The iMac supports 2 external screens (though possibly only 1 on the retina model), and the MBP with discreet graphics supports 3 external screens when the lid is closed. Both are real compromises if what you want is a triple-headed system, though.
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
The iMac supports 2 external screens (though possibly only 1 on the retina model), and the MBP with discreet graphics supports 3 external screens when the lid is closed. Both are real compromises if what you want is a triple-headed system, though.
It is market segmentation. Is there another card that fits in a mini-ITX system that is in the same performance class? Not really. No competition no low prices.
Why want a mini-ITX system? Some folks have reasons. But yeah a bigger , generic commodity box is a easier target for a wider variety of full size GPU cards.
Not necessarily true. What for the testing under real world conditions.
"... AMD tells us that the typical gaming clock will be around the 900MHz range, with the precise value depending on the power requirements of the workload being run. As to why AMD is shipping the card at 1000MHz even when they don’t expect it to be able to sustain the clockspeed under most games, AMD tells us that the higher boost clock essentially ensures that the R9 Nano is only ever power limited, and isn’t unnecessarily held back in light workloads where it could support higher clockspeeds. ..."
http://anandtech.com/show/9564/amd-announces-radeon-r9-nano-shipping-september-10th
These are special binned Fury X Fiji engines. They aren't going to be any cheaper to make than the regular full Fiji that Fury X uses. Instead, they are pulling some limited subset out and selling. The reduction in water cooling in hardware is probably offset a bit by the rarity of finding something they can use. Drop 50GHz and drop 100W ... that is probably almost perfectly "baked" examples. Every wafer processed isn't going to produce gobs of these.
Last year 10.10 got released in October.
https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/10/16OS-X-Yosemite-Available-Today-as-a-Free-Upgrade.html
Year before 10.9 got released in October.
https://www.apple.com/pr/library/20...ilable-Today-Free-from-the-Mac-App-Store.html
10.8 was in July .... which still isn't September. ;-)
If there are new Macs coming in October it doesn't make much sense to release OS X in September. iOS and OS X aren't that tightly coupled. And frankly the drama Apple typically has when their web severs get hit for a massive upgrade almost never goes well. They'd want to move iOS 9 and OS X 10.11 apart in time. Something is likely screwed up iin iOS 9. Triage that drama and then release OS X.
No - that's not it. I'm a photographer and already have good monitors that I can calibrate (not possible with an iMac). The ability to plug in lots of devices - multiple online storage arrays, for example (everything has to be backed up, of course) is also a unique feature of the Mac Pro.
No MacBook or MacBook Pro needs that functionality. It would be great to see a Mac Pro Mini, though.
Because "in between" HDDs are often implemented as "short stroked" drives that only use 75-80% of the platter to reduce the same. So a 750GB and 1TB drive could have the same platters ( so get economies of scale cost savings ) but the firmware in one just ignores 25% of the platter area.
Flash chips only come in certain sizes. The blades Apple uses have space for four flash chip packages. That is what drives the size choices (what are the standard capacities of those 4 chips provision. ). The chips are also a bit more expensive than disk platters so harder to just ignore 25% just to buy "more of the same".
Samsung has some individual Flash chip packages that pack more data.
2TB SSD http://anandtech.com/show/9451/the-2tb-samsung-850-pro-evo-ssd-review
3.4TB SSD http://anandtech.com/show/9455/sams...nterprise-sata-ssds-up-to-384tb-with-3d-vnand
The problem is matching those "piled higher" and/or "piled denser" options to work fast at PCIe v2 ( or v3 ) speeds. Being on that highly space limited card limits the amount of parallel access can do to the flash chip packages with multiple dies inside.
Well the MBP needs it if you want a single luggable studio / on site machine. But, yours is much the same reason I got a 2009 Mac Pro - I didn't want to be ditching good monitors when upgrading the computing, or ditching entire systems to upgrade the graphics (and the whole 48 GB of Ram for panoramic rendering).
A machine with space for 64GB of RAM and just integrated graphics, with TB3 would be a great option, IF Apple doesn't lock eGPUs to their "built into a monitor" "solution".
Fury is still mildly interesting for nMP 7,1. It won't be running like an "X" or even a regular one, but certainly faster then the down clocked 7970s in current model. Obviously it would have to be further clipped to fit into 125 Watts. (or 7,1 could grow larger and get more power)
I had another thought or two. First up, Nvidia has done a great job of raining on AMD's parades. I imagine they could make a 980 in ITX form factor and rain on this one. Whatever AMD did to get Fury down to 175 Watts, if applied to a 165 Watt 980 would put it under 125 Watts most likely and allow it to be run from a single 6 pin. Faster, lower power draw, and lower price would be a torrential downpour on AMD's one actual victory this year.
I am curious to see the real benchmarks.When Tom's Hardware de-powered a Fury to this level they found it an unacceptable loss of fps. (To the question, "Can Fury be set to use less power and still have similar performance? their actual answer was "No, Unfortunately". )But we shall see. I am still predicting that it won't be leaving R9 390X far behind, if at all.
On the nMP front, it occurred to me that Apple could rain on the naysayer's parade (me for instance) by packing two of those little vixens on a single board in nMP and give us back dual CPUs. I am not saying that this is likely, just that it could be done from a space perspective. Apple is in a unique position to create the needed voltages in their own PSU, eliminating much of the power circuitry from Nano. No RAM chips and less power circuitry leaves room for two on one board. Some of the engineering to do this is already occurring at AMD anyway, we know that.
Running 2 @ CPU and 2 @ GPUs would obviously need more power and thus more cooling. If it got 1 or 2 inches bigger in each dimension, who would care? Prior to June 2013 there were very few calls for it to be backpack size. In short, NOBODY demanded that it become tiny, if it got a little bigger there wouldn't be a mass defection or outcry. If it actually became competitive with other high end machines, I think most folks would be thrilled.
At the BMD event yesterday the entire place was full of Apple machines, but not a single nMP that I saw. Nor was it present in the products being shown. The people I spoke to were bemoaning the lack of options they saw in their future. BMD folks made a point of showing that their software could be run on either platform and that projects started on a Mac could be finished on a PC and vice versa. The industry folks there are being pushed off a cliff, Apple shows indifference, and a 7,1 like I am mentioning could change that.
Too bad it won't happen.
I had another thought or two. First up, Nvidia has done a great job of raining on AMD's parades. I imagine they could make a 980 in ITX form factor and rain on this one. Whatever AMD did to get Fury down to 175 Watts, if applied to a 165 Watt 980 would put it under 125 Watts most likely and allow it to be run from a single 6 pin. Faster, lower power draw, and lower price would be a torrential downpour on AMD's one actual victory this year.
I am curious to see the real benchmarks.When Tom's Hardware de-powered a Fury to this level they found it an unacceptable loss of fps. (To the question, "Can Fury be set to use less power and still have similar performance? their actual answer was "No, Unfortunately". )But we shall see. I am still predicting that it won't be leaving R9 390X far behind, if at all.
On the nMP front, it occurred to me that Apple could rain on the naysayer's parade (me for instance) by packing two of those little vixens on a single board in nMP and give us back dual CPUs. I am not saying that this is likely, just that it could be done from a space perspective. Apple is in a unique position to create the needed voltages in their own PSU, eliminating much of the power circuitry from Nano. No RAM chips and less power circuitry leaves room for two on one board. Some of the engineering to do this is already occurring at AMD anyway, we know that.
Running 2 @ CPU and 2 @ GPUs would obviously need more power and thus more cooling. If it got 1 or 2 inches bigger in each dimension, who would care? Prior to June 2013 there were very few calls for it to be backpack size. In short, NOBODY demanded that it become tiny, if it got a little bigger there wouldn't be a mass defection or outcry. If it actually became competitive with other high end machines, I think most folks would be thrilled.
At the BMD event yesterday the entire place was full of Apple machines, but not a single nMP that I saw. Nor was it present in the products being shown. The people I spoke to were bemoaning the lack of options they saw in their future. BMD folks made a point of showing that their software could be run on either platform and that projects started on a Mac could be finished on a PC and vice versa. The industry folks there are being pushed off a cliff, Apple shows indifference, and a 7,1 like I am mentioning could change that.
Too bad it won't happen.
Last edited:
i don't think it's possible without a major overhaul.
the cpu panel bisects the cylinder.. it's wider than the gpu boards.. the plug (in red below) doesn't seem to fit where the gpu plug is.. also, it looks like the cpu sits on the most effective side of the thermal core while the gpus require a smaller area of the heat sink (though that could be because the psu is sharing the cpu's portion of the thermal core?)..
anyway, maybe keep on naysaying regarding dual cpu
A non-glossy MBP with a built in SSD is really handy to tether-shoot on location. And that worked great via Firewire. -Or a large, high-capacity iPad clamped onto a light stand. Still, you have to transfer the RAW images once you're back home, etc.
BMD = Blackmagic Design? If so, was anybody using a Boxx machine? Even a RenderBoxx?
i don't think it's possible without a major overhaul.
the cpu panel bisects the cylinder.. it's wider than the gpu boards.. the plug (in red below) doesn't seem to fit where the gpu plug is.. also, it looks like the cpu sits on the most effective side of the thermal core while the gpus require a smaller area of the heat sink (though that could be because the psu is sharing the cpu's portion of the thermal core?)..
anyway, maybe keep on naysaying regarding dual cpu
View attachment 577702
Put the Dual GPUs on the big side and the CPUs where the GPUs were.
I did say it would have to grow, that would require redoing quite a bit of it.
And fan would have to move more air. No doubt it would take some engineering. But they aren't currently competitive so it's time.
Hence the modified design comment that MVC made in his post. If the tube is slightly larger and taller the three cards would fit.i don't think it's possible without a major overhaul.
the cpu panel bisects the cylinder.. it's wider than the gpu boards.. the plug (in red below) doesn't seem to fit where the gpu plug is.. also, it looks like the cpu sits on the most effective side of the thermal core while the gpus require a smaller area of the heat sink (though that could be because the psu is sharing the cpu's portion of the thermal core?)..
anyway, maybe keep on naysaying regarding dual cpu
View attachment 577702
True statements - but if you're seriously needing more power like that - check out the HP Z-series and Dell Precision lines.
You know that Dell and HP will have Intel's latest as soon as it hits volume production. You know that they'll support dual CPUs and multiple graphics cards - both from the leading GPU vendor and from Apple's only vendor.
This thread focusses on how the MP6,1 can go up - but Apple may decide to go smaller. Shave an inch or two off height or diameter by eliminating the second GPU or RAM slots.
Yeah, I know those machines are more powerful. I am still trying to connect the feelings I got at the BMD event yesterday with nMP. The people there were definitely "Pro" folks, and there was no love for nMP, much more for rMBP and iMac 5K. And much angst about what to do when 5,1 can't be used any more. One guy kept repeating that he had gone to see what would be faster then his 6 core 5,1 and the answer was 12 Core nMP for $11,000.00. He kept repeating $11,000.00, and his disbelief that even once he got that it would be SLOWER at Resolve due to lack of Nvidia GPUs. (or even modern GPUs for that matter)
He had just switched a Quadro 4000 for Mac to a 980Ti and was amazed at how much more responsive Resolve became. There is no current shipping Mac that can run Resolve as well as that 5,1 with a 980Ti. Smooth and shiny looks nice when the client walks in to edit, but eventually there has to be substance, and nMP doesn't have it for his uses.
Hence people asking me to turn EFi efforts to writing a perfect boot rom for something from the Big Boys that would boot OS X like a Mac. Well beyond my skills but an interesting idea. I have never even tried to boot OS X on a non-Apple. Maybe it's time. I just don't think any serious Pro would use one in production environment. (It would have to never crash or have any weird messages, etc)
Actually not.
1. This Fury Nano board is 6" long which happens to be pretty close to the height of the Mac Pro (9" max height, sub the "floor" of the top recess is lower. Have less than 7-8" to work with. ) AMD barely get one on this board how are you going to get another on? Apple saves some space by move the physical video port connectors and their associated electronics off the board but that is no where near half. There is not another half of increased extension either.
2. Even if pull that off it doesn't buy anything. The distance restriction for QPI (and its replacement for v5 Skylake ) is on the order of a couple of inches. Pragmatically the CPUs have to be on the same logic board. Getting rid of a GPU board does nothing to make the CPU board bigger and two CPU boards doesn't buy anything.
3. Never mind still haven't made any room for another 4 set of DIMM slots.
4. If lashing the GPUs together into some semipermanent Crossfire mode there is some upsides to merging them but if one is dominate assigned GPU work and the other is dominate assigned GPGPU/Compute work putting them on the same card likely causes as many problems has it helps. The workload/thermal loads are different.
This 2 CPU is just contrived transition back into "well they might as well go back to the old 2 CPU box design". "NOBDDY" is pure hyperbole because a significant enough of somebodies bought and use them. Probably more than bought the last round of dual CPU boxes when still around. Dual CPU boxes were not the best selling config in the Mac Pro line up.
The contrived issue is cranking the power levels up so the size has to go up because blowing out what a reasonable fan can do and engaging in stuffing maximum stuff into a single box.
How many big hulking HP/Dell deskside stations didn't they bring? Or were all the demos on Mac laptops and iMacs because they are easier to set up and transport because they are largely self contained?
The Fusion product that you crowed about in the other thread didn't even run on Macs until relatively recently. That vice versa goes both ways for that product. Being highly skewed PC is actually where is has been all along until BMD got it.
if the project could be started on a MBP or iMac why wouldn't it be viable to start it with a Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is less capable of starting and ramping a project?[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry that you are having trouble reading.
Have a look at the Nano PCB, I have attached a color picture.
Everything to right of the chip is power. If you know what parts those are you will know this.
Above I noted that using the nMP PSU to generate the voltages would allow them to eliminate those parts.
See the stuff on the left? Video ports. Again not needed. Once you take both those off, there is very little left. Have a look at a 7970, huge card. They got that shrunk down nicely, why couldn't they do the same with Fiji, especially since there is no RAM?
Aside from which, I said it wasn't likely, just that they could.
As far as BMD event, I was there.
I was out in the field talking to the people who use computers to create the TV shows and movies we all watch. I heard what I heard, may not match what is thought in theoretical theorizing in the Ivory Tower but it is reality. You should try getting out and engaging the people in the business, I do it every day.
Attachments
Last edited:
A significant factor of the $11,000 is that it 12 Core nMP 2013 model. As long as Apple clings to 2013 prices and technology they yeah... it is skewed. That has extremely little to do with the design and far more due to inaction on Apple's part. And Apple clinging to their initial pricing even over multiple years..... that isn't unique to the Mac Pro, nor it is a "new thing".
The other part is that is throwing something else in on top. Quick trip the the online store and 12 cores , maxed out SSD and RAM and dual D700 is $9,600. Why anyone moaning about high prices is buying Apple max RAM configuration? I have no clue where their rationality ran off to.
http://www.color-management-guide.com/calibrate-imac-apple-display-mac.html
Don't want to or don't have the right tools; maybe. Can you use manual display setting controls to calibrate? No. However, not possible is not particularly supported by the facts. There are corner cases that are probably exceptionally difficult (some esoteric printer/paper combination), but in general it is possible.
"And whatever happens, do not ask an iMac or Mac display to reach a good retouching display quality."
"they are beautiful monitors for one not needing or seeking for this graphic art quality level."
so for a photographer, who one assumes would look for colour accuracy and wide gamut, an iMac probably isn't a good choice, as opposed to investing more heavily in an NEC or similar screen, and keeping it for numerous years.
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but it kind of seems like you bring up HP Z-series in nearly every thread you post in (and the Dell Precisions only a little less so), and I'm just kind of curious whether you're a dealer/IT service or something? It's just kind of seems like you worked that in out of the blue, like what did it really have to do with what you replied to... it literally almost reads like ad copy.
(you shouldn't feel compelled to answer that of course, but that's just honestly why it made me curious)
There's this: http://www.boxxtech.com/products/apexx-5 I first saw these in "Post" magazine. I don't work for the company, they just spec into the awesome and they have real warranties. Workstations, not Funstations.
Boxx builds some great machines but they're fairly pricey.
The model you linked to starts at 10k+ for 8 cores (dual 4 core cpus), 32gb ram, and a K5200.
- Status