Will there be a new Mac Pro in 2015?

[MacVidCards]

Well, now that we're clear on that point…

I did have to smile at the earlier comment about the nMP being "faster than my 2009", given the fact that a 2009 cMP can, at nominal expense, be upgraded to be almost as fast (CPU) and faster (GPU) as the fastest nMP.

Shhhhh, quiet ! Don't you know? Pointing out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes will get you asked to go post on a PC forum.

And just think how easy it is going to be for the 2016/17 7,1 to shine, given they just have to beat their 2011 era Tahiti GPUs. (Don't forget to buy a cake & ice cream, Tahiti has it's FOURTH birthday in November, real cutting edge stuff)

 

[linuxcooldude]

Shhhhh, quiet ! Don't you know? Pointing out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes will get you asked to go post on a PC forum.

And just think how easy it is going to be for the 2016/17 7,1 to shine, given they just have to beat their 2011 era Tahiti GPUs. (Don't forget to buy a cake & ice cream, Tahiti has it's FOURTH birthday in November, real cutting edge stuff)

If you consider cutting edge: Hacked power supplies & video cards, Nvidia cards that will only work with Nvidia drivers that can be a nightmare to upgrade with each operating system update...which will likely boot up to a blank screen. Video cards that now only work with one monitor (GTX 570 ) forcing you to upgrade. Cutting edge is fine if you want to put up with the problems that go with them.

 

[koyoot]

Linux, and the rest. I see that Mac Pro 2013 is outdated at this point, and completely not worth a penny to buy new computer. Refurbished is another thing.

Yet, still I'm not complaining about it everywhere I can.

 

[zephonic]

So this has been a productive discussion. 95 pages of

 

[MacProCard]

Can't believe it's been that long since I got one. I remember when the arguments were only "pros" needed this much power. Too expensive...needs this or that or the pros will leave. Like others have mentioned, it was time for me to put the tinkering days behind me. So the nMP worked fantastically for my needs. But for whatever reason some people just wanted to tell us that we were wrong, got ripped off, outdated....all the while pretending they had some high-brow reasoning of acting that way.

For me I never could understand why someone would post so much about a product they didn't own. That says a lot about such a person. And not surprising that some of those posters are still at it like it was yesterday.

 

[MacVidCards]

And not surprising that some of those posters are still at it like it was yesterday.

Yes, especially as the computer hasn't changed even a tiny fraction in all of this time.

 

[MacProCard]

Yes, especially as the computer hasn't changed even a tiny fraction in all of this time.

This might be very difficult for you to understand but it wasn't designed to be changed often. Constantly being upgraded and changed isn't the purpose of this product. Just take one look and you should be able to understand that. Never was so why did you think it should be again? --Because they reissued a brand name on a new product that's not like the old product it once represented? Can't believe such a simple marketing move would cause so many techies heads to spin.

 

[MacVidCards]

This might be very difficult for you to understand but it wasn't designed to be changed often. Constantly being upgraded and changed isn't the purpose of this product. Just take one look and you should be able to understand that. Never was so why did you think it should be again? --Because they reissued a brand name on a new product that's not like the old product it once represented? Can't believe such a simple marketing move would cause so many techies heads to spin.

He, He.

You might want to take a look at the title of this thread. Nearly 2,400 posts because nobody understood it was supposed to stay the same.

You should have explained that sooner and saved everyone all this angst.

 

[AidenShaw]

This might be very difficult for you to understand but it wasn't designed to be changed often. Constantly being upgraded and changed isn't the purpose of this product. Just take one look and you should be able to understand that. Never was so why did you think it should be again? --Because they reissued a brand name on a new product that's not like the old product it once represented? Can't believe such a simple marketing move would cause so many techies heads to spin.

If we believe this - then the MP 6,1 has a fundamental design flaw. Seriously. Intel has the tock-tick cycle - was the trash-can pro designed without realizing this? Did the ghost of Steve Jobs fly out of his urn and tell people to build Cube 2?

I'm gob-smacked to hear people say that the intent of the tubular Mac Pro was to be forever out-of-date.

Gob-smacked.

 

[MacProCard]

He, He.

You might want to take a look at the title of this thread. Nearly 2,400 posts because nobody understood it was supposed to stay the same.

You should have explained that sooner and saved everyone all this angst.

HA. That's what my earlier posts tried to do. Hopefully they didn't listen to those who argued so strongly for updates any moment because of this that or the other.

 

[avkdm]

I think "Apple" hated the fact that with cMP you could prolong the useful life of said machine, hence the nMP was developed. Again Apple dictating to the market. Some folks are easily pleased. All the people that have complained about the nMP have made suggestions about what they want all throughout this thread, to argue they (we) bring nothing new to the table is ridiculous.
Look at all the nMP lovers banging on about a new machine, you are no different to us, you are already crying out for an update. Not everybody has a bottomless pit of money to throw at Apple.
To argue this is acceptable is elitist.

 

[koyoot]

There is a lot of reasons why Apple went this way of designing the computer. First is the fact that CPUs don't bring anymore performance leaps, only incremental updates.
Second is the fact that GPU compute power and capabilities are getting higher and higher. Why not use that instead of CPU, which already is slower than GPU in most tasks. And it has higher compute power.
Third, there is a real possibility that in future there will be power supply lock on computers and computer like workstation may not have higher power supply than 500W. I genuinely agree with this, and if EU will apply this, which is already discussed, I can only put my hands together for that.
Fourth is that Apple needs computer that is enough flexible to be compelling for wide range of customers, not only Pros and enterprise market. New Mac Pro is more appealing for higher amount of people than the tower Mac Pro was. And yes, this creates the market for Apple, also. Because of popularity other producers can go this way also.
Fifth - next gen GPUs with HBM memory will draw a lot less power, and Nano is the first glimpse of that. However it is only a stop gap design and nothing to compare to GCN2.0 and Pascal with HBM2.
There may be even more reasons why to design this type of computer. Is it good idea, or bad, not me to judge, but it fits my needs much better than cMP was.

 

[Zarniwoop]

Your new "2013" mac pro... Brand new two year old tech and more than 3 years old GPUs... At 2015 prices... Enjoy!

Xeon E5 v2 (Ivy Bridge, current nMP CPU) versus v3 (Haswell, latest CPU model).. the latter is approximately 7% faster (depending on task), but TDP also went up ~7%, so there is little advantage if Apple had upgraded. The already tight thermal limits would have just got worse thanks to additional 10W TDP. And thats it. That is the latest tech we have on Xeon side. So for real life use 2013 is as good as it gets!

What comes to AMD.. after 2013 they've released Tonga and Fiji. Both have better perf/watt than previous models, so here we have something for a silent upgrade if they'd release new displays.

Summa summarum; 2013 tech is still nearly best you can get for Xeon machine at this price level.
If nMP received an upgrade today to the latest tech it would be:

• Haswell based Xeon E5 v3 TDP 140W (130W Ivy Bridge today)
• Tonga, but it has only 256bit bus available, so it wouldn't do much difference for the high end (D700)
• Fiji, low supplies, very expensive + memory limitations for pro apps.

Because Nvidia is currently out, this is as good as it gets. 2013 tech will give you nearly the same productivity as if it was using latest tech.

 

[MacVidCards]

Second is the fact that GPU compute power and capabilities are getting higher and higher. Why not use that instead of CPU, which already is slower than GPU in most tasks.

After I picked myself up off the floor from laughing myself out of my chair, (lovely list of excuses, masterful) I can't believe that you are claiming that gpus are so important that apple wisely went with down clocked, castrated versions of 2011 era desktop GPUs and that is a good example of maximizing the new world of GPUs.

Absolutely hilarious. Thanks for a good laugh.

I'm posting this from a 1,1 Mac Pro running El Cap with a 980Ti. So explain again why bolting in some mid level AMD leftovers was a wise plan? How useful would this 1,1 be with the X1900 that Apple called "High End" in 2006?

 

[BillyBobBongo]

Fourth is that Apple needs computer that is enough flexible to be compelling for wide range of customers, not only Pros and enterprise market. New Mac Pro is more appealing for higher amount of people than the tower Mac Pro was. And yes, this creates the market for Apple, also. Because of popularity other producers can go this way also.

I think you're confusing this machine with the Mac Mini.

"Oh dear, cancel that new car we were going to buy. I've just ordered a 12 core Mac Pro. I can't wait to see how fast Facebook loads!"

 

[koyoot]

No Im not. Idea of having very powerful computer, regardless of its current spec is something Apple would want, because of the profit margin, and wide possible Market.

Imagine that this computer can buy not only Pro, enterprise, but people who are interested in OS X offerings, and need most powerful computer there is. Gamers, freelancers, people who can afford this machine, and have needs that Mac Pro fulfills.

 

[MacVidCards]

No Im not. Idea of having very powerful computer, regardless of its current spec is something Apple would want, because of the profit margin, and wide possible Market.

Imagine that this computer can buy not only Pro, enterprise, but people who are interested in OS X offerings, and need most powerful computer there is. Gamers, freelancers, people who can afford this machine, and have needs that Mac Pro fulfills.

Have you been drinking?

That post makes no sense whatsoever.

"imagine that this computer can buy not only Pro..." drivel.

We aren't Apple, we are the customers. Why are you posting that Apple's wishes are paramount?

The gist of your previous post was "CPU speed advances have ground to a halt. GPUs are the future, therefore the best plan is to bolt in some older, non-replaceable GPUs to face the future". Nonsensical.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Like others have mentioned, it was time for me to put the tinkering days behind me. So the nMP worked fantastically for my needs. But for whatever reason some people just wanted to tell us that we were wrong, got ripped off, outdated....all the while pretending they had some high-brow reasoning of acting that way.

Tell me about it. I'm through putting unsupported PC Graphic cards in older Mac Pro's. Its funny people saying they can make a classic Mac Pro faster then the 2013 Mac Pro. I've been spending more time fixing graphic issues then any advantages of trying to make an old Mac Pro faster then a 2013 Mac Pro. Just bought a new 2013 Mac Pro with a pair of D700's and call it a day. Way more productive getting actual work done then troubleshooting computers.

 

[OS6-OSX]

Everyone is getting way off track! Let's get back to the original question...
Will there be a new Mac Pro in 2016?

 

[Draeconis]

I think the main differences that make the 2013 Mac Pro stand out are the GPUs and the SSD.

It would be nice to see a 2015/2016 Mac Pro with;
Haswell v3
SM951 NVMe SSD or 950 Pro
2x R9 Nano FirePro variants with ECC HBM.

Who cares if CPU speed hasn't changed all that much? We can now get more cores per CPU for the same power, could easily get 2 Nanos albeit perhaps slightly under clocked, and at least one decent M.2 drive.

 

[filmak]

Everyone is getting way off track! Let's get back to the original question...
Will there be a new Mac Pro in 2016?

Of course there will be one!
but we 're not ready yet, not before the end of the ever lasting nMP wars...

the nMP must be the most ambiguous mac ever.
It already has a collectible value because of this and his ....age(?).

Just joking.... back to topic.

I think the main differences that make the 2013 Mac Pro stand out are the GPUs and the SSD.

... and its silence, probably the most silent high end mac ever built.

Who cares if CPU speed hasn't changed all that much? We can now get more cores per CPU for the same power, could easily get 2 Nanos albeit perhaps slightly under clocked, and at least one decent M.2 drive.

Agreed. The cpu's updates are more subtle nowadays, and their performance increases only a by a few % with each update. Their main target seems to be less power consumption and smaller sizes (especially for laptops).

 

[MacProCard]

Fourth is that Apple needs computer that is enough flexible to be compelling for wide range of customers, not only Pros and enterprise market. New Mac Pro is more appealing for higher amount of people than the tower Mac Pro was. And yes, this creates the market for Apple, also. Because of popularity other producers can go this way also.

I mentioned a long time ago in this thread that Apple really had no incentive to upgrade until PCs manufactures started to produce competition. Obviously they will update it due to technology but only when it starts to truly lag in the market. Else it didn't make any financial sense for Apple to upgrade this every time a new CPU/GPU is released. It costs a company like Apple a lot of money to re-tool production lines.

There's no market whatsoever for the fastest and greatest computer for a mass producer like Apple. A mass producer will always target the middle 60-80%. Just like Ford/Chevy targets middle class and lamborghini/ferrari luxury. HP will build you a luxury ride, but it's not mass produced so costs a whole lot more than a regular HP.

This is how the markets work. So like I've mentioned many times before, I would be surprised to see anything short of 2 years per refresh.

 

[koyoot]

When I say appealing for customers I mean its form, not the hardware itself.

Dual GPU solution with one CPU is as of right now much flexible solution for people needs than Dual CPU and one GPU. And this will only get bigger from now on. Ive stated many times that Mantle changed a lot both for gaming, and compute Apps. Everything is right now on how fast developers of the apps will see the new solutions and apply them. There is no need for driver optimizations - only for the API, and off you go, especially on the closed ecosystem of hardware like Apples. You have one hardware solution - AMD, and all you do is optimize the application for the API. The driver deals the rest of the work. This is obviously on the professional app side. Bigger problem is with gaming, because optimizing the application lays directly in the developer hands.

Not to mention that even at today standards dual FirePro D700 setup has a little more compute power(7 TFLOPs) than single GTX 980 Ti(6.1), in the same power envelope.

But again. I have said almost year ago, that even then Mac Pro was a bit outdated, and not worth the money Apple wants for it.

 

[filmak]

When I say appealing for customers I mean its form, not the hardware itself.

Dual GPU solution with one CPU is as of right now much flexible solution for people needs than Dual CPU and one GPU. And this will only get bigger from now on. Ive stated many times that Mantle changed a lot both for gaming, and compute Apps. Everything is right now on how fast developers of the apps will see the new solutions and apply them. There is no need for driver optimizations - only for the API, and off you go, especially on the closed ecosystem of hardware like Apples. You have one hardware solution - AMD, and all you do is optimize the application for the API. The driver deals the rest of the work. This is obviously on the professional app side. Bigger problem is with gaming, because optimizing the application lays directly in the developer hands.

Not to mention that even at today standards dual FirePro D700 setup has a little more compute power(7 TFLOPs) than single GTX 980 Ti(6.1), in the same power envelope.

But again. I have said almost year ago, that even then Mac Pro was a bit outdated, and not worth the money Apple wants for it.

But it remains the only possible solution for anyone who needs a new system of this kind right now... no alternatives exist.

 

[MacProCard]

When I say appealing for customers I mean its form, not the hardware itself.

Not to mention that even at today standards dual FirePro D700 setup has a little more compute power(7 TFLOPs) than single GTX 980 Ti(6.1), in the same power envelope.

But again. I have said almost year ago, that even then Mac Pro was a bit outdated, and not worth the money Apple wants for it.

To the larger market, form and hardware are the same. Some will buy it for the form. Some will buy it for the hardware. Only price will discourage those that are interested. Many professionals will pay extra for image...plus it is a tax write-off.

Realize that Intel, AMD, Nvida have been releasing faster boards/chips for 20 plus years now. Very few users can tell the difference between updates now. (Someone even brags they are using a Mac 1,1) So just because Intel released it doesn't mean the target market needs it....or wants it.

For you, it wasn't worth the money. For me, it was. You'd rather pay less for a loud upgradeable box, and I rather pay more for silent portable machine. If money is the issue, then why would you ever buy the fastest anything. EVERYONE knows the latest technology is also the most expensive...and never worth the cost.