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.
Will there be a new Mac Pro in 2015?
- Thread starter Anto38x
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
If a business is buying people Mac Pros just to look good, they're not the sort of place I'd want to take business. It's not a very smart business expense, and it doesn't make the person with the Mac Pro look good, it just makes them look like a idiot who cares about form over function to me. Not the sort of place I'd trust with my business, once I see how they run their own.
But hey, I don't see how this is a change at all over the old towers. And it certainly didn't work for the G4 Cube.
I can run 6 display on my $800 dell pc.
Most of the iPhone 6 are subsidized with contract so most people pays way less than the $650 for it.
There's nothing wrong with promoting a nice image. Just ask Apple.
So you're saying... and I feel silly even having this conversation... that there is a market for businesses to buy Mac Pros because iMacs just look too ghetto?
If you put a Mac Pro and a Thunderbolt Display out in a business, the question you'll get most often from the customers that even notice is "What kind of big hard drive is that hooked up to your iMac?"
Look, yes, people can buy them as very silly status symbols. But people bought the old Mac Pro too as very silly status symbols. Your whole argument is that Apple intentionally went for a new market with the nMP, not that people can make silly ego driven buying decisions as compensation for something.
With this attitude you should buy only generic products but I suspect this logic only applies for this particular discussion. The oMP looked just like the Dells. This thing is silent. Almost makes it worth it alone.
Why buy BMW? Why buy name brand anything? Who buys out of sheer need? Why on earth would a photographer/video editor need an iPhone 6?...ever? --Not that many people call you for business.
--Seriously with your logic though, I know camera man is wasting money for no good reason. Overcharging me so he can have one.With this attitude you should buy only generic products but I suspect this logic only applies for this particular discussion. The oMP looked just like the Dells. This thing is silent. Almost makes it worth it alone.
Why buy BMW? Why buy name brand anything? Who buys out of sheer need? Why on earth would a photographer/video editor need an iPhone 6?...ever? --Not that many people call you for business.
I take it you are quite young. Give it up. Your arguments are old and pretty much out of steam.
Just young at heart. It is a message board after all. Why don't you try to tell me how Successful adults like to spend their money again.
This thread should have ended a long time ago... As amusing as it has been, out of the last few pages this is probably the only post remotely related to the original thread topic. And it seems we may all be in closer agreement than it might have appeared earlier.
Like cars, the Mac Pro (and nearly every other electronics product) has a planned upgrade schedule that is often on an annual basis. In the car world, it revolves around a rather artificial new model introduction schedule where new models arrive in September or October. Some manufacturers (like BMW) even do minor mid-model-year updates in March or April. For Macs, and any other Intel-based computer, the update frequency and timing depends primarily on Intel's CPU roadmap, which is more-or-less also on an annual cadence. And given the fairly significant improvement in every new CPU, computer manufacturers were foolish not to plan updates to their computers according to Intel's roadmap in order to stay competitive. Even as recent generations of CPU have had less significant improvements, computer manufacturers (including Apple) still plan updates to their computers around Intel's roadmap and launch new products when new Intel CPUs become available.
The question this thread poses... Will Apple defy this rather well established trend of updating computers with each new generation of Intel CPU and let their flagship computer fall behind the competition, or have they planned a refresh based on the latest Intel CPU, and it's just a matter of time now until we see it materialize?
Strangely, few have answered this question recently.
The question this thread poses... Will Apple defy this rather well established trend of updating computers with each new generation of Intel CPU and let their flagship computer fall behind the competition, or have they planned a refresh based on the latest Intel CPU, and it's just a matter of time now until we see it materialize?
Strangely, few have answered this question recently.
This pretty much summarises everything.
Even if Apple updates the Pro in 2015 with a slight spec bump, current owners of the 2013 Model shouldn't be tempted to upgrade. I'M pretty happy with my 8C/32GB/256GB/D700 nMP until Apple introduces a model with TB3, DDR4, HDMI2.0/DP 1.3/1.4 and maybe more than 12 cores.
I have a 13 TB video database of 15 FCPX libraries on two TB raid drives which are backed up to a usb3 raid drive. My user directory is on a 2TB logical partition and my system and user directories are backed up by time machine on a time capsule.
I am amazed at how the video database works over TB2 (450mb) raid 5 drive. I can tell the difference between the TB1(224mb)raid and the usb3 (160mb) raid5 I can run all three drives at full speed the same time.
I also am driving a Samsung UD 590 and two other monitors on a base nMP. I have 14 external physical drives and only an admin user on the internal 256k SSD drive. When I hose up my operating system, is easy to disconnect the drives and reinstall system from scratch.
I wish the external users were a little more portable, but it still is an easy recovery. Frankly, I never want to see another internal drive or buss again.
There are two competing technologies, CPU based performance and system based performance. In the short run CPU based performance is easier, quicker to market and more expensive. System based performance is more difficult, harder, cheaper and provides more performance.
You will never build system performance on a old box machine. The nMP has the hardware frozen and they can start building system performance. I am impressed with the IO board in the nMP. The usb seems a little weak, but is just an interface to old technology.
I have no clue how much system performance they can get out to the AMD videos cards. I do not think they are being utilized by the compressor or FCPX very efficiently. We will have a better understanding with the next releases of those products. If they double or triple the performance just through system efficiencies, they will own the video market.
If Apple develops a compressor program that can run on an independent machine and can access the video data base through a thunderbolt network, they will have a heck of a system.
Video is a new technology for me and I have only been using a Mac for a little over a year. I bought the nMP on an impulse and was blown away by the functionality of FCPX video libraries on TB. I ran FCPX on a iMac with TB raid and USB3 raid and it was slow enough where I just viewed it as a file based system, instead of a video database system. The nMP changed that viewpoint. I can find, cut and paste videos from 6 years worth of videos in almost real time.
My video project, which is 15 year plus 50TB of video was based on video library. Since I got the the nMP, I realize I can build a video data base, instead of a video library. I am not a professional video tech, I do require professional video tools.
Since video has become cheap, Professional videos application are no longer limited to less that three hours. Professional video databases can span decades. If you get a new tool,most often you have to use it differently than the old one. when I compare the nMP in building a video database instead of just accessing and editing a video library, I do not see a better tool.
That being said, this is a new adventure for me. The update for me would be new FCPX and compressor rendering routines that are quicker. A standalone compressor that works at a database level. A database search engine, which I might already have, but just have not figure it out.
I was surprised at the lack of professional support with the nMP, but I also understand it as a marketing strategy, They have a flood of consumer video and photos coming their way and if apple masters the system side of the videos problem, the editing side will follow. They will not lose a lot of market share to the CPU based improvements and when their system side performance is mature enough to compete with the CPU based performance, they will own the market.
I am amazed at how the video database works over TB2 (450mb) raid 5 drive. I can tell the difference between the TB1(224mb)raid and the usb3 (160mb) raid5 I can run all three drives at full speed the same time.
I also am driving a Samsung UD 590 and two other monitors on a base nMP. I have 14 external physical drives and only an admin user on the internal 256k SSD drive. When I hose up my operating system, is easy to disconnect the drives and reinstall system from scratch.
I wish the external users were a little more portable, but it still is an easy recovery. Frankly, I never want to see another internal drive or buss again.
There are two competing technologies, CPU based performance and system based performance. In the short run CPU based performance is easier, quicker to market and more expensive. System based performance is more difficult, harder, cheaper and provides more performance.
You will never build system performance on a old box machine. The nMP has the hardware frozen and they can start building system performance. I am impressed with the IO board in the nMP. The usb seems a little weak, but is just an interface to old technology.
I have no clue how much system performance they can get out to the AMD videos cards. I do not think they are being utilized by the compressor or FCPX very efficiently. We will have a better understanding with the next releases of those products. If they double or triple the performance just through system efficiencies, they will own the video market.
If Apple develops a compressor program that can run on an independent machine and can access the video data base through a thunderbolt network, they will have a heck of a system.
Video is a new technology for me and I have only been using a Mac for a little over a year. I bought the nMP on an impulse and was blown away by the functionality of FCPX video libraries on TB. I ran FCPX on a iMac with TB raid and USB3 raid and it was slow enough where I just viewed it as a file based system, instead of a video database system. The nMP changed that viewpoint. I can find, cut and paste videos from 6 years worth of videos in almost real time.
My video project, which is 15 year plus 50TB of video was based on video library. Since I got the the nMP, I realize I can build a video data base, instead of a video library. I am not a professional video tech, I do require professional video tools.
Since video has become cheap, Professional videos application are no longer limited to less that three hours. Professional video databases can span decades. If you get a new tool,most often you have to use it differently than the old one. when I compare the nMP in building a video database instead of just accessing and editing a video library, I do not see a better tool.
That being said, this is a new adventure for me. The update for me would be new FCPX and compressor rendering routines that are quicker. A standalone compressor that works at a database level. A database search engine, which I might already have, but just have not figure it out.
I was surprised at the lack of professional support with the nMP, but I also understand it as a marketing strategy, They have a flood of consumer video and photos coming their way and if apple masters the system side of the videos problem, the editing side will follow. They will not lose a lot of market share to the CPU based improvements and when their system side performance is mature enough to compete with the CPU based performance, they will own the market.
This thread should have ended a long time ago... As amusing as it has been, out of the last few pages this is probably the only post remotely related to the original thread topic. And it seems we may all be in closer agreement than it might have appeared earlier.
Like cars, the Mac Pro (and nearly every other electronics product) has a planned upgrade schedule that is often on an annual basis. In the car world, it revolves around a rather artificial new model introduction schedule where new models arrive in September or October. Some manufacturers (like BMW) even do minor mid-model-year updates in March or April. For Macs, and any other Intel-based computer, the update frequency and timing depends primarily on Intel's CPU roadmap, which is more-or-less also on an annual cadence. And given the fairly significant improvement in every new CPU, computer manufacturers were foolish not to plan updates to their computers according to Intel's roadmap in order to stay competitive. Even as recent generations of CPU have had less significant improvements, computer manufacturers (including Apple) still plan updates to their computers around Intel's roadmap and launch new products when new Intel CPUs become available.
The question this thread poses... Will Apple defy this rather well established trend of updating computers with each new generation of Intel CPU and let their flagship computer fall behind the competition, or have they planned a refresh based on the latest Intel CPU, and it's just a matter of time now until we see it materialize?
Strangely, few have answered this question recently.
I don't know. It's been kind of fun. I like to keep an open mind.
My point with the car examples is that retooling costs a lot of money. Some people on here for the sole purpose of their argument suggest it doesn't. Which I find somewhat insulting.
This is where markets come into play. Market growth specifically. It doesn't look to me as if they want to compete with the traditional workstations any more. Which is a low volume market. They can't penetrate the PC hold on large corporations.
So instead turn this into a server for video. And go after the growing video market. Make this appeal more to the masses. Ride the popularity of the iPhone.
A new car is retooled every 5-7 years with minor improvements every model year. The Mac Pro saw its expensive retooling occur in 2013. We're now waiting on the 2015 model year improvements
A new car is retooled every 5-7 years with minor improvements every model year. The Mac Pro saw its expensive retooling occur in 2013. We're now waiting on the 2015 model year improvements
I predict adjustments in early-mid 2016. FWIW, I'd rather see a nMBP model with more ram.
The 2016 model will be Skylake, so it'll be a major revision.
I'd still expect a Haswell (more likely) or a Broadwell (less likely) revision this year.
Intel and AMD release new chips every year, so if Apple waits until 2016, the Mac Pro is basically going to be a $3000 boat anchor. Forget PCs, you'll be able to get a iMac or maybe even a Mac Mini that's a better buy than the Mac Pro.
The GPUs on the Mac Pro are already outdated.
Hey guys,
the Mac Pro is a "workstation." If you look at the workstations for Dell and Hewlett Packard, you will also see that they've "designed" those boxes more carefully, like they put more "care" into them than their consumer lines like the XPS line for Dell and Pavilion lines for HP. These companies also doesn't redesigned their workstations every year, which has been par course in the last decade or so. The only thing that changes are the inside.
Now, you ask, why does the Mac Pro look like a trash can? My belief is that the nMP looks like what it looks like not only to make it drool worthy for "regular users" (the ones that doesn't need xeon cpu's or workstation graphic cards; you know who you are) and thus make them wanna buy another apple product (regular consumers are smart; or they know they don't need a $3000 pc)--sort of like the Lexus LFA sports car where they only made like 500 of them. With this sports car, Lexus can use it on their commercials and propel their brand, not only as a "luxury" brand, but also a "performance" brand.
But, the other reason (I think) why the new Mac Pro is so "different" is not for different sakes, per se. But, to really outshine and outdo Dell and HP workstation line. This is who and what the Mac Pro is. It's a workstation. And the people who buy Dell and HP workstations are the same people that buy Mac Pros. New Mac Pros or the old ones. It's the same people. But, of course, there are people like me and others who buy "workstation" PC's because we don't need commercials or marketing ads to convince us that we want them. (Do you ever see a mac pro ad or a HP Z100 ad)
These people who are you and me that want these workstations probably saw one ad in a trade magazine and fell in love with how slick, modern and "computery" looking these workstation pc's are. And most of all, if we buy this "workstation" pc, however expensive and unpractical it is, we will differentiate ourselves from our neighbors who has a regular Dell XPS or Alienware PC.
The nMP with its space age look follows the same "workstation" lineage in that it is "super" techy and thus droolworthy. It is an ad in itself since the niche is, indeed, smaller. The actual product has to carry everything that the potential buyer needs or wants.
The end.
PS--I could never afford a "workstation" pc to this very day.
the Mac Pro is a "workstation." If you look at the workstations for Dell and Hewlett Packard, you will also see that they've "designed" those boxes more carefully, like they put more "care" into them than their consumer lines like the XPS line for Dell and Pavilion lines for HP. These companies also doesn't redesigned their workstations every year, which has been par course in the last decade or so. The only thing that changes are the inside.
Now, you ask, why does the Mac Pro look like a trash can? My belief is that the nMP looks like what it looks like not only to make it drool worthy for "regular users" (the ones that doesn't need xeon cpu's or workstation graphic cards; you know who you are) and thus make them wanna buy another apple product (regular consumers are smart; or they know they don't need a $3000 pc)--sort of like the Lexus LFA sports car where they only made like 500 of them. With this sports car, Lexus can use it on their commercials and propel their brand, not only as a "luxury" brand, but also a "performance" brand.
But, the other reason (I think) why the new Mac Pro is so "different" is not for different sakes, per se. But, to really outshine and outdo Dell and HP workstation line. This is who and what the Mac Pro is. It's a workstation. And the people who buy Dell and HP workstations are the same people that buy Mac Pros. New Mac Pros or the old ones. It's the same people. But, of course, there are people like me and others who buy "workstation" PC's because we don't need commercials or marketing ads to convince us that we want them. (Do you ever see a mac pro ad or a HP Z100 ad)
These people who are you and me that want these workstations probably saw one ad in a trade magazine and fell in love with how slick, modern and "computery" looking these workstation pc's are. And most of all, if we buy this "workstation" pc, however expensive and unpractical it is, we will differentiate ourselves from our neighbors who has a regular Dell XPS or Alienware PC.
The nMP with its space age look follows the same "workstation" lineage in that it is "super" techy and thus droolworthy. It is an ad in itself since the niche is, indeed, smaller. The actual product has to carry everything that the potential buyer needs or wants.
The end.
PS--I could never afford a "workstation" pc to this very day.
Just to get back on this thread's subject line.... I feel like the new retina iMac has opened a path for a cheaper cylindrical mac pro?
Since a mac pro doesn't have a screen, Apple could potentially build the same innards that is in the retina Imac and put it in a cylindrical shape and make it cheaper. A $2000 mac pro with 4790k and a GTX 980m (yes the mobile version); 256 SSD; 16GB RAM is a very capable PC even with that mobile GPU especially for video editing since the Maxwell GPU's are stronger in CUDA and/or Open CL.
The mobile MAxwell GPU will also ensure that nothing overheats inside that can.
And, apple will only need to modify the motherboard and order new maxwell gpu's which apple can also incorporate into their iMac lines and rMBP line, if they want.
Since a mac pro doesn't have a screen, Apple could potentially build the same innards that is in the retina Imac and put it in a cylindrical shape and make it cheaper. A $2000 mac pro with 4790k and a GTX 980m (yes the mobile version); 256 SSD; 16GB RAM is a very capable PC even with that mobile GPU especially for video editing since the Maxwell GPU's are stronger in CUDA and/or Open CL.
The mobile MAxwell GPU will also ensure that nothing overheats inside that can.
And, apple will only need to modify the motherboard and order new maxwell gpu's which apple can also incorporate into their iMac lines and rMBP line, if they want.
People have been asking for an xMac since the end of the G4 it's been a decade and a half it's most probably not going to happen.
You bring up an interesting point. The only time I've ever seen workstations and servers in play are usually in development houses and large corporations where software developers are using them...not photoshop or video editors. So while I understand why I was issued them, I really don't know why every photographer or video editor would need such a high end piece of equipment. I mean are we talking about just 1-5% of the field.
It has already been noted multiple times that HD/4K video editing is nothing new. So it seems like the thin margins of just buy what you need would be in play as well. How many in the field(video/photography) use their machine 40 solid hours a week. ...to justify the cost of upgrading it. Not flaming just asking.
You haven't gone out enough...
Workstations are being used in every major production houses, engineering firm, medical imagerie and science labs around the world. Only a tiny fraction of those have an Apple logo on them and that fraction has shrunk even more since the advent of the nMP.
Yeah, it's likely that the only future options we'll have for a headless mac will be the mini and the MacPro--which is why I'm tempted to save up for a MacPro to replace my aging iMac even though I don't really need that much. Maybe it'll be the last mac I'll ever buy. Not sure my iMac will make it into 2016, though (it's already 6 years old).
Back when I was in the thick of development, I believe Oracle and SQL were the main reasons to stick with PC.
- Status