the xMac gap by increasing the Mac Pro entry price over 100%. So they are shrunk the bottom of that zone a slightly with the "Pro jobs" Mini.

Similarly, the iMac Pro and Mac Pro do significantly overlap if mainly just have CPU + RAM focused workloads. If there are expensive PCI-e cards or extreme multiple GPU workloads then the Mac Pro tips the scales between it and the Mac Pro. That part has some ground ( both by customers moving that way and by Apple tilting the field a bit. )

Agreed. I think Apple is also hoping that eGPUs would help make up for the lack of compute/acceleration in the Mini on that front as well. But I'm finding it a little too glitchy to be a "it just works" experience. They're working on it (Catalina is already better than Mojave), but I have a feeling it's going to be years more before it gets smoothed out to the point where the rough edges are gone and an eGPU experience is on par with internal.

 

[Blair Paulsen]

IMO, Apple has never fully embraced eGPUs. Perhaps with Mojave, Titan Ridge controllers and time that will change. Until then, I'd call it a hack - not a proper solution. YMMV.

 

[fuchsdh]

IMO, Apple has never fully embraced eGPUs. Perhaps with Mojave, Titan Ridge controllers and time that will change. Until then, I'd call it a hack - not a proper solution. YMMV.

It's a good solution as long as all you need it to do is get plugged into an external monitor and run in MacOS. It's not as hot-swappable and simple as it could be, and it's a mess in Boot Camp (though I doubt that will ever really change.)

 

[danwells]

A quick Geekbench search (I know it's not perfect, but it's easy) reveals that the 8700b Mini is about the same speed on a single-core load, and about 15% slower multi-core than the most recent 15" MacBook Pro (9980HK). Other than the GPU, where it competes with 13" MBPs because it lacks a discrete GPU, the top Mini today does compete with 15" MBPs (the Mini has made a few previous forays into 15" territory). What it never does is outperform the 15" MBP - at its best when Apple lets it off the leash, it's a 15" MBP without a GPU, and rarely the fastest model.

Is the Mini a little less thermally constrained than the MBP? One of the criticisms of Geekbench is that it's quick enough that it doesn't necessarily reveal thermal issues...

 

[deconstruct60]

A quick Geekbench search (I know it's not perfect, but it's easy) reveals that the 8700b Mini is about the same speed on a single-core load, and about 15% slower multi-core than the most recent 15" MacBook Pro (9980HK).

8000 product versus 9000 product. That isn't "desktop" vs "laptop" ... that is older versus newer. The gap there is on core count which is a "newer" feature. Not a mobile versus desktop feature.

The mini is behind here in that the mini looks to be once again going into "nap time" mode where Apple will do nothing for another 6-12 until the Mini gets to be perhaps two years old. ( currently on a chip that was already pragmatically a year old when when Mini launched. Go to the ark.intel link a couple messages above where the 'plain' 8700 is listed. The release date is Q4 '17. Mini didn't come until Q4 '18 ( and the B model 'released' in Q2 '18 )

If go back and compare the 8000 series powered Mini to 8000 series powered MBP 15" there isn't a big difference in Geek bench. If go back to 2017 MBP 15" (that existed around Q4 17 when Apple could have done something if up tempo on adoption of new tech ) there is bigger gap.

Is Apple looking for the Mini going to out tempo the MBP 15" ? Nope. ( even more so in an era where they have an infamous keyboard boat anchoring the MBP 15" ) . The iMac gapped the Mini too in processor age at the top BTO.

Is the Mini a little less thermally constrained than the MBP? One of the criticisms of Geekbench is that it's quick enough that it doesn't necessarily reveal thermal issues...

Geekbench list the number of cores. More cores is extremely likely going to a higher multiprocessor score. And newer ones are likely better than ones from two years ago.

Apple could tweak the Mini for some better thermals. More (or just as ) limited than the MBP 15" enclosure really shouldn't be a factor. Another 1/4" for the fan (and bigger vents) in z-height would work better with the desktop processors coming down the road and still would be Mini sized.

 

[fuchsdh]

8000 product versus 9000 product. That isn't "desktop" vs "laptop" ... that is older versus newer. The gap there is on core count which is a "newer" feature. Not a mobile versus desktop feature.

The mini is behind here in that the mini looks to be once again going into "nap time" mode where Apple will do nothing for another 6-12 until the Mini gets to be perhaps two years old. ( currently on a chip that was already pragmatically a year old when when Mini launched. Go to the ark.intel link a couple messages above where the 'plain' 8700 is listed. The release date is Q4 '17. Mini didn't come until Q4 '18 ( and the B model 'released' in Q2 '18 )

If go back and compare the 8000 series powered Mini to 8000 series powered MBP 15" there isn't a big difference in Geek bench. If go back to 2017 MBP 15" (that existed around Q4 17 when Apple could have done something if up tempo on adoption of new tech ) there is bigger gap.

Is Apple looking for the Mini going to out tempo the MBP 15" ? Nope. ( even more so in an era where they have an infamous keyboard boat anchoring the MBP 15" ) . The iMac gapped the Mini too in processor age at the top BTO.




Geekbench list the number of cores. More cores is extremely likely going to a higher multiprocessor score. And newer ones are likely better than ones from two years ago.

Apple could tweak the Mini for some better thermals. More (or just as ) limited than the MBP 15" enclosure really shouldn't be a factor. Another 1/4" for the fan (and bigger vents) in z-height would work better with the desktop processors coming down the road and still would be Mini sized.

The Mac mini could get boosted in size and still be mini (since it doesn't really meet the criteria now in the world of NUCs) but I imagine like with the iMac Pro they want to get their money's worth out of the existing chassis designs before they redesign everything.

 

[ManuelGomes]

mMP shown in the presentation

 

[frou]

If ever there was a time to change the case design of the Mini, it would have been the 2018 model with its newly "Pro" demeanour. Remember the space-ship introduction video?

...But they didn't. Exact same shape and dimensions as the old silver ones. It's going to be this way for a long time.

 

[CWallace]

If ever there was a time to change the case design of the Mini, it would have been the 2018 model with its newly "Pro" demeanour. Remember the space-ship introduction video?

...But they didn't. Exact same shape and dimensions as the old silver ones. It's going to be this way for a long time.

I am going to hazard a guess that the existing dimensions are important to the major buyers of the product - places like co-location facilities whose racks are designed around those dimensions and where the Mac Mini fits in an enclosure designed around the current dimensions. So Apple would not want to alienate the primary purchasers by making the device wider and/or taller.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Ha! Who else is watching the event? iPhone 11 is reasonably priced - is there hope they may announce a Mac? (slightly scaled down 7,1)?

 

[ManuelGomes]

Forget the mMP, I'm buying an iPhone 11 Pro... it's also Pro, has an Super Retina XDR display, it's the same as an mMP
[doublepost=1568140040][/doublepost]Maybe an nMP 2019 with current specs... I'll be all over it

 

[ManuelGomes]

Here it comes... one more thing
[doublepost=1568140944][/doublepost]Nope...

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Handheld video camera company... sigh.

 

[ManuelGomes]

They haven't updated the site yet

 

[H. Flower]

So apparently no more information today on release date, pricing, pre-orders, etc.

They're not really gonna Dec 31st us on this, are they?

 

[AidenShaw]

They're not really gonna Dec 31st us on this, are they?

History says "yes". They'll ship one unit on 30 December (next day delivery), then ramp up in Q1 of CY20.

 

[goMac]

So apparently no more information today on release date, pricing, pre-orders, etc.

They're not really gonna Dec 31st us on this, are they?

Rumor is there is a Mac event next month. MBP updates being MIA would support that.

 

[CWallace]

Rumor is there is a Mac event next month. MBP updates being MIA would support that.

Also the iPad Pros could be updated with the three-camera system at the same event. And there were rumors of a more powerful Apple TV, but I have to believe that would have been announced at today's event.

 

[deconstruct60]

The Mac mini could get boosted in size and still be mini (since it doesn't really meet the criteria now in the world of NUCs) but I imagine like with the iMac Pro they want to get their money's worth out of the existing chassis designs before they redesign everything.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are catering to folks like Mac Minicoloc and other folks who embedd Mini into other hardware (at one point there was rumored to be a vending machine with mini's inside). Similar to folks who were "desk stacking" them. So they stuck to he exact same dimensions for the update.

Which NUCs have the power supply in the device? It is relatively a cheesy kluge to eject the power supply into another substantive large box dangling outside the box. Add up all the volume dangling all the way to the wall.

Longer term though, if they are not going to track the MBP 13" and entry MBP 15" range of processors it would be better if they let the Mini grow just a bit. They only need to prep the folks with jigs for the older size so that they'd be ready. The case being a bit taller wouldn't even impact the "desk stacker" folks much either.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Was seriously hoping for a footnote or just a web update with pricing and availability. For a friend.

 

[deconstruct60]

Also the iPad Pros could be updated with the three-camera system at the same event. And there were rumors of a more powerful Apple TV, but I have to believe that would have been announced at today's event.

There was a rumors putting the iPad Pro in Spring also. There is a decent chance that if Apple wants to throw a A13X into the Pros that Spring is a better time. (for a bigger die on a bleeding edge process ). Apple lowered the price of the iPhone 11. So that will probably sell well ( as the XR did with discounts ).

AppleTV with a 12X ( which should be mature at that point) is possible in October. It will also be another chance to talk about Apple TV+ and new shows that are farther into completion.

Apple doesn't need an "event" to flush out the Mac Pro's BTO's pricing options.

Mac Pro gets you whole year of Apple TV+ ... maybe that will help with the entry price utility.