Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What should 2019 Mac Pro be like?
- Thread starter Wingsley
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Never said it's bad. It's just that you seemed to be especially happy about the HP designs, and I couldn't see what made them special.
With the old cheese grater Mac Pro design of, well, basically the 1,1 till 5,1, it was special. Handles on the top, lovely aluminium look, well designed power button that looked pleasing but not an eye-assault like all the RGB "Gaming" whatnot, but not boring like a lot of other brands' pro options are. And with respect to function, you could open up the side door without any tools, by just pulling the tap on the back, and everything inside was laid out in a way that made it real easy to get to everything without having a massive mess of cables.
Intel.
Intel.
Yes its true. Intel.
Intel.
most of the system cost is in the processor. "standard" desktop CPUs (like in the regular iMac) top out around $300 USD, which is around the starting point for the ECC-enabled E3 cpus (which are just like i7s, except without graphics and with ECC memory support)... go up to the "enthusiast" i7s and Xeon-W and above, you're paying hundreds of dollars... if not thousands. The current "premium" E5, the E5-2680v4 (and im not going to include exotic OEM cpus) sells for close to $3500... for just the CPU.
because it requires a lot more resources to code a deep, heavily graphics intense game on x86 with dedicated graphics cards than it does to code for a mobile device with a mobile chipset with limited API access.
people have been asking for this from Apple since the 90s. It will never happen. They make far too much profit off their horribly overpriced upgrades to give up this lucrative cash cow. The day they do this is the day they basically give away upgrades for the entire pro market as only customers with corporate spending accounts will max out their machine out the door. anybody who has to actually budget for this stuff will buy the stripped system and use 3rd party upgrades. Apple is not "missing the boat" here... they are making a decision to keep their very profitable upgrade system in-place.
then get ready to pay through the nose. Cuz Intel.
Expansion slots, graphics card choices & user servicable, really. that's what it ultimately boils down to.
To answer a few of your points.
You want an xMac, and Apple is not interested in making an xMac. Gaming machines are cheaper because you're building them yourself, or because they prioritize CPU clock seed and GPUs over all else. They aren't designed for long-term reliability or stability (Xeon chips are the best binned, they don't support ECC RAM), they aren't designed for parallel workloads (fewer core counts), and they aren't built for specialized tasks. You ask why a Mac Pro has to be spectacularly expensive, when it's no more expensive than the competition. You can't make these machines cheaper.
I love gaming, I game on my Mac Pro, and gaming makes no sense for Apple to focus on as a category. Again, first Apple would have to invent a new product category in its already diffuse matrix. It would have to abrogate system stability to third party vendors it doesn't control. It would have to invest in graphics technologies it doesn't use. And at the end of the day it would still be too expensive a machine for a category where the fastest-growing segment is BYO machines spec'd out on NewEgg, not prebuilt towers. Apple could making gaming on Mac more attractive (and I wish they did, but it's clear there's no executive over there who cares about games and there never has been) but it will never be a platform of choice in that regard.
I can't believe you say you've spent time in the other Mac Pro threads, because you seem unaware of anything about pro use cases and why people spend so much on any gear, not just their computers.
Pro users are people who use their computers for paying work. If you can't justify the price of a pro Mac, you're not the target audience. You can pay for a Mac Pro in a few jobs; your software licenses are probably a bigger price tag than the hardware.
You want an xMac, and Apple is not interested in making an xMac. Gaming machines are cheaper because you're building them yourself, or because they prioritize CPU clock seed and GPUs over all else. They aren't designed for long-term reliability or stability (Xeon chips are the best binned, they don't support ECC RAM), they aren't designed for parallel workloads (fewer core counts), and they aren't built for specialized tasks. You ask why a Mac Pro has to be spectacularly expensive, when it's no more expensive than the competition. You can't make these machines cheaper.
I love gaming, I game on my Mac Pro, and gaming makes no sense for Apple to focus on as a category. Again, first Apple would have to invent a new product category in its already diffuse matrix. It would have to abrogate system stability to third party vendors it doesn't control. It would have to invest in graphics technologies it doesn't use. And at the end of the day it would still be too expensive a machine for a category where the fastest-growing segment is BYO machines spec'd out on NewEgg, not prebuilt towers. Apple could making gaming on Mac more attractive (and I wish they did, but it's clear there's no executive over there who cares about games and there never has been) but it will never be a platform of choice in that regard.
I can't believe you say you've spent time in the other Mac Pro threads, because you seem unaware of anything about pro use cases and why people spend so much on any gear, not just their computers.
Bang on the money with this entire post. Plus there are motherboard features dictated by Intel as well. If you're using a Xeon chip, the socket and chipset are different, and thus, motherboard prices go up too.
And the GPUs in the pro end, Quadro and FirePro (Do they just call them Radeon Pro now or what?) are also way more expensive than their "Geforce" or RX counterparts. Compare for instance a WX9100 to a Vega 64. Pretty much identical hardware there, though the workstation WX9100 is about twice the price. At least where I've looked.
And you really hit it with that last part too. If we can easily service any failing parts, easily upgrade it and expand it - barely matters how it looks at all.
I had to read that like four times before I understood the meaning there.... But yeah, no, it's officially said to be 2019, so forget that dream
https://ark.intel.com/products/91754/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2680-v4-35M-Cache-2_40-GHz
Recommended Customer Price $1745.00 - $1749.00
The one you replied to must've made a mistake. Broadwell is by no means the latest premium E5. That'd be Skylake Scalable.
With the workstation GPUs you're presumably getting the same preferential binning and ECC RAM. Which, if you don't care about it, is a waste of money certainly, but if you're doing important calculations on the GPU you're going to pay the extra. Quadros also come with more CUDA cores if you're doing something that requires it, so they'll punch above their weight compared to enthusiast cards.
Manufacturers charge a premium for pro features because they know pros need and want them. If you're fine getting 75% of the features you can get them for a lot less than 75% of the price.
Of course. But I was just stating that it isn't simply Intel that has more expensive workstation products.
Quadros don't always offer more CUDA cores btw. In fact, I can't remember a single time they ever have, aside from a single GPU. They have however offered far better FP64 processing than their GeForce counterparts in the past, due to specific FP64 hardware.
To me, the wish list is rather simple:
- Value. I can't justify macOS/Apple easily if I get more for less on PCs. I don't necessarily mean cheap, even if that wouldn't hurt either.
- Reasons why value doesn't seem to be there atm seems to come down to this one-size-fits-all approach that definitely breaks down in so-called-pro space, since the needs are not uniform. I can't justify paying an arm and leg for "pro" graphics when I can get a card that is faster for my apps and costs half. Same goes for RAM, processors and other components, as apps are using resources very differently. So, customizability, please.
If they come up with seedless mangoes, nobody will ever hear from me again. Except for the fruit stand guy.
The word "design" can mean both the "engineering" of the system and the "styling" of the system.
The HP Z-series has very good engineering, and comes in a number of models ranging from mini-like SFF systems to a big dual socket tower. Lots of CTO options - so between the different chassis configurations and the options one can easily find the right system without overpaying for a big system, or getting a system too small for your work.
As for the "styling" of a workstation, I could hardly care less. Workstations are almost always on the floor under the desk, so black is good.
What is not good?
I'd like to just note that most Mac Pros I've seen in use - whether it's the 5.1 kind or 6.1 style, they've been on the desk, not the floor.
Second, I don't see such a massive distinction between the engineering quality and the style honestly. Those two things are very closely tied. For instance, the 2013 Mac Pro is a cylinder. That is something you'd classify under style, right? But the shape is a very important factor in its cooling design, which is engineering.
Since Apple only has 1 Mac Pro in their lineup, you shouldn't expect many different chassis. Is that the plural of chassis? Or do you change it?.... Anyways, I do however believe there will be a lot of CTO/BTO options, as there almost always is with Macs. Far from the quantity you'd get if you compare all the HP Z-stations, but a fair amount for a single chassis.
I'm guessing anywhere from 6 to 24 cores, several (AMD only by default) graphics options, a plethora of storage options with expandability, 16-256GB of RAM, and plenty of PCIe slots for any expansion cards you'd want to add yourself, so you don't get what you showed in your picture above.
This design decision is fundamental to why the MP6,1 is a failure - because it actually has serious cooling problems. (And we don't know if the stylists forced the cylinder down the engineers' throats, or if the engineers said "we can make it round".)
The MP6,1 is a design+styling+engineering failure. Not simply because it is a cylinder - but because it is a cylinder with no headroom for more power (and therefore more cooling). If it had been designed for a 750watt power supply it might have been a success.
Beg Apple not to follow the failure of Cube 2.0 with Cube 3.0. Keep Jony Ive away from the design of pro workstations.
It has cooling problems in the sense that you can't put any better in it than what Apple offered, but for the parts that you could get it with, the cooling was sufficient. And in fact a very well thought out design. It logically makes sense to base your cooling around the natural circulation of airflow, i.e. hot air goes up. Thus, pulling in air from the bottom (assuming you're not placed on the floor with ********s of dust), makes sense, since that's where the coldest air is. And blowing it out at the top again makes sense, since that's where it wants to go anyway.
I agree the cylinder was too limiting though, and so does Apple. They said it themselves.
You sound negative around the Cube though. I don't get that. The original PPC Cube was brillant.And so was the NextCube
What ECC? On which quadros? Check from the source and educate yourself:
https://devblogs.nvidia.com/inside-pascal/
Don’t write like summer intern in marketing department....
That site is all about Teslas... I don't know what your point was.
Let me quote you Nvidia, in defence of my fellow poster.
For high-precision, data-sensitive applications, Quadro is the only professional graphics solution with ECC memory and fast double precision capabilities to ensure the accuracy and fidelity of your results. From medical imaging to structural analysis applications, data integrity and precision is assured, without sacrificing ...
And here's the source page.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro-fermi-overview.html
Hell, I just Google ECC Quadro and that came up
Now granted; That's the old Fermi architecture they talk about, but still.
Really? I'm gobsmacked by that statement. The engineering of the MP6,1 was constrained by the style, and ultimately caused it to be a failure. It's not a matter of "quality" of engineering, but the MP6.1 styling severely constrained the engineering - thus the failure.
The higher Z-series have a side panel that easily comes off, like the cheese grater - no tools. Clearly, the styling of that side panel (black, space gray, or even tacky white plastic) could be changed easily *without changing the engineering of the system*. The styling of the panels on the top, front, bottom and others side are just as easily changed. There's a minor constraint that the fungible shell has to provide certain RF shielding, and the front has air intake considerations.
But handles, or no handles, is a style issue. (And pray to gord that Apple doesn't create another system with painfully sharp and fragile handles like the cheese grater.)
I don't really get you here. You say you don't agree with me, but then go on to explain how you agree with me in your very first paragraph.
There's no distinction between style and engineering is my statement. Your statement is that the 6.1 was limited in engineering because of its style, thus proving that the two are inevitably intertwined. Yes, some style elements can be changed without affecting the functionality, like colour or whatnot (generally speaking), but on some fundamental level style and function are two sides of the same coin.
The 6.1 was limited indeed. But for what Apple thought it would be used for, it wasn't limited. It was exactly (and not a hair more than that) what they thought it needed to be. Well, they'd only looked at an extremely small portion of the market, and at a single, short term use-case, but for that, it was well made, and the cooling worked for that.
That is the problem. Coupled with the fact that Apple underclocked the components to fit the power envelope - rather than increasing the power envelope to match the day 1 components and perhaps future enhancements.
It has cooling problems.
[doublepost=1524183930][/doublepost]
Yes, if you have no fans (Cube 1.0). If you have a fan, natural convection becomes a minor factor.
No it is not. That is why it suffers from endemic GPU meltdowns.
Every. Single. One. Will. Fail. When. Pushed. Hard. Enough.
And when those GPUs are replaced under warranty, or even out of warranty, they will fail as well.
If you have a (especially D700) cylinder Mac Pro that has not had a thermal failure, that merely indicates you haven't pushed its duty cycle sufficiently, not that you have one which will be "immune" from the problem.