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

[koyoot]

amd also has more pci-e lanes and moving faster on v4 will they have v5 when intel is just starting on v4?

Its worse than that.

Depending on Intel manufacturing Woes, AMD can be on PCIe 5.0, while Intel can still be stuck with PCIe 3.0.

 

[ssgbryan]

Level1Tech had some pricing on Xeons - W3175 (28 cores @4.7Ghz) $3,000. We also now know why the case design is what it is. To quote Buster Poindexter - It's Hot, Hot, Hot.....

And the 3990X is coming in January.....

 

[Mago]

Meanwhile ROCm 3.0 was released so booting Linux on the imMP would enable Tensorfow 2.0 and PyTorch 1.3 but it's expected performance should be on par or s bit below Radeon VII, so for those doing ML a imMP it's an waste, more now given Threadripper 3970 is out giving more performance than a 28 core imMP only restricted on Max ram when compared with imMP but beating by long in both perform, efficiency and cost any possible Mac pro configuration with less than 256gb ram.

But TR 3990x was announced with 64 cores, still we have expectations on the TRX 80 workstation solution (likely adding more ram and more usable pcie lines)

BTW a TR 3970 could be configured soon full loaded (4tb raid 0 ssd, 256gb ECC ran, and 4 rtx 2060 to by an amount close to 6000$ providing better performance,and room to grow in GPU performance upto 4 rtx Titan or 4 Quadro rtx 8000.

The imMP as now as offering is even less attractive than the trashcan and I doubt it will sell better than the trashcan on it's first year. Unless apple moves soon to TRX80/Threadripper 3000 and AMD releases it's bf16 enabled Navi GPU (and apple re-enable alternative bare-metal access to 3rd party compute API as ROCm CUDA and oneAPI.

 

[koyoot]

The imMP as now as offering is even less attractive than the trashcan and I doubt it will sell better than the trashcan on it's first year.

Which is ironic, because its not because of the form factor, but outdated Intel platform.

Intel's platforms are Dead-on-Arrival, from this moment.

And this is actually bad news for consumers.

 

[Mago]

Which is ironic, because its not because of the form factor, but outdated Intel platform.

Intel's platforms are Dead-on-Arrival, from this moment.

And this is actually bad news for consumers.

Only translating CPU+MB savings relative to Intel apple could save (and maybe sell cheaper) among 1000 to 2500$ and offer a 24 core imMP as base model at least 1000$ cheaper and a faster 32 core model by 2500$ less than it would likely cost.

 

[goMac]

I don't think it makes the Mac Pro DOA. Apple's other competitors are on Intel.

But... it does put them in a really awkward spot. This Mac Pro is not going to compare well to any future model. Either they're going to switch to AMD, put a lot of work into ARM, or use 10 nm Intel in the future. All of which will look a lot better than this Mac Pro.

I'm going into the 7,1 with a three year upgrade plan. I need one now, but it's not going to be a machine to stay on long term. It's similar to the 3,1. It's not a bad machine, it's just on the edge of a big transition.

 

[bsbeamer]

The issue is this machine was teased in 2017, again in 2018, finally announced with specs in mid 2019, but it's the end of 2019, we still cannot actually purchase, still cannot configure BTO pricing, still don't have an actual shipping date, and some of that base level upgradeable hardware remains at 2017/2018 level tech. That roadmap is not immediately promising or setting this machine up for longterm success.

In Q1 2020 Apple will be still be shipping this $6K+ beast with basically RX 580's as the base GPU option. A GPU that was released Q2 2017 and can be found for under $200 as an Apple certified MP5,1 upgrade. If they continue to offer that same configuration without updates in late 2020/2021/2022, it will really signal their intentions with this machine platform long-term and be really embarrassing, especially if they don't drop the price.

In reality, Pro's are expecting at least minor spec bumps on (around) a yearly basis for machines in this price range. Most are going 2-4+ years per machine, depending on post-purchase upgrades available. What most Pro's really want are machines that are on regular update cycles and they purchase when it times to their needs. Offices that I'm in are planning for Q2 2020 if they even pickup an MP7,1 at this point. Many of them are basically waiting to see how it shakes out for the first 3-6 months and to get the overall temperature at NAB 2020. More than a handful have already moved to iMacs and MacMini for their Mac workstations.

 

[H. Flower]

Taking 4 years to release a computer maybe isn't the best idea?

 

[Zdigital2015]

Taking 4 years to release a computer maybe isn't the best idea?

We’re not even at 3 years since they had their “fireside” chat with Tech Crunch, et al. on April 4th of 2017. We’re at roughly 31 months. Should the Mac Pro have taken this long? No. Should people exaggerate how long it has been in gestation? No.

 

[AidenShaw]

But TR 3990x was announced with 64 cores,

And how many desktop apps need 64 cores? If you're not running C4D, those benchmarks may be off.
[automerge]1574721819[/automerge]

Should people exaggerate how long it has been in gestation? No.

I assume that the baseline is 2013, plus a two year window for the expected bump. 2015->2019 is four years.

 

[archimacpro]

How often do you think we'll get an updated motherboard to take advantage of new chips?

 

[Mr. Dee]

We’re not even at 3 years since they had their “fireside” chat with Tech Crunch, et al. on April 4th of 2017. We’re at roughly 31 months. Should the Mac Pro have taken this long? No. Should people exaggerate how long it has been in gestation? No.

Actually, it has taken 6 years. I am sure they were planning revisions in 2014, 15, 16 on their internal roadmap, but the thermal corner got them and they had to rethink. This caused a delay not to mention their wrong indication that pro’s were moving their workflows primarily to iMac and MacBook Pros. On top of that, I believe leadership thought with 22 million iPads per-quarter, they could do just fine neglecting the Mac overall. But something strange happened along the way, sales of the iPad dropped, Windows OEMs actually started to up their game, Android phones started to up their game too.

Even leaks out of the company admit, internally, they took their eyes off the Mac. We saw this with the 2016 MacBook Pro. But they are righting many of these wrongs, its just that it has significantly affected their delivery time. Part of that is likely due to human engineering resources being stretched thin.

If you need this Mac Pro for your organization, you are not gonna care about the cost of the components and like most, when a new one comes out in Fall 2020, 2021, you are gonna keep some of the old stock and sell off most and replenish.

Frankly, Apple really doesn’t care, its printing money everyday with the iPhone and the rest of its products and services.

 

[OkiRun]

Behind closed apple doors, the price of this Mac Pro may be under heated argument about entry level pricing. I think the cost of the stand might even be cut in half.

Aiden , I was thinking the same thing. Who posting here need that many cores.

 

[ssgbryan]

Behind closed apple doors, the price of this Mac Pro may be under heated argument about entry level pricing. I think the cost of the stand might even be cut in half.

Aiden , I was thinking the same thing. Who posting here need that many cores.

I could use it. The 3d Render Engines I use will use every core I can throw at it.

The Threadrippers are aimed at the HEDT user base. Which is a area that Intel no longer competes in, at least at this point in time.

 

[koyoot]

And how many desktop apps need 64 cores? If you're not running C4D, those benchmarks may be off.

I will congratulate any pro, that will show me a situation where their worflow consists of ONE application.

More cores equal more done simultaneously. You can put two apps that require 32 cores, at the same time.

But, what do I know...?

P.S. What you are experiencing, is Denial. Don't worry, soon it will be over, and you will accept the reality.

 

[AidenShaw]

I could use it. The 3d Render Engines I use will use every core I can throw at it.

That's why I mentioned C4D - the set of scalable apps is not the null set.

How much faster will Photoshop run with 64 cores vs 12? (or 12 vs 6?) Most desktop apps aren't embarrassingly parallel.

Get massively parallel systems for your render farms - or massively parallel cloud systems.
[automerge]1574726958[/automerge]

But, what do I know...?

You know AMD publicity sheets.

 

[H. Flower]

We’re not even at 3 years since they had their “fireside” chat with Tech Crunch, et al. on April 4th of 2017. We’re at roughly 31 months. Should the Mac Pro have taken this long? No. Should people exaggerate how long it has been in gestation? No.

In April of 2017, they were already in development. We can safely assume they started in 2016. I'll give you 40 months. Still WAY too long.

 

[goMac]

Behind closed apple doors, the price of this Mac Pro may be under heated argument about entry level pricing. I think the cost of the stand might even be cut in half.

The $6000 entry price was recently re-stated by Apple. I highly doubt there is any "heated argument" behind closed doors about it. They're only $1000 more than HP, but that might be justified by the increased costs around the Thunderbolt system.

If anything, I wonder if Intel is re-considering their prices, which might filter down to Apple.

 

[koyoot]

If anything, I wonder if Intel is re-considering their prices, which might filter down to Apple.

Even if Intel is re-considering their prices, it won't affect Apple prices in any way, shape or form, other than higher price margin for Apple .

 

[teagls]

In April of 2017, they were already in development. We can safely assume they started in 2016. I'll give you 40 months. Still WAY too long.

I totally agree – thats the problem with Apple's Mac hardware development. Almost 4 years between initial development and getting it into customer's hands. Thats way too much time for other technology to change and improve. Other companies don't have this issue and frankly it was the issue with the trashcan Mac Pro too. The GPUs in that machine were ancient by the time it got to customers.

 

[koyoot]

You know AMD publicity sheets.

I know AMD's publicity sheets as well as I know Intel's, and Nvidia's.

What publicity sheets do you know apart from Intel's, and Nvidia's?

 

[AidenShaw]

I know AMD's publicity sheets as well as I know Intel's, and Nvidia's.

What publicity sheets do you know apart from Intel's, and Nvidia's?

​

 

[koyoot]

View attachment 879271​

Erm:

You know AMD publicity sheets.

You started it.

 

[OkiRun]

The $6000 entry price was recently re-stated by Apple. I highly doubt there is any "heated argument" behind closed doors about it. They're only $1000 more than HP, but that might be justified by the increased costs around the Thunderbolt system.

If anything, I wonder if Intel is re-considering their prices, which might filter down to Apple.

I should have been more precise...
If Apple cuts the asking price of the Afterburner $150 from their original 'internal' cost figures we will never know.

 

[ssgbryan]

That's why I mentioned C4D - the set of scalable apps is not the null set.

How much faster will Photoshop run with 64 cores vs 12? (or 12 vs 6?) Most desktop apps aren't embarrassingly parallel.

Get massively parallel systems for your render farms - or massively parallel cloud systems.

I am looking to retire my render farm, not increase it. Again, I am a hobbyist, not Industrial Light and Magic.

More cores means I can have multiple poorly coded Adobe apps open at the same time, as well as my heavy duty programs.