What was the last credible MacPro rumor?

[Cole Slaw]

How complicated can it be for Apple to make a God damned desktop computer?
What's the big deal?
For them to put a mainboard, video card, PS, etc., into a box seems to have the same degree of difficulty as a manned mission to Mars.
I don't get these bozos, $200 Billion+ in the bank and they can't seem to build a desktop.

 

[iMcLovin]

How complicated can it be for Apple to make a God damned desktop computer?
What's the big deal?
For them to put a mainboard, video card, PS, etc., into a box seems to have the same degree of difficulty as a manned mission to Mars.
I don't get these bozos, $200 Billion+ in the bank and they can't seem to build a desktop.

that is exactly why, the +200 billion in the bank. Tim Cook says he loves the Mac. But he doesn't. He loves his money and spare time. And money he gets from services & iPhone sales and spare time he gets from not wasting time on machines that earns only fractions of the iphone with equal amount of work.

Apple should just ditch the entire Mac line, stop putting people through prolonged misery or release their OS to the wild. Their closed garden is becoming more of a prison of outdated minimilized & alluminized metal boxes. They don't understand their customers anymore. Break free from it allready!

 

[pat500000]

Here's a credible rumor: nobody knows. "Oh yeah!" -mr kool aid.

 

[ssgbryan]

that is exactly why, the +200 billion in the bank. Tim Cook says he loves the Mac. But he doesn't. He loves his money and spare time. And money he gets from services & iPhone sales and spare time he gets from not wasting time on machines that earns only fractions of the iphone with equal amount of work.

Apple should just ditch the entire Mac line, stop putting people through prolonged misery or release their OS to the wild. Their closed garden is becoming more of a prison of outdated minimilized & alluminized metal boxes. They don't understand their customers anymore. Break free from it allready!

And they would follow Nokia & Crackberry if they did.

 

[seveej]

I honestly do not care, because there is nothing revolutionary in the pipeline.
• Intel is not focusing on Workstation processors, because mainstream computing is going in another direction.
• Whatever improved GPU will be available in a 6,2/7,1 will be overpriced and hopelessly outdated in a year.
• RAM speed improvements are only small increments
• Whatever new connection (TB3/USB-C) is available will only offer tangible improvements in a very narrow set of situations.
• The desktop is the workhorse for many industries, but it is not where the future is being made

Apple has thoroughly F'd up the Mac Pro. The form factor could have been more successful (it never had a chance of convincing all cheese-grater fans, but it could have worked out better) if Apple had put some of its weight behind it, if upgrades were on offer, and if the refresh cycle would give the community some hope.

If you are agonizing about whether to buy or not, don't. Get the latest nMP or iMac(r) (even cMP) - whichever suits your production needs better, and stop fretting. Or switch camp.

RGDS,

 

[JesterJJZ]

I really hope Apple throws us a bone soon. This is beyond silly.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

I honestly do not care, because there is nothing revolutionary in the pipeline.
• Intel is not focusing on Workstation processors, because mainstream computing is going in another direction.,

You know this is one meme that MUST DIE.

I think the criticism that Intel's processors, particularly for the laptop/low-end desktop have stalled is apt. I have an i7 in my 2011 MBP that runs at 2.7GHz with 4 cores and sadly, isn't too much slower than the 2.9GHz i7 in the 2016 Mac Book Pro.

However, the 12core 2.7GHz in the 2013 trashcan has been MURDERED by the last few revs of the Xeon. They are up to 22 cores in a single chip, or 36 in 2 chips, and that's before the next rev comes out.

So if that's not focusing, I'd like some of that lack of focus goodness. And if they have been focussing on the laptop/desktop market, they should stop, because their focus is pretty sad in its results.

 

[Neodym]

Yes I know but was replying to someone who said maybe Apple could revert to the 5.1 design. It's too cost prohibitive in my opinion and they won't

They could easily replace alumin(i)um with comparably cheap steel (with proper finish) to keep costs down.

We all do not open our computer case and tinker around inside it.

Some Porsche CEO was once asked about an affordable entry option seemingly missing in the portfolio. His reply was along the lines of "our entry option is a second-hand Porsche".

Even if the big majority of first owners would not "open our computer case and tinker around inside", chances are that 2nd and 3rd owners would. Apple machines are (or at least used to be) built quite sturdily and thus can live a long service life, if the internals can be moderately updated over the years.

Such "tinker people" could get in contact early with the Apple ecosystem while being low on money but with lots of time at hand. Later in their lives, when money is less of an issue, they would remember their entry and their pleasant experiences and thus buy new. Perhaps they even develop nice solutions on their older machines, as they invest their spare time.

With newer machines becoming sealed shut throughout the Apple portfolio, those described 2nd and 3rd hand owners are more likely to decide for other options, such as a Linux or Windows machine. In the worst case they are lost completely for Apple. And because demand for a 2nd hand Mac sinks, prices also go down, thus severely tarnishing Apple's reputation of being a solid investment with a good sell value later on.

And in the long run, the prospective 1st hand buyers may not be able to justify Apple's high prices any longer, thus forcing Apple to lower prices to keep selling and annoying investors in doing so. Could become a pretty dangerous domino chain ...

Granted, those are pretty long-term scenarios with some assumptions, but I feel that Apple should pay more attention to these seemingly unimportant details now, because little things (e.g. AirPorts - probably - discontinued, Monitors - probably - discontinued, AW Gen0 2nd hand price tanking) tend to add up. Until one day the problem suddenly becomes big, perhaps because external factors come into play. If you don't control the ecosystem properly or - in certain areas - not at all anymore, you may get blamed for mistakes of 3rd parties (see e.g. the recent problems with LG's 5k monitors, co-designed with Apple, or how Microsoft had been blamed for lousy USB drivers from 3rd party accessory makers many years ago).

 

[Bubba Satori]

"We have a great road map for the future of our pipeline of innovation and fake double talk."

 

[beaker7]

You know this is one meme that MUST DIE.

I think the criticism that Intel's processors, particularly for the laptop/low-end desktop have stalled is apt. I have an i7 in my 2011 MBP that runs at 2.7GHz with 4 cores and sadly, isn't too much slower than the 2.9GHz i7 in the 2016 Mac Book Pro.

However, the 12core 2.7GHz in the 2013 trashcan has been MURDERED by the last few revs of the Xeon. They are up to 22 cores in a single chip, or 36 in 2 chips, and that's before the next rev comes out.

So if that's not focusing, I'd like some of that lack of focus goodness. And if they have been focussing on the laptop/desktop market, they should stop, because their focus is pretty sad in its results.

44 in the pair soon to be out of date E5-2699v4's running in my 3D workstation.

 

[-hh]

Yes I know but was replying to someone who said maybe Apple could revert to the 5.1 design. It's too cost prohibitive in my opinion and they won't

Oh, I agree that they won't, but it isn't because Aluminum has become 'prohibitively' expensive.


Aluminum costs today under $1/lb, and the cMP weighed in at 40lbs ... which means that even if 100% of its weight was from aluminum, it contained less than $40 worth of this material.

Now Al is closer to $0.85/lb and if we say that half the cMP's was from Al, then the cost of all of the Al required to build a cMP today is roughly ... $17 per machine.

And sure, that's "up" 20% from a year ago, which means that it used to cost $14 per machine.

So is a $3 difference in the retail price of a Mac Pro really going to kill sales? Considering that the cMP started at $2500, that's all of a 0.1% difference that we're trying to claim is going to KILL its sales.

Trying to claim a "because exorbitant materials costs!" is so factually wrong, it is utterly absurd.


-hh

 

[jblagden]

On the latest MacBreak Weekly, Rene Richards said the he has heard rumors of a thick and heavy version of the Macbook Pro. This super-pro laptop would be engineered for performance, not battery life or portability. It could provide an option for those of us who want a 3rd-party display instead of an iMac.

I’m pretty sure you’re talking about Rene Ritchie.

 

[Septembersrain]

I’m pretty sure you’re talking about Rene Ritchie.

If it's him they are talking about, I wouldn't put a penny on any rumors coming from there.

 

[potatis]

Yes I know but was replying to someone who said maybe Apple could revert to the 5.1 design. It's too cost prohibitive in my opinion and they won't

Plus the design was banned in the EU. Something to do with the fans I think.

 

[jblagden]

I think TB1 and TB2 were a bust. The fact that TB3 uses USB-C gives it a MAJOR advantage over the other two.

I wish the price would come down at least! I would be surprised if we never get a TB3 equipped Mac Pro.

What massive gap in performance? As far as I can tell, the 2013 Mac Pro with the D700s still beats anything in terms of FCPX performance.

USB-C isn’t a standard so much as a shape. It’s USB 3.1 and Thunderbolt. This is like Thunderbolt 1 and 2 having the same shape as Mini Displayport and using the same adapters. It’s also like USB 2.0 having so many variations, like USB-B and micro USB.
[doublepost=1487032090][/doublepost]

If it's him they are talking about, I wouldn't put a penny on any rumors coming from there.

Yeah, he’s more of an apologist than an objective observer. He’s probably trying to make Apple look better by making it look like they’re working on great new Macs.
[doublepost=1487032335][/doublepost]

of course !

Most defenders of the Cylinder cite FCPX performance gains. Hence.

Yeah. A lot of video editors who use Macs have switched to Adobe Premier so they can use the same editor on Mac and Windows, just in case they end up having to switch to Windows to be able to have computers which are adequate for their work.
[doublepost=1487032887][/doublepost]

I find FCPX with a nMP to be amazing, performance wise. Pricing for the nMP and the fact that its pretty much only good for FCPX makes it a very bad deal even when it came out, unless video editing is the only thing you do.
Honestly I dont understand why people don't move on, are you gonna buy a new Desktop, Apple isn't gonna give you what you want anymore.

Btw, out of curiosity...why doesn't more people use Vegas for movie editing?. I found it to be almost as responsive as FCPX and the features are better and the UX is just amazing - for me it is superior to any other video editing software (though video editing is not my daily job). Its WAY better IMO to edit videos in Vegas than premiere or FCPX. The only reason Premiere wins over Vegas to me is the integration with After Effects, apart from that every other part of Premiere is more cumbersome....that goes for FCPX as well.

I thought Vegas was Windows-only. Mac users generally don’t want to have to leave the Mac if they don’t have to. We’re just hoping Apple eventually realize their mistake and start making proper Macs again.
[doublepost=1487033885][/doublepost]

They could easily replace alumin(i)um with comparably cheap steel (with proper finish) to keep costs down.


Some Porsche CEO was once asked about an affordable entry option seemingly missing in the portfolio. His reply was along the lines of "our entry option is a second-hand Porsche".

Even if the big majority of first owners would not "open our computer case and tinker around inside", chances are that 2nd and 3rd owners would. Apple machines are (or at least used to be) built quite sturdily and thus can live a long service life, if the internals can be moderately updated over the years.

Such "tinker people" could get in contact early with the Apple ecosystem while being low on money but with lots of time at hand. Later in their lives, when money is less of an issue, they would remember their entry and their pleasant experiences and thus buy new. Perhaps they even develop nice solutions on their older machines, as they invest their spare time.

With newer machines becoming sealed shut throughout the Apple portfolio, those described 2nd and 3rd hand owners are more likely to decide for other options, such as a Linux or Windows machine. In the worst case they are lost completely for Apple. And because demand for a 2nd hand Mac sinks, prices also go down, thus severely tarnishing Apple's reputation of being a solid investment with a good sell value later on.

And in the long run, the prospective 1st hand buyers may not be able to justify Apple's high prices any longer, thus forcing Apple to lower prices to keep selling and annoying investors in doing so. Could become a pretty dangerous domino chain ...

Granted, those are pretty long-term scenarios with some assumptions, but I feel that Apple should pay more attention to these seemingly unimportant details now, because little things (e.g. AirPorts - probably - discontinued, Monitors - probably - discontinued, AW Gen0 2nd hand price tanking) tend to add up. Until one day the problem suddenly becomes big, perhaps because external factors come into play. If you don't control the ecosystem properly or - in certain areas - not at all anymore, you may get blamed for mistakes of 3rd parties (see e.g. the recent problems with LG's 5k monitors, co-designed with Apple, or how Microsoft had been blamed for lousy USB drivers from 3rd party accessory makers many years ago).

I agree 100% on the polished steel. That would be a cost-effective way to make a nice-looking desktop. That’s what they did with the Apple Watch.

I also agree 100% with the tinkerer theory. I fit into that theory perfectly. My first (and current) Mac is a 2011 MacBook, one of the last upgradable ones. After having this Mac, I would eventually keep buying Macs if Apple kept making them upgradable and repairable. So far, I have upgraded the hard drive twice, upgraded the RAM to 8 GB, and swapped out the optical drive for a 2 terabyte hard drive. Those upgrades have really helped to make it last as long as it has. If I couldn’t make those upgrades, especially the RAM and Solid State Drive upgrades, my MacBook wouldn’t have lasted me as long as it has, or at least it would be a lot slower. When a laptop lasts five years and can continue on for another 3-5 years, that’s when you’ve got a good one. But when you get one of the new Macs with soldered RAM, I doubt you’ll get past three years, especially since most folks go with the standard amount of RAM and get each OS update.

 

[AidenShaw]

Plus the design was banned in the EU. Something to do with the fans I think.

The EU issue with the fans is that it didn't have a 50¢ wire guard on the inside to keep you from sticking your fingers into the spinning fan blades.

Something that Apple could have easily revised on the 5.1, but didn't care enough to fix it so Apple stopped selling the 5.1.

 

[Synchro3]

You can stick your fingers into the spinning fan blades in the Mac Pro and nothing happens. The fans are not strong enough to hurt any fingers. What a farce...

 

[AidenShaw]

You can stick your fingers into the spinning fan blades in the Mac Pro and nothing happens. The fans are not strong enough to hurt any fingers. What a farce...

Is the farce the EU regulation, or that Apple couldn't be bothered to add a 50¢ blade guard?

 

[Bubba Satori]

Is the farce the EU regulation, or that Apple couldn't be bothered to add a 50¢ blade guard?

Yes.

 

[seveej]

You know this is one meme that MUST DIE.

I think the criticism that Intel's processors, particularly for the laptop/low-end desktop have stalled is apt. I have an i7 in my 2011 MBP that runs at 2.7GHz with 4 cores and sadly, isn't too much slower than the 2.9GHz i7 in the 2016 Mac Book Pro.

However, the 12core 2.7GHz in the 2013 trashcan has been MURDERED by the last few revs of the Xeon. They are up to 22 cores in a single chip, or 36 in 2 chips, and that's before the next rev comes out.

So if that's not focusing, I'd like some of that lack of focus goodness. And if they have been focussing on the laptop/desktop market, they should stop, because their focus is pretty sad in its results.

A few points here...
The laptop/low-end segment (as you call it) has seen tremendous development over the last years. The big difference is that focus has been (rightly, IMHO) shifted to power-efficiency, not to just getting more MIPS/FLOPS out of the processor. The actual, real-life speed boost users have experienced has been accomplished mainly by speeding up the other components (all the way from faster interconnects, faster storage to faster Wireless)

And yes, those R&D megabucks which Intel poured into multi-core designs throughout the 00's are finally paying off in the workstation CPU segment, in the form of actually quite workable solutions for > 10 core systems. The problem there is, that 20-30 cores actually is beneficial only in quite a narrow segment of uses, especially when the downside is lowered-per core effectiveness.

To pre-empt your argument, yes of course these processors are aimed at specifically those users, whose bread-and-butter is created using softwares which scale nicely, and subsequently can utilize all those cores effectively. Likewise, yes, that's a segment which is worthwhile (decent-sized, with well-lined wallets) to serve.

On the other hand, there has been a significant change. If you look back 5-10 years, about half of those who wanted a workstation, did not in fact need a workstation. They just wanted to pay a little extra, in order to get a desktop, which was a cut above the competition. When they paid that extra, they got some extra as well... They might have put a geforce next to the Quadro in order to be able to play games as well, but when they made an extra investment, they got a computer which was *better* than the ordinary high-end desktop. You might frown, and you might sneer, but these well-endowed aficionados have historically always been a significant buyer segment. And back then, their m.o. might not have been a cost-effective way, but it would have worked. It does not now.

If you look at the situation now, when you buy a Pro workstation, you do not get "better", you get "different". Naturally, that "different" is exactly what some users (those using scaleable software) need, but that different does no longer equate to "better" on a broad range of uses. Just look at wide-spectrum comparisons between (Wintel) workstations and Gaming rigs (high-end desktops). Subsequently, high-end desktops are farther from workstations than they have been since the days when companies like Silicon Graphics were a go-to for workstation users.

RGDS,

P.S. I'm not saying that 36 cores may not be your thing. I'm saying that the line Apple and Intel have taken, is not targeted at widening the attraction of workstation solutions...

 

[ssgbryan]

A few points here...
The laptop/low-end segment (as you call it) has seen tremendous development over the last years. The big difference is that focus has been (rightly, IMHO) shifted to power-efficiency, not to just getting more MIPS/FLOPS out of the processor. The actual, real-life speed boost users have experienced has been accomplished mainly by speeding up the other components (all the way from faster interconnects, faster storage to faster Wireless)

And yes, those R&D megabucks which Intel poured into multi-core designs throughout the 00's are finally paying off in the workstation CPU segment, in the form of actually quite workable solutions for > 10 core systems. The problem there is, that 20-30 cores actually is beneficial only in quite a narrow segment of uses, especially when the downside is lowered-per core effectiveness.

To pre-empt your argument, yes of course these processors are aimed at specifically those users, whose bread-and-butter is created using softwares which scale nicely, and subsequently can utilize all those cores effectively. Likewise, yes, that's a segment which is worthwhile (decent-sized, with well-lined wallets) to serve.

On the other hand, there has been a significant change. If you look back 5-10 years, about half of those who wanted a workstation, did not in fact need a workstation. They just wanted to pay a little extra, in order to get a desktop, which was a cut above the competition. When they paid that extra, they got some extra as well... They might have put a geforce next to the Quadro in order to be able to play games as well, but when they made an extra investment, they got a computer which was *better* than the ordinary high-end desktop. You might frown, and you might sneer, but these well-endowed aficionados have historically always been a significant buyer segment. And back then, their m.o. might not have been a cost-effective way, but it would have worked. It does not now.

If you look at the situation now, when you buy a Pro workstation, you do not get "better", you get "different". Naturally, that "different" is exactly what some users (those using scaleable software) need, but that different does no longer equate to "better" on a broad range of uses. Just look at wide-spectrum comparisons between (Wintel) workstations and Gaming rigs (high-end desktops). Subsequently, high-end desktops are farther from workstations than they have been since the days when companies like Silicon Graphics were a go-to for workstation users.

RGDS,

P.S. I'm not saying that 36 cores may not be your thing. I'm saying that the line Apple and Intel have taken, is not targeted at widening the attraction of workstation solutions...

I take it that you aren't in the hobbyist 3d art market. It has taken until the last couple of years for the software to catch up with the hardware, but that is where we are at now. 4 core systems haven't cut it for a while now; and 16Gb limits? Please.

Even with free software, most of our workflows will use as many cores and as much ram as we can throw at our systems.

 

[seveej]

I take it that you aren't in the hobbyist 3d art market. It has taken until the last couple of years for the software to catch up with the hardware, but that is where we are at now. 4 core systems haven't cut it for a while now; and 16Gb limits? Please.

Even with free software, most of our workflows will use as many cores and as much ram as we can throw at our systems.

You're right, I'm not into 3D.
Actually, I used to be into that stuff (as well as a lot of other CPU/RAM intensive stuff). Nowadays, I mainly study people who are (Researcher, Information Systems Science), which does nevertheless mean, that I have a finger on many pulses.

I have to say I'm happy for you. I have only a very small number of softwares, which actually are able to employ all of the cores my 5,1 furnishes me with, so I'm somewhat jealous here.

That said, my main arguments stand (and they were general, not apple-specific).
- Workstations are no longer "better", they are becoming "different"
- This in turn narrows the potential appeal of workstations
- Which in turn leads to that workstations are no longer the vanguard, but become a niche.

Now, going from general to apple-specific:
• Firstly, I'm quite sure we'll see a 6 or 8 core option for the iMac in the near future. This all depends on when Intel will introduce a non-Xeon CPU with more than 4 cores and a TDP in the same league with the current i7-6700K (91W)

• I admit that the 16 GB limit is shortsighted, and I also see it as a symptom of Apple's continued drive to solder components which previously were easily user-upgradeable. Adding a 32GB option for (e.g.) the top-of-range MBP's is not physically impossible, but it would lead to another hardware configuration, which (considering how apple designs the production) is both an added cost and an added risk.

• As it stands, the Mac Pro and iMac seem to be the only current Apple computers where RAM is upgradeable after purchase. Thus, these two also are the only machines I ever recommend to anyone who sees RAM as critical. All that said, I see the 5K iMac as a very useable option (compared to nMP) for people with serious processing requirements, as long as...
- They can stand the fan noise
- The softwares they use are not scaleable for >4 cores
- 64 Gigs of RAM is not a problem

But face it, Anyone whose main requirements is cores and RAM, is better served outside the -sandbox.

RGDS,

 

[Michael Scrip]

I'm quite sure we'll see a 6 or 8 core option for the iMac in the near future. This all depends on when Intel will introduce a non-Xeon CPU with more than 4 cores and a TDP in the same league with the current i7-6700K (91W)

Maybe Intel can make a beefy 8-core CPU at 91W TDP.

But Apple wouldn't have to worry about TDP, thermal-throttling, etc, if they weren't trying to cram such a powerful CPU into a thin "desktop" with less-than-ideal cooling.

Intel already makes an 8-core, non-Xeon, i7 at 140W TDP... but the types of machines they are expected to go into are standard desktop towers with decent heatsinks and plenty of moving air.

Not shoved behind a monitor.

I dunno... as long as Apple keeps sticking with the "all-in-one" formfactor iMac... I'm feeling like they will always be compromised in one way or another.

 

[csurfr]

Here's a credible rumor: nobody knows. "Oh yeah!" -mr kool aid.

Naughty, Naughty, Mr. Kool-Aid

</Dane Cook>

 

[-hh]

Plus the design was banned in the EU. Something to do with the fans I think.

This was from EU safety regulation IEC 60950-1, and the cMP had not been updated to be in compliance.

The technical issue apparently were some new requirements which called for better fan guards and some increased protection on the ports on the electrical system. But the real point to note was that this safety regulation change dated from 2009, which illustrates that Apple had plenty of time (3+ years) to change the cMP's design ... if they wanted to.