Will there be a new Mac Pro in 2015?

[Melodist]

I don't see the logic in that. If it's selling so poorly because it's old technology, what's the point of holding out? Why wouldn't they release a new model that would sell more?

Your presumption that the nMP hasn't sold anywhere near as well as the cMP 5.1 is interesting. Curious why you think that?

Well if they had a certain target projection of how well the nMP will be doing, which according to my conceived speculation derailed and wasn't nearly en par with the estimations (because not everybody was wowed by their revolutionary design solution), then the only logical business related thing to do is to extend its lifetime and try to make as much profit of it as possible right before the public gets really pissed and asks where the next update is, which in my opinion is what's happening right now.

Or how do you explain that lanky chasm of silence right after a complete redesign within todays's fast moving computer market? Because Apple is waiting for new intel chips / thunderbolt 3? Apple's updates have never been "technology" related, where in a sense they would've waited out for something particular they wanted to integrate, people speculate on right now.

 

[koyoot]

Right but it is an accomplishment ain't it? Or do we want to downplay everything so nothing can be really compared and critized, and boil it all down to its own individual experience?

Of course it is accomplishment. The problem is the context. You believe that ARM chip that scores on par, or a little bit better than CPU from rMB in Geekbench, that means that Apple would get similar or better performance in Workstation/Server CPU.

 

[Melodist]

Of course it is accomplishment. The problem is the context. You believe that ARM chip that scores on par, or a little bit better than CPU from rMB in Geekbench, that means that Apple would get similar or better performance in Workstation/Server CPU.

No, I haven't said that, I was simply impressed by how well Apple's iPhone is doing and its custom CPU. All I'm saying they might benefit from doing the same thing with their workstations.

 

[996085]

There's nothing illogical about his statement. The iMac was not designed to render for hours on end. Apple compromised that ability in the name of thinness, just like they do on all their products other than the MP. Whether that's the right compromise to make is a matter of opinion. Different strokes for different folks.

I had to register in order to respond to this. IMO the iMac, and all of Apple's other systems, needs to be able to continuously run at full speed or the buyer is not getting the system they thought they were. In fact there may even be a legal case against Apple if their systems are unable to run continuously at the maximum advertised speeds due to heat related, or other, throttling issues.

 

[MacVidCards]

I had to register in order to respond to this. IMO the iMac, and all of Apple's other systems, needs to be able to continuously run at full speed or the buyer is not getting the system they thought they were. In fact there may even be a legal case against Apple if their systems are unable to run continuously at the maximum advertised speeds due to heat related, or other, throttling issues.

Thank You !

Someone who understands how machines are supposed to work.

I suppose the next defense will be "They were designed to look really cool sitting on a desk, therefore they are 100% functional"

 

[ManuelGomes]

Guys, stop this nonsense. Don't keep falling on the traps some keep laying around.

Anyway, with 2600 v4 coming only in Q2'16 we might not see an updated nMP till then. I don't think they'll launch only the lower core count first in Q1.
That's a long time still.
With Skylake-EP coming in Q1'17 (or H1 for both 1600 and 2600) I'm not sure how this will turn out.
Purley confirmed to be Cannonlake compatible.

 

[ManuelGomes]

Gemini anyone?

 

[Melodist]

Guys, stop this nonsense. Don't keep falling on the traps some keep laying around.

Anyway, with 2600 v4 coming only in Q2'16 we might not see an updated nMP till then. I don't think they'll launch only the lower core count first in Q1.
That's a long time still.
With Skylake-EP coming in Q1'17 (or H1 for both 1600 and 2600) I'm not sure how this will turn out.
Purley confirmed to be Cannonlake compatible.

Why don't we just wait for Q1 18 for the next revision? There is always something new being developed. There is something in the bushes with the nMP's lack of updates for 2 years now, especially after this complete overhaul, no matter the wait for options. There is a new iMac almost every year, because it sells well.

 

[ixxx69]

I had to register in order to respond to this. IMO the iMac, and all of Apple's other systems, needs to be able to continuously run at full speed or the buyer is not getting the system they thought they were. In fact there may even be a legal case against Apple if their systems are unable to run continuously at the maximum advertised speeds due to heat related, or other, throttling issues.

Welcome!

What you suggest would pretty much eliminate every modern laptop, tablet and smart phone from the market.

The cooling systems necessary to keep those chips cool would add substantial size and weight to those devices. Just look at the CPU coolers necessary to keep a workstation running full speed continuously.

 

[ManuelGomes]

I'd say 2016 is for sure, but when exactly?!
No sense in not going Broadwell now, so a few more months of wait should be in order.

 

[ManuelGomes]

Computers nowadays are powerful enough to handle most (read not all) tasks within their cooling capabilities.
I'm sure going to start another war with the usual gang but I'll just ignore.
Still, if you want to beat the hell out of it 24/7 without loosing performance you'll probably need additional cooling. Those are extreme cases.
But would you prefer to have a gigantic machine that crunches along at full speed all the time? Maybe get a Cray?! It's not portable but maybe can hold it's own all the time

 

[goMac]

I had to register in order to respond to this. IMO the iMac, and all of Apple's other systems, needs to be able to continuously run at full speed or the buyer is not getting the system they thought they were. In fact there may even be a legal case against Apple if their systems are unable to run continuously at the maximum advertised speeds due to heat related, or other, throttling issues.

Apple sells plenty of devices that are not meant to run at load continuously. iOS devices are included in that.

Apple ensures that the devices will not shut off if run continuously. They make no guarantee that the performance curve will be constant.

I believe Apple publishes clear documentation on at what ambient temperatures their machines are rated it. if the iMac exceeds those temperatures, either due to outside heat, or it's own heat, of course it's going to down clock.

I don't know why some people are seriously pushing that the iMac is a solid production rendering machine. The GPU in it is notorious for under clocking quickly.

The same is true of PCs, FWIW, especially laptops. Most Windows laptops aren't designed to be run at load until you get up to the Alienware/giant laptops categories.

 

[Hank Carter]

But would you prefer to have a gigantic machine that crunches along at full speed all the time? Maybe get a Cray?! It's not portable but maybe can hold it's own all the time

Overheating never was an issue with Apple computers until Jony decided to put the iMac and Mac Pro on a diet to meet his aesthetic design criteria. Even the more recent Macbook Pro gets hotter than they ever did and my 2011 eventually fried itself.

I've been using Apple boxes since the Apple II and overheating NEVER was a problem. (Not to mention the other dozen brands along the way).

 

[goMac]

Overheating never was an issue with Apple computers until Jony decided to put the iMac and Mac Pro on a diet to meet his aesthetic design criteria. Even the more recent Macbook Pro gets hotter than they ever did and my 2011 eventually fried itself.

I've been using Apple boxes since the Apple II and overheating NEVER was a problem. (Not to mention the other dozen brands along the way).

How long have you been using Macs for? The iMacs and Powerbooks have always had heat issues since they were released in the 90s. The Titanium G4s were awful, so were the Aluminums. The G3s were ok, but the 5300s literally had a "catching on fire" problem.

My original Macbook Pro had substantial overheating problems as well.

The Power Mac G4 eventually got so hot the fan systems sounded like you were running a chainsaw. So I guess technically they figured out how to keep them cool? And the Power Mac G5s were so hot they needed the disastrous liquid cooling.

Which Mac lines haven't ever had a heat problem besides the G3s?

 

[Hank Carter]

Apple sells plenty of devices that are not meant to run at load continuously. iOS devices are included in that.

Apple ensures that the devices will not shut off if run continuously. They make no guarantee that the performance curve will be constant.

I believe Apple publishes clear documentation on at what ambient temperatures their machines are rated it. if the iMac exceeds those temperatures, either due to outside heat, or it's own heat, of course it's going to down clock.

I don't know why some people are seriously pushing that the iMac is a solid production rendering machine. The GPU in it is notorious for under clocking quickly.

The same is true of PCs, FWIW, especially laptops. Most Windows laptops aren't designed to be run at load until you get up to the Alienware/giant laptops categories.

I actually know of two people who have cut a hole into the iMac case and installed an extra fan, so the damn thing doesn't fry itself when pushed or throttle back. It's an ugly mod, but it does the job.

 

[wallysb01]

What you suggest would pretty much eliminate every modern laptop, tablet and smart phone from the market.

The cooling systems necessary to keep those chips cool would add substantial size and weight to those devices. Just look at the CPU coolers necessary to keep a workstation running full speed continuously.

Well, those are mobile platforms, so it makes sense. And workstation CPUs do have about 50% higher TDPs than normal desktop parts.

 

[996085]

Welcome!

What you suggest would pretty much eliminate every modern laptop, tablet and smart phone from the market.

The cooling systems necessary to keep those chips cool would add substantial size and weight to those devices. Just look at the CPU coolers necessary to keep a workstation running full speed continuously.

That may be true however being true doesn't mean it's right.

 

[996085]

Apple sells plenty of devices that are not meant to run at load continuously. iOS devices are included in that.

Apple ensures that the devices will not shut off if run continuously. They make no guarantee that the performance curve will be constant.

I believe Apple publishes clear documentation on at what ambient temperatures their machines are rated it. if the iMac exceeds those temperatures, either due to outside heat, or it's own heat, of course it's going to down clock.

I don't know why some people are seriously pushing that the iMac is a solid production rendering machine. The GPU in it is notorious for under clocking quickly.

The same is true of PCs, FWIW, especially laptops. Most Windows laptops aren't designed to be run at load until you get up to the Alienware/giant laptops categories.

Ambient being the key word here. IMO if an iMac, or any computer / device, cannot operate at the advertised capability then it is incorrectly designed and defective. Enough so I can see a legal case being made against the manufacturer if it fails to continuously operate its advertised capability. Not pushing the iMac as a solid production system, merely saying it should be capable of continuous operation at full speed (i.e. the speed it starts at) regardless of the time used.

 

[996085]

another thing is that you're a victim of marketing hoopla.. if a gpu was marketed with 'turbo' then i doubt you'd go around talking about throttling so much.. if they advertised their base MHz as the speed then said it could turbo up to ___ speed, it'd be an entirely different story for you even though nothing has changed except the sales pitch.
just look at intel.. imagine they listed their turbo speed as the actual speed of a cpu.. you'd now be having a field day with so much throttling going on because a cpu throttles simply by activating more cores. it only runs at 'full speed' under the lightest of loads but the more crunching it's expected to do, the slower it runs.

but since intel markets full speed as 3GHz and says you can get bonus speeds of 3.5GHz, somehow in your head- 3.5GHz is not the full speed of that cpu.. 3GHz is.

Marketing is important as buyers make purchasing decisions based on what they're told a product can do. If a product fails to meet the marketed capabilities then the manufacturer is being misleading.

However I believe the issue extends further than just base versus turbo speed. I believe what people are referring to is the systems inability to maintain even the base speed for extended periods of time. Not because the components are incapable of doing so but rather the packaging of the components causes thermal issues which necessitate the decreased performance.

 

[flat five]

I had to register in order to respond to this. IMO the iMac, and all of Apple's other systems, needs to be able to continuously run at full speed or the buyer is not getting the system they thought they were. In fact there may even be a legal case against Apple if their systems are unable to run continuously at the maximum advertised speeds due to heat related, or other, throttling issues.

legal case? and what max advertised speeds are you talking about?

or are you saying IF apple advertised "this mac runs at this speed".. but it were actually a lie.. then there may be ground for a legal case?

---

i think a lot of people aren't making the proper connections about computing speed and that's maybe because we don't have much a a visual cue as to what's going on..
a computer is capable of (amongst other things) hauling large loads cross country (peterbuilt) as well as zipping through town or hauling ass (well, two people's ass) through the country side (porche)

we can't see the various types of data sets etc which are being fed to the computer so it's much easier to not view the problem for what it is.. which leaves people sitting around complaining about not being able to haul 80,000lbs at the speed of a porche.. instead, if my semi truck can't go 185mph through texas, it's being throttled and i should certainly sue Mack.

 

[flat five]

Marketing is important as buyers make purchasing decisions based on what they're told a product can do. If a product fails to meet the marketed capabilities then the manufacturer is being misleading.

again.. where are you seeing a product (within the context of this forum) which is failing to meet marketed capabilities? be more specific.. and if you can't be more specific, why even bring it up? it's not really saying anything relevant.

However I believe the issue extends further than just base versus turbo speed. I believe what people are referring to is the systems inability to maintain even the base speed for extended periods of time. Not because the components are incapable of doing so but rather the packaging of the components causes thermal issues which necessitate the decreased performance.

tbh, i don't even know what you're talking about.. are you talking about some sort of findings from a benchmark type test or something else?

i modeled on a mbp for 7 hrs today (rhino).. it was just as fast at the end of the day as it was at the beginning of the day.. (granted.. i employ certain organization techniques in my models in order to keep the speed up but that's mostly due to software limitations and the fact that i like to draw in prettier shaded/rendered viewports as opposed to faster wireframe views).

the laptop handled my workload just fine.. and it's not a light load relatively speaking.. it didn't slow down after an extended period of time..

if i needed a (raytraced) render then sure, maybe the benchmark would show a slower clock speed being used but.. much more data would be processed during a render.. as in, maybe 10GB data would be flowing through the system every minute as opposed to 1GB during my normal workflow.

i don't know.. you're saying some stuff up there.. i recognize that and am trying to understand you but i just can't.. it's not something i experience in my work so maybe you can offer up some actual example of what you're saying.. might make it easier for others to understand.

 

[AidenShaw]

legal case? and what max advertised speeds are you talking about?

or are you saying IF apple advertised "this mac runs at this speed".. but it were actually a lie.. then there may be ground for a legal case?

---

i think a lot of people aren't making the proper connections about computing speed and that's maybe because we don't have much a a visual cue as to what's going on..
a computer is capable of (amongst other things) hauling large loads cross country (peterbuilt) as well as zipping through town or hauling ass (well, two people's ass) through the country side (porche)

we can't see the various types of data sets etc which are being fed to the computer so it's much easier to not view the problem for what it is.. which leaves people sitting around complaining about not being able to haul 80,000lbs at the speed of a porche.. instead, if my semi truck can't go 185mph through texas, it's being throttled and i should certainly sue Mack.

One of the worst vehicle analogies ever

And a Porsche can haul five asses, but only at 176mph.

 

[flat five]

One of the worst vehicle analogies ever

i don't disagree with you.. just couldn't come up with a better analogy. sorry.

there's a point i'm trying to make but maybe i'll just refrain until clearer words come to me.

 

[996085]

legal case? and what max advertised speeds are you talking about?

or are you saying IF apple advertised "this mac runs at this speed".. but it were actually a lie.. then there may be ground for a legal case?

Yes. If I buy the 2.7 GHz 21.5" iMac and it is unable to sustain 2.7 GHz of continuous operation then one could argue the product fails to meet the advertised capabilities.

 

[flat five]

Yes. If I buy the 2.7 GHz 21.5" iMac and it is unable to sustain 2.7 GHz of continuous operation then one could argue the product fails to meet the advertised capabilities.

i suppose one could argue that.. sure.
winning that argument on the other hand....

good luck in court :thumbsup: