Mac Pro - 2011 and beyond [Archive]

pscates2.0

2011-02-27, 13:36

Here's an interesting what if: what about a smaller Mac Pro at the bottom end? One that ditches all the drive bays except for an optical and a single SSD, and has only a single card slot for graphics. Everything else gets handled by a pair of thunderbolt ports and the usual I/O ports arrayed someplace convenient on the box.

Could such a thing be 1/2 the size of a Mac Pro?

That's the "headless iMac" thing we've discussed/dreamed here about 19,000 times, isn't it? :D

With the Mac mini finally updated to decent specs and modern features (HDMI, FireWire 800, etc.) my desire for the "headless" iMac (especially if it wasn't meant to be an upgrading powerhouse) has died down.

A current Mac mini sports some decent performance and graphics (hard to think back to that 18-month dry spell from 2007-2008, huh?) and probably fits that bill nicely. And we know, on its next go-around, it could receive Thunderbolt, perhaps an SSD (as prices go down/capacities go up), new graphics and so forth. I think a 2011 Mac mini could be quite a little butt-kicker.

Robo

2011-02-28, 11:23

A current Mac mini sports some decent performance and graphics (hard to think back to that 18-month dry spell from 2007-2008, huh?) and probably fits that bill nicely. And we know, on its next go-around, it could receive Thunderbolt, perhaps an SSD (as prices go down/capacities go up), new graphics and so forth. I think a 2011 Mac mini could be quite a little butt-kicker.

The next Mac mini will almost certainly feature Intel's new Sandy Bridge processors, which would necessitate a move from the Nvidia GeForce 320M to Intel HD Graphics 3000, same as the 13" MacBook Pro. Apple's not saying how the Intel graphics compare to the 320M — all their marketing materials are focused on the graphics performance increases the 15" and 17" models are getting — but I don't think most users will notice the change. Going from a Core 2 Duo to a Core i5 or Core i7, on the other hand, should be pretty awesome. :)

I think Thunderbolt is a given (but then again, I thought a higher-res panel on the 13" MBP was a given...), and SSD as an option makes sense. I think it'll gain SDXC support, too, but Apple's been all over the place on that front lately. If sales have plummeted since the redesign they might try dropping the price back down to $599, but I don't think it's likely sales have plummeted.

So yeah, the Mac mini is pretty awesome, and I don't see the need for a headless midrange desktop like I once did. I mean, desktops are such a small market these days, that you really only need three models — one entry-level model that's cheaper than a notebook could be, one pro workstation that's more powerful than a notebook could be, and one flagship all-in-one to represent the ideal home computing experience.

Dorian Gray

2011-02-28, 12:28

We're talking about the Mac mini in a Mac Pro thread, which hints at the problem facing the Mac Pro. Once upon a time you needed a powerful tower just to tinker with images or video, whereas today most photographers and videographers would be happy with a "maxed out" laptop. The latest MacBook Pros — with quad-core CPUs, dedicated video-encoding hardware on the die, and 10 Gbps expansion options — aren't going to halt this trend.

The Mac Pro will find itself in a smaller niche as time goes by, and I suspect Apple will eventually lose interest altogether. Hopefully that will take years, by which time Moogs and nikstar101 will have moved to a MacBook Air. :p

More strictly on topic, I think future Mac Pros will have to capitalise more than ever on their more generous power envelope compared to laptops. Things like dual 100-watt CPUs and dual 200-watt GPUs are restricted to towers for obvious reasons, so that's where the Mac Pro's future must lie. Expandability is becoming less important because laptops will have Thunderfart and USB 3.0.

Ultimately though, I suspect the tower PC will go the way of the minicomputer.

Wrao

2011-02-28, 14:28

On the one hand, there will always be tasks that demand as much processing power as you can possibly muster, but on the other hand, we're starting to get Mac Pro levels of processing power from mobile computers. I think that the niche for high-end workstations will continue to shrink, and although it may not ever fully disappear, I do question whether or not Apple will continue to support it for the long haul. I think the Mac Pro will continue to push itself away from the general public, both in price and in options, and it will find a space somewhere removed from the rest of the lineup. Much like how Dell and HP sell their Xeon workstations apart from their other lines.

We'll most likely see a 16-core model upon the next revision, with eventual 20 and 24 core models. An internal case redesign to allow for more RAM, HDD and PCI space is possible, also I wouldn't be surprised if the 'low-end' Mac Pro gets axed, at which point home users woul basically stop buying these things all together.

Messiahtosh

2011-02-28, 14:55

Could someone please explain how the core thing works?

A processor can have multiple cores, if I understand it right? What is it, exactly, that a core does as opposed to a processor? :o

Dave

2011-02-28, 15:10

A processor can have multiple cores, if I understand it right? What is it, exactly, that a core does as opposed to a processor? :o
Nothing, from the software's point of view. A processor is the entire physical chip. A core is the part of of the processor that does the processing. Practical issues aside, a processor can have as many cores as the designers want. Pretend the processor is a car engine. We've been driving cars with single-cylinder engines for so long that most people outside the engine companies don't know that engines and cylinders aren't the same thing.

nikstar101

2011-02-28, 15:20

The Mac Pro will find itself in a smaller niche as time goes by, and I suspect Apple will eventually lose interest altogether. Hopefully that will take years, by which time Moogs and nikstar101 will have moved to a MacBook Air. :p
.
:lol: :)

I am afraid to say you are probably right.

My ritual buying of a new PowerMac/MacPro every 5 years may soon come to an end. If the Mac Mini did get an i7 Quad Core 2.93Ghz processor and equivalent graphics card there would be very little to stop me buying that instead. The reason for buying a MacPro is that it is one of the few computers that will last 5 years and still be relatively fast. Plus as HDs get bigger they can be easily upgraded.

But with processor speeds reaching a plateau and local storage becoming more network based, those things are becoming less important. Even now i am using nearly 1TB of network storage rather than local storage.

But then again you buy things because you love them, not because you need them, so while Apple still makes them, I'll (foolishly) buy them! :p

Robo

2011-02-28, 16:04

The reason for buying a MacPro is that it is one of the few computers that will last 5 years and still be relatively fast.

If you bought a Mac Pro five years ago, it wouldn't have been a Mac Pro. It would have been a Power Mac G5. It seems silly to assume that the future won't move just as fast.

For the price of buying one Mac Pro every five years, you could buy a Mac mini every fifteen months — and that's not including money gained from selling each replaced Mac mini, or money saved on OS/iLife upgrades. (You could probably get every new Mac mini as Apple released them.) Compare a theoretical spring 2011 Mac mini — ~2.3 GHz i5, 4GB RAM, DisplayPort/Thunderbolt, HDMI — with a base Power Mac G5 from spring 2006 (a 2GHz G5, a 160GB HDD, 512MB RAM, and no WiFi). Performance is only part of the picture — the PMG5 would also lack the Mac mini's modern I/O (and, if I'm not mistaken, a dual layer SuperDrive) and it wouldn't even be able to run 10.6, much less 10.7. And think of the power savings! I'd rather have the Mac mini. :)

The reason to buy the Mac Pro — the only reason — is because you need high performance or expandability options that aren't available in a compact form factor. Overbuying in the hopes of making a computer last longer is very expensive, and it ignores the possibility of the introduction of new technologies.

nikstar101

2011-03-05, 07:54

Robo, i do sort of agree but only post 2010. Prior to this i think consumer models just can't last.

I mean using your model, when i upgraded from my PowerMac Rev A 2.0Ghz in March 09, instead of buy a £2461 MacPro Quad 2.93Ghz (with maxed out everything-ish), i should have bought a 2.26Ghz Core2Duo Mac Mini with GeForce 9400M sharing my RAM, 320Gb HD. Costing approx £800. Additionally i need to buy an external drive to match the capacity required (but we will forget that). Thats one heck of an upgrade and the only IO port that would make any difference is the FW800. And Aperture, Photoshop (OK high end), iPhoto, Garageband and the likes run a bit faster than the PowerMac but a lot slower than the MacPro.

Ok so 20 months later (£2400/£800 = 3) i buy the next Mac Mini. I get he best spec machine which is a Core2Duo 2.66, 500Gb HD (still need external to match MacPro), GeForce 320M sharing my RAM, once again costing £800. Compared to the older MacMini it runs thing marginally faster but compared to the MacPro much slower. In fact i cannot play my favourite games such as Starcraft 2, Supreme Commander 2 or Football Manger.

So basically the third and final Mac Mini that i buy in July 2012 has to be at least a Quad Core 2.93Ghz machine with independent graphics card and at least 640Gb drive to even compare to the machine that i could have bought 40 moths ago?!!?! While i think by this time it will have finally reached those specs i have spent a long time with machine that aren't fast running the programmes i want, can't even run any games and i end up having to buy a shed load of external HDs.

OK i haven't included the money saved buy selling my computers (generally because i don't and i haven't factored in selling my Mac Pro after 5 years either), but even if it did make economical sense, i would have spent extra hours (over the years) running Aperture, Pixelmator on a MacMini. Plus radical new IO ports don't come around every two years.

But coming back to your point, i think 2011 will be a turning point. I think that the latest Quad Intel chips will last a long time as the power of CPUs has reached a point where they are not the bottleneck and if Apple chucks in a decent graphics card then the MacMini would actually become a very good purchase. Plus from 2010, network storage is became a cost effective for home solutions, therefore i don't think people will need massive internal HDs. They would prefer smaller ones with all their data held centrally.

So on reflection i am happy with my MacPro and think it will certainly survive 5 years and still be handy compared to a MacMini. :)

Ebby

2011-03-05, 18:48

Dave

2011-03-05, 19:43

Oh good idea. The larger motherboard in my Mac Pro is basically tracers and lots of empty space. Most of the fancy stuff is mostly on the processor card. I suppose you could go a build-a-tower route now that PCI expandability is out of the box.
Oooh, build-a-tower, you say? They could make multiple cases with room for two, four, or eight CPU cards (if Apple's willing to switch to a Non-Uniform Memory Architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Uniform_Memory_Access), they could put the RAM slots on the cards, which would probably simplify the motherboard). They could have room for an optical drive, a 3.5" bay, and a 2.5" SSD bay (just because that's all they seem to make), and use Thunderbolt to provide connectivity for the stackable external drive bays and PCIe slots. If they size it all right, they could make them rackable as well. You get all the CPU power an expandability you need, or not if you don't want to pay for it. Everybody wins! (Therefor it won't happen.)

Ebby

2011-03-05, 23:23

I have a feeling that memory thing is already in use. Unlike my G5, the memory modules in my Mac Pro are nestled right in between the processors. Sort of sounds like what that Wikipedia page describes.

Jason

2011-06-20, 05:02

Lots of sites jumping on Brian Tong's tweet (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/19/new-mac-pros-and-mac-minis-launching-august/) about new hardware.
I was under the impression that there are no new chips ready for a new Mac Pro.

Moogs

2011-06-20, 09:19

Beat me to it. Well, Apple usually gets first crack at releasing workstations with the Xeon derivative of whatever new chip is being used, so not surprising you haven't heard of other companies using them / there being availability.

Moogs

2011-06-20, 18:55

More on teh Mac Pro... possibly using custom CPU part. (Seriously doubt it but makes for a fun rumor...)

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/mac-pro-to-use-custom-intel-cpu-more-details-on-mac-mini-and-time-capsule/

nikstar101

2011-06-21, 02:08

Yeah I am not sure about this custom chip. I imagine that is. New Xeon just released earlier than expected. I mean Apple isn't going to throw huge amounts of money getting a custom chip when their focus is clearly consumer based products.

Matsu

2011-06-21, 22:37

I wonder if an iMac type machine is in a similar position to "capitalize on the power envelope" as compared to a mini/laptop. The iMac I use in the lab never goes into jet turbine mode, whereas CS5 easily prompts my MBP fans towards take-off speed...

I read about a Eurocom mobile workstation the other day. 6 core CPU, 3-4 internal HDDs - a thick ugly brick of a machine, about 12lbs and 2.5" thick, probably crappy battery life, but interesting nonetheless as an attempt to cram a "workstation" class machine into something mobile. I don't know if they sell, or who uses them, but it wasn't cheap either.

Got me thinking, if Apple expanded the case of the iMac just a bit and switched a few key components for something a bit hotter, what sort of iMac "Pro" could be built for the 2499 entry price of the current Mac Pro?

Eugene

2011-06-22, 01:39

Adding a bulge to the current iMac would ruin its aesthetics completely. And for what, so hardcore gamers might use it? They still won't. In order for me to switch back to using a Mac full-time it would need to be capable of fitting a standard double-width ~12" long high-end video card, otherwise I will continue to use my PCs almost exclusively.

PB PM

2011-06-22, 02:51

Who said anything about gamers? We're talking about work stations. It would be nice if an iMac like computer could have more than one HDD (not just an HDD + SSD).

Matsu

2011-06-22, 10:44

Apple may feel that technology like Tubemaster adequately solves the storage issue for laptop/desktop and workstation computers.

Whether an iMac Pro makes sense, I guess, depends on how we see the workstation computer. Does it continue to sit at the operators desk, or does it become something remote, accessed through a lighter machine? And two more questions: 1. Who is the "pro" who will buy such a machine? 2. What do you have to give them over and above a top level iMac to justify the price increase?

In the first case, I think we're talking about Apple's traditional markets. Mainly creative industries: graphic arts, design, film, video, music etc... but also scientific applications. Probably an iMac can already do all of those things, so this would have to be a machine for those who want to do it A LOT faster, which leads us to 2.

Feature-wise, given the integrated display, and the visual art bias of their customer, a higher precision display is in order - 10 bit precision, matte screen, AdobeRGB gamut would do, you can get more, but the costs rise dramatically. Probably the case has to be bigger - enough to accept and cool higher wattage CPU and GPU components - but not excessively so. Perhaps not 12" long gfx cards...

Bear in mind that if you option up the current iMac 27" to top-line CPU/GPU, then it's a 2299 machine, though the standard top line 27" remains $1999.

So, what could Apple include for $2499 in an AIO form that a pro might buy instead of a tower?

The aforementioned pro-spec display; dual multi-core CPUs into a slightly thicker iMac-like form; more RAM slots (8 or 6 vs 4), a maxxed-out vid card, and an extra TB port might do it.

I could see buying such a thing for heavy CS5 and FCP projects.

PB PM

2011-06-22, 11:22

Apple seems to like Cloud storage, but for people working with a lot of sensitive data, it isn't a good idea. Not to mention that many ISPs have data caps, which makes such use expensive, so having the ability to have multiple drives in your machine is attractive, even today. Thunderbolt is could solve the problem, but who wants a bunch of lose drives? I currently have five external drives, and although having them there isn't a problem it is a waste of desk space, which could be better utilized by, say a second LCD.

Also, many working pros want their OS on one drive (SSD), while having work data on one or two others, or in other words scratch drive(s).

FFL

2011-06-22, 12:52

Also, many working pros want their OS on one drive (SSD), while having work data on one or two others, or in other words scratch drive(s).

This can easily be accomplished even today by ordering a CTO iMac with both an SSD and a SATA drive.

Eugene

2011-06-22, 17:25

Who said anything about gamers? We're talking about work stations. It would be nice if an iMac like computer could have more than one HDD (not just an HDD + SSD).
And how many iMac users need more than one HDD and would not accept an external ThunderBolt drive. You guys argued the exact same thing I did when I was pimping the idea of an expandable midrange Mac. It's funny how the roles have reversed. Buy a PC (and maybe install OS X) if you don't think the iMac or Mac Pro suit your needs. That's what I did.

Someone with a specific list of needs is going to have looks on the back end of priority. The iMac is only an option because it's cheaper and in some ways more practical in tight spaces. However after 3 years, if it explodes, the investment you made into the screen disappears.

We are finally at the point where external buses cover all your current needs except graphics. The only devices in most pro and consumer computers that require an x8 PCIe slot's worth of bandwidth are video cards, that's why gamers are the primary target of a SoHo headless desktop. Why would people here suddenly switch sides and start pimping internal expansion? It made sense when FireWire 800 and USB 2.0 weren't good enough...no longer.

So, what could Apple include for $2499 in an AIO form that a pro might buy instead of a tower?
$2500 iMacs = a tiny niche. If I'm willing to buy a $2500 iMac, I'm willing to buy a Mac Pro.

Matsu

2011-06-22, 18:03

Eugene, you make a good point. Maybe what we need are smaller Mac Pros, or at least one smaller, entry level mac pro. It only needs one fast PCI slot for the graphics, and room for dual CPUs, one SSD and one HDD, and lots of thunderbird ports. That would mean it didn't need as big a PSU or case.

Me, being the cheap bastard that I am, I would want to pay LESS than 2499 for this machine. More like 1899-1999 at most. Still have to buy a monitor and external drives...

PB PM

2011-06-22, 19:52

This can easily be accomplished even today by ordering a CTO iMac with both an SSD and a SATA drive.
Apple's included SSDs are way overpriced and not great in terms of performance. No thanks. :( And what if I want a second internal HDD rather than an SSD? Cannot be done.
And how many iMac users need more than one HDD and would not accept an external ThunderBolt drive. You guys argued the exact same thing I did when I was pimping the idea of an expandable midrange Mac. It's funny how the roles have reversed. Buy a PC (and maybe install OS X) if you don't think the iMac or Mac Pro suit your needs. That's what I did.

As I said in my earlier post, it would be nicer to have the option to have at least two interal HDDs. External drives are fast enough, but take up too much desk space. I like the iMac otherwise, and cannot be bothered to go through the hassle of a hackintosh, been there done that. :rolleyes:

Wrao

2011-06-23, 13:31

The weird thing about Mac Pros to me is the single-processor model. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to be priced as highly as it is. Sure, the performance is comparable/superior to a $2500 iMac configuration, but the iMac comes with a 27" display! Mac Pros, when using current generation chips, are actually pretty cost competitive against HP and Dell offerings in the "dual processor Xeon workstation" niche. It's just that Dell and HP rightfully make their single processor Xeon systems in the $1000-$1500 range, and Apple just sort of ignores that the $2499 Mac Pro is only "worth" about half that realistically for what you get.

The entry level Mac Pro "should" be ~$1599, have several BTO options and maybe even a special bundle pricing with the 27" display. A $1599 Mac Pro "should" be (at least) on par with a $2000 iMac performance wise, the trade-off being that you have to buy your own display. Once you get into dual-processor territory, go nuts, have the ultimate configuration, sell it for $500 less than Dell or HP's offering, and it'd be a compelling system for professionals. Apple kind of tries to play both roads though, pretending that the Mac Pro is a regular tower for regular people but pricing it firmly for people who can write it off and/or will make back the cost in a single job.

This whole scenario stands to become even more egregious when Sandy Bridge(or Ivy Bridge even) Xeons start being used, as those chips are, on average, substantially cheaper than the Gainestown chips for the same tier. Apple is not typically in the habit of affecting full-model price cuts just because a part has become more affordable, but they do have a history of restructuring their pricing models to go along with major case redesigns, so I guess it could happen. Though, I doubt we'll ever see that ~$1500 "Mac" tower any time soon.

Xaqtly

2011-06-23, 13:34

The thing is though, look at Apple's big picture. Snow Leopard Server is now only $50, and there are Mac Minis with Thunder thighs ports in the pipeline. The way I see it, you could easily move any requirement for storage over to a cheap server connected to a Thundercats raid, leaving your choice of workstation less dependent on internal storage capability.

I have also been in the Mac Pro camp at least partly because of the storage options. But Apple definitely seems to be moving towards a client/server relationship, even in - maybe even specifically in - the home. Maybe that won't be for everyone, but I am seriously considering that setup after Lion and the new Minis come out. Still doesn't solve the problem of SSDs generally being super expensive, but if all you needed locally was the OS + applications, it seems like a viable solution.

Robo

2011-06-24, 03:01

Apparently "Mac Pro (Mid 2011)" documents are floating around, and the next Mac Pro will move from having 4/6/8/12 cores to having 6/8/12/16 cores. Maybe.

More cores might preclude this, but: does anyone else think that the Mac Pro might get a little smaller? It would only need to get a tiny bit shorter to be rack-mountable, right? A rack-mountable Mac Pro with the 3.5" drives accessible from the front would be pretty cool.

Matsu

2011-06-24, 08:32

Eugene

2011-06-24, 18:42

I would like to see two mac Pro case designs. One essentially being a headless mac at the entry level. It's got only one PCI slot - for whatever full spec graphics slot is needed - lots of RAM slots (eight or so), and two drive bays. And maybe an option for dual mutlicore CPUs. Everything else is handled by thunderpants. But this is what I want; it has no bearing on what Apple might do.

For that, perhaps a slightly smaller, perhaps even more utilitarian design?

New minis rumored as well. This seems a fairly easy guess: They get a propellorshaft port, and a slight bump. I wonder if they could make one to match the top-line imac spec, maybe a slightly taller mini with room for more powerful internals? Again, something I want, not something we're likely to see. :(
Why would it have eight DIMM slots? Four already allows for 32 GB, which is plenty for anyone who doesn't have an unlimited budget. A full-sized graphics card of course fills the space of two PCIe slots, so it may as well have two electrical slots. I don't think a headless iMac needs more than one processor socket at all. It should have space for two internal 3.5" HDDs though.

It will never be built.

Moogs

2011-07-11, 15:22

Mr. X say: new machines coming this week.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/11/apple-to-release-updated-macbook-air-and-mac-pro-models-this-week/

nikstar101

2011-07-11, 15:39

Mr. X say: new machines coming this week.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/11/apple-to-release-updated-macbook-air-and-mac-pro-models-this-week/

After years of watching for PowerMac and MacPro updates, i am now waiting for Mac Mini updates!! :lol:

I wonder what Apple will update. I imagine adding thunderbolt, but how will that work with the separate display card? Will the mini display connector plug into either the motherboard or graphics card? And what about USB 3?? I mean they should have it but knowing Apple it will be missing.

Jason

2011-07-11, 17:20

I still don't get this. I thought there were no new processors ready?

Eugene

2011-07-12, 00:18

I still don't get this. I thought there were no new processors ready?
Would be interesting, we may see an early release of LGA2011 Sandy Bridge Xeons...roughly two quarters ahead of their scheduled release.

Jason

2011-07-13, 06:35

Wrong part numbers. (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/13/those-were-mac-minis-and-white-macbook-part-numbers-not-mac-pros/)

Dorian Gray

2011-07-13, 06:43

Wrong part numbers. (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/13/those-were-mac-minis-and-white-macbook-part-numbers-not-mac-pros/)
:lol:

Moogs

2011-07-13, 09:12

Mr X status: pwned.

Eugene

2011-08-30, 06:22

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/21557

Part numbers and details for the LGA2011 based Xeons. Going to need 8 DIMMs for max memory bandwidth...

Jason

2011-08-30, 07:26

I wonder how much closer we are to new Mac Pros?

Moogs

2011-08-30, 15:43

If the part numbers are just leaking now, I bet not until next year. Apple's never been shy about letting some Mac Pro revs get long in the tooth.

Eugene

2011-08-30, 16:39

Assuming Jan/Feb timeframe like usual.

Jason

2011-08-30, 19:09

That feels like a long way away.

Eugene

2011-08-31, 00:44

There's no sense in releasing new Mac products in the traditionally strong holiday quarter where iPhone, iPad, and even iPod sales will easily carry Apple toward its financial guidance. These Intel SKUs also don't have a firm release date, so it's not like anyone will have them a month or two from now.

Jason

2011-08-31, 00:59

Yeah, I tend to forget how Apple (like everyone else) is ultimately at the mercy of chip manufacturers.

Well, except for iPhones and iPads.

Yonzie

2011-09-02, 08:26

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/21557
Part numbers and specs are all over the place with no rhyme or reason.
Xeon E5-2630 6*2.3GHz
Xeon E5-2630L 6*2.0GHz
Xeon E5-2637 2*3.0GHz
L means low power (95W vs. 65W) but the '7' is straight up crazy talk.

Look at the crazy intervals in clock speed:
Xeon E5-2650 8*2.0GHz
Xeon E5-2660 8*2.2GHz
Xeon E5-2670 8*2.6GHz
Xeon E5-2680 8*2.7GHz
Xeon E5-2690 8*2.9GHz

There's also the "Xeon E5-2665 8*2.4GHz" which Techreport missed, but why increment by 5 and break the series?
Of course, Intel isn't exactly known for logical marketing (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/08/what-processor-should-i-buy-intels-crazy-pricing-makes-my-head-hurt.ars).

Jason

2011-09-09, 05:35

I'm taking this one with a healthy pinch of salt. (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/08/sandy-bridge-e-processors-suitable-for-mac-pro-update-due-november-15th/)

Regards

Jason

2011-10-21, 21:15

Now looking like early 2012. (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/21/intel-chip-delays-suggest-no-new-mac-pro-until-at-least-early-2012/)

Matsu

2011-10-23, 05:27

I find I'm not really interested any longer in a Mac Pro, largely because Apple is never going to supply one that is remotely affordable for my uses. Still it's technically interesting, and sometimes, for a brief moment at introduction, new models represent decent value for what they are: workstations.

Thunderbolt now takes care large scale of storage, and iMacs seem to be able to take a lot of RAM (16-32GB) and an SSD, which should cure all speed related concerns in CS5 type applications. The last sticking point is really monitor selection. iMac is good, but not ideal, but is that enough of a reason to buy a Mac Pro? If I had any tech skills I'd build a hackintosh.

Xaqtly

2011-10-23, 15:19

One point to add to that - video cards. Mac Pros are the only machines Apple makes that can take standard pci-e cards, although they still have to be "made for Mac" with the EFI and whatnot.

I agree about storage though. Internal storage is no longer really an issue with Thunderbolt, IMO.

Matsu

2011-10-23, 15:42

Even video has for the most part progressed to the point of "meh, one's as good as another," at least for those not gaming.

I'll be buying a mac desktop in the new year, exclusively for PS CS5, LR and NX use, maybe a bit of iMovie. The one missing feature right now is USB 3. The drives are everywhere, but the ports are not. Thunderbolt is the exact opposite: All the new macs have them, but the drives are hard to find.

USB2 has become a major bottle-neck for me. I can't find FW800 card readers or enclosures for a reasonable cost, and I tend to deal with photo outings in 16GB quantities.

My MBP tops out a 3GB RAM, and has a puny 120GB harddrive. After some problems with a 500GB hybrid, I'm back to the original drive and use the hybrid in a USB2 enclosure.

I have to literally keep everything on the external just to work with 2-3 current/active projects. Not good, hugely inconvenient, except that I still have the bad habit of lying on the couch trying to tweak an image, then the fans spin up and machine gets very toasty and loud. I wonder if an SSD would cure this problem and keep the machine usable for a few more years. (quicker data swaps/scratch disk?)

Dave

2011-10-23, 17:06

I wonder if an SSD would cure this problem and keep the machine usable for a few more years. (quicker data swaps/scratch disk?)
I put one of those hybrid drives (http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Seagate/ST95005620AS/) in my 1st gen MBP, and it made a *huge* difference... for disk-bound operations. If you're being CPU-bound or memory-bound, an SSD won't help that much. It'll be faster in general, but your problem won't be solved.

Eugene

2011-10-23, 19:45

Now looking like early 2012. (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/21/intel-chip-delays-suggest-no-new-mac-pro-until-at-least-early-2012/)
Blame AMD and Bulldozer imo...

Matsu

2011-10-24, 07:52

nikstar101

2011-10-31, 17:29

Well it looks like Apple may not go ahead with an updated Mac Pro! I would be very sad to see the Mac Pro canned, but from the statistics i can certainly understand why Apple would. And i have a worrying feeling that this new Apple (OK over the last 5 years) will make radical changes to suit its profitability.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/31/apple-questioning-the-future-of-its-mac-pro-line/

drewprops

2011-10-31, 17:52

It has become more and more evident that it might be time for a Hackintosh.

Having read the Steve Jobs biography it seems to me that YES, they're working on rumored device X at any given moment in time, and YES they're killing the pro line, and YES they're committed only to producing consumables, and YES they (Steve) held his customers in contempt if they didn't relinquish certain controls.

Final Cut X being prime example, I chide you all now in your withering wait for a device that has become increasingly unlikely to see the light of an Apple Store.

Too bad, if true.

...

Dave

2011-10-31, 19:18

Hi Dave, which version of the OS are you running. After OSX 10.5, lots of folks reported problems booting apps from those hybrid drives. Did it ever get fixed, either from Maxtor or in the OS? I don't want to risk any failures.

Sorry, didn't see this until now... I'm running 10.6.8, and it hasn't given me a single problem. I got it maybe a year ago? I dunno, somewhere in that neighborhood. I think there've been two or three 10.6 updates since I put in that drive. I would think based on my experiences that they've gotten their issues ironed out. Alternately, I suppose it could be a 32bit vs 64bit thing, but I don't see how the drive could care (or even know) what CPU architecture is being used.

ezkcdude

2011-10-31, 20:19

Just as Apple is finally gaining some traction in the workplace, they would kill off the Mac Pro? I would think this is the time to re-boot it and make it better than ever. Oh wellz.

hmurchison

2011-10-31, 20:37

As much as I don't want the Mac Pro go away I realize the possibility exists. A well specc'd iMac 27 has more than enough horsepower for all but say 5% of Professionals. It can run two additional monitors and RAID storage at incredible speeds.

At some point it's just going to make sense to kill the Mac Pro.

But what about the Server market?

Focus more on Grid computing and a fast fabric that can tie a bunch of Mac mini together delivering more speed and flexibility than a megawatt behemoth.

Companies are already doing this with Intel Atom and ARM processors.

"Apple would never do that!"

Some of you may say that but look at what Apple snuck into OS X Lion. Core Storage a volume manager

http://blog.fosketts.net/2011/06/06/storage-features-mac-os-107-lion/

http://blog.fosketts.net/2011/08/05/undocumented-corestorage-commands/

Thunderbolt allows EVERYTHING to be external. Storage, GPU, Networking. Why stuff it all in a huge and expensive box?

Dave

2011-10-31, 23:01

Thunderbolt allows EVERYTHING to be external. Storage, GPU, Networking. Why stuff it all in a huge and expensive box?
It doesn't allow for multiple CPUs... Like what the Mac Pro has...

PB PM

2011-10-31, 23:17

Sure, but how many people really need 8-16 cores? My guess is less than 10% of all users, not enough for Apple to justify the R&D of a product line.

hmurchison

2011-10-31, 23:33

It doesn't allow for multiple CPUs... Like what the Mac Pro has...

Most applications don't thread that well beyond 4-8 cores anyways. You may as well do Grid Computing

Jason

2011-11-01, 01:01

I'm quite alarmed if this development turns out to be true. I' m saving right now for my first Mac Pro. I'm not interested in an iMac because I already have a large professional monitor.
I realize that Thunderbolt is helping ease the problems of external storage but the last thing I want to buy is a MacBook pro where I have to run cables and have to keep powering up external devices.
The Mac pro allows me to have up to 8 TB of internal storage.

Standing back a little from all the sensationalist rumours that different sites keep reporting, what do people on here think will really happen?

If Apple don't keep the Mac Pro, will they replace it with something else?

I love the idea of the power and convenience of the Mac Pro and it's upgradable options.

Jason

2011-11-01, 01:03

With third-party storage as an option, the Mac Pro will now run to 12 TB.

You can never have enough storage!

Eugene

2011-11-01, 06:34

It doesn't allow for multiple CPUs... Like what the Mac Pro has...
More importantly, why would I want any of that to be external anyway? I'd rather have one large box than cables strewn everywhere. And if we're talking about putting everything in one box, attached to a single Thunderbolt connector, then what's the point? Thunderbolt can't handle the bandwidth required for all our port replication needs plus graphics hardware anyway...

thegeriatric

2011-11-01, 06:48

Maybe now we can get a mini tower/larger Mac mini!

Fingers crossed. :)

drewprops

2011-11-01, 09:22

Agreed.
I hope that it's untrue as well. The dream of owning a badass Mac workstation lingers within me, even though my wallet is weak.

...

709

2011-11-01, 15:43

I moved from a tower last year to the Quad 2.93 iMac, and it's been a delight, but I do long for the option of adding USB3, Thunderbolt and multiple eSATA ports - which I could easily do in a tower via PCI-E (when available, as far as TB). So I was thinking about switching back next year when the new towers came out. :|

IMO, if Apple doesn't continue with the towers, they're going to lose their "top 5%" or whatever that spend real money on their kit (massive amounts of RAM, internal RAID, etc.) I would love a half-height box that allowed for a couple/few cards, but I'm not holding my breath. Expansion boxes are not fucking cheap either, and I haven't even sen a TB box yet. When I do I expect they'll cost as much as a MacPro. :\

Matsu

2011-11-02, 07:09

I don't think they'll drop their pro towers. They're never going to bring them into the realm of affordability for consumers, but as you rightly mention, there's a high profile customer that needs them. I'm sure that on some level, Apple would rather have creative, research, and scientific professionals using iMacs and Macbook Pro solutions, but at the same time if there's no top line solution, they may run the risk of losing some iMac and MacBook Pro sales to departments and/or users that would rather only deal with one platform.

Xaqtly

2011-11-02, 13:06

My studio is full of people who still need actual workstations. Hoping Apple doesn't kill the towers entirely.

Moogs

2011-11-03, 09:56

I'd like to believe Apple values the high-profile testimonials and free advertising they get from Hollywood and scientific types who use Mac Pros, that they want to continue to be perceived as a "professional platform" by continuing the Mac Pro. If you abstract the numbers from sales of other units, I don't think you can't make the argument the Mac Pro is no longer profitable. It is. I think the margins are pretty big for one thing (especially for users that buy extra RAM and HD from Apple rather than buying from 3rd parties), and for another the actual number of units sold has increased more or less year-over-year since the middle of the decade AFAIK. The real question then is one of opportunity cost - what else could they sell instead if they weren't selling Mac Pros?

Being a long-time Power Mac / Mac Pro user, I fear as laptops and iMacs get more processors (likely we'll have them with a single 6 core CPU at some point in the next year or so), and the cost of high capacity SSDs come down (allowing for high speed and high volume storage in a small space), that the Mac Pro will EOL'd at some point. Apple will probably spin the top-end model of every iMac and MacBook Pro line as "the choice for big compute and high bandwidth workflows", maybe tweaking the innards (better input/output options for AV, etc) and jacking up the price some (but still well below a tricked out Mac Pro).

OTOH they did turn around a pretty quick update for all those Final Cut users who didn't like Final Cut Pro X 1.0, so maybe the do still care about what pros want. Or maybe that's a software thing and the hardware isn't as big a deal to them.

There's no getting around the PCI limitation of closed-case models like iMac or laptops, but I think it's likely GPUs themselves will start providing capabilities for high bandwidth video workflows in the future, so the need for special cards might disappear eventually there as well. IOW all of the Macbook Pros and iMac Pros (maybe they'll add that instead of xMac?) will sport 4 or 5 input / output ports for handling video, audio, etc. Basically, everything is getting smaller as processing power increases, providing future opportunity for powerful chipsets being added to small enclosures without causing big heat issues.

It's fair to think we're in the twilight of the Mac Pro era. The next update, if there is one, will probably be the last one.

Dave

2011-11-03, 12:39

There's no getting around the PCI limitation of closed-case models like iMac or laptops, but I think it's likely GPUs themselves will start providing capabilities for high bandwidth video workflows in the future, so the need for special cards might disappear eventually there as well. IOW all of the Macbook Pros and iMac Pros (maybe they'll add that instead of xMac?) will sport 4 or 5 input / output ports for handling video, audio, etc.

ProTools runs on proprietary I/O cards. UAD Plugins run on custom DSP cards -- that's cards, plural -- each one providing up to 9.6 GFLOPS of DSP. I just benched my Mac Pro's CPU (the 3,1 model), and it says my Floating Point Basic score is 3.1 GFLOPS; less than a third of what one of those cards can do. The current iMac has half the maximum RAM capacity as my nearly four-year-old tower, and a quarter as much as the current version. Mac Pros can have five internal hard drives before you've gotta start using expansion ports/slots or FW/USB vs the iMac's one. The list of features that the Mac Pro has over the iMac goes on and on...

I accept that little of this is necessary for office work, browsing the web, or writing letters to grandma, but there are professionals out there who need these features if they want to stay competitive with people using PCs. Thunderbolt is great and wonderful, but it can't replace the 18GB/s of available PCIe bandwidth that's in the current Mac Pros (incidentally, the PCIe 3.0 spec is out now, so if Apple updates their motherboards that number will get bigger).

Dorian Gray

2011-11-03, 13:10

I accept that little of this is necessary for office work, browsing the web, or writing letters to grandma, but there are professionals out there who need these features if they want to stay competitive with people using PCs.
Need and want are separated by a blurry line, though. For every user who really needs something only the Mac Pro can provide, there are probably five who merely think it might be nice to have, and who have enough money to satisfy their whim. Not that Apple cares, of course, as long as people keep buying high-margin Macs.

And that's the crux of the matter: how many Mac Pro owners will switch to PCs rather than, say, a six-core iMac, if the Mac Pro is abandoned? Even the Mac mini can replace a Mac Pro for lots of users (e.g. photographers who have an EIZO/NEC/LaCie display but don't need a lot of processing power).

Another thing to keep in mind is that "creative" types by and large don't need a tower anymore. These are the users who brought a certain panache to Apple in the past, and these people are now using MacBook Pros and even MacBook Airs. Most of them won't be lost if Apple ditches the Mac Pro. I think most people who really would switch to PCs work in labs of one kind or another. These users are not sexy enough for Apple to particularly care about, beyond the sales they directly represent.

Dave

2011-11-03, 17:19

Need and want are separated by a blurry line, though. For every user who really needs something only the Mac Pro can provide, there are probably five who merely think it might be nice to have, and who have enough money to satisfy their whim. [...] And that's the crux of the matter: how many Mac Pro owners will switch to PCs rather than, say, a six-core iMac, if the Mac Pro is abandoned?
A lot, because the ones who do need it will switch PCs, and the rest will follow. Pick a market, any market. Whichever tools that the icons of that industry use, they're the most popular. That's the whole basis for celebrity endorsements. Of all the musicians I know who have a home studio (and I know a lot), the majority of the ones with Macs only use them because "that's what the pros use". The effect even goes further than that... People buy things because they might need it. If Bobby needs a new computer and he's thinking about getting into a photography hobby, he might buy a Mac instead of a PC because his buddy who's "in the industry" says that Macs are all over the place. What do you think he'll pick when his friend says that the big-leaguers switched to PCs because Macs don't support enough RAM to do all the heavy lifting without resorting to huge & slow VM swap files?

Another thing to keep in mind is that "creative" types by and large don't need a tower anymore. These are the users who brought a certain panache to Apple in the past, and these people are now using MacBook Pros and even MacBook Airs. Most of them won't be lost if Apple ditches the Mac Pro. I think most people who really would switch to PCs work in labs of one kind or another. These users are not sexy enough for Apple to particularly care about, beyond the sales they directly represent.
I know more creative professionals than I can even count, and not a single one uses an iMac, Mac Mini, MacBook Pro, MacBook, or MacBook Air as their primary work computer by choice. There are some, I'll even admit many, who make an iMac or Mac Mini work, but they always say that they'd rather have a Mac Pro and just couldn't afford it in one way or another. Similarly, there are many people who choose a laptop as their main computer, but at least of the ones I know, it's only because they do a lot of work "on the go" and can't justify the expense or square footage of a dedicated workstation as long as their laptop will eventually get the job done.

Someone's patience (or lack thereof) aside, it all comes down to "time is money". If you're not busy enough to have the next project waiting on you to complete the current one, then yeah, sure, a Mac Pro might be overkill for you. But if you, like several of my friends, are that busy, then a computer that has enough RAM to prevent frequent VM paging and enough processing power to keep everything running smoothly will pay for itself long before it's time to replace it. I am not suggesting that every audio engineer, photo editor, or video editor needs a Mac Pro, I'm not even saying that I really needed one, but the people whose gear choices decide what everyone else lusts after do often need a Mac Pro. If Apple is unwilling to help them, they'll find a company that is and take their industry's yearnings with them.

Xaqtly

2011-11-03, 17:38

Yeah, just looking at it from my perspective, my aforementioned studio is an ad design studio. So we create ads, counter cards, taxi toppers, bus sides, things that need to be printed, so we have to work with high resolution photos and files. And then we also do large pieces like the bus sides and full size billboards that are print rez.

So we do very processor intensive work, and then we have an incredibly fast paced and tightly packed workflow. In a given day we usually crank out anywhere between 200 and 300 jobs every single day, with about 20-25 people doing the actual design work.

iMacs are not sufficient for our needs at this point in time. We create anywhere between 20-30GB of new work every single day, and that's just the finished product. It doesn't include the hundreds of GBs of bandwidth used shuffling photos and previous reference jobs around, not to mention the CPU power it takes to open and manipulate everything, combine it, resize it, touch it up, whatever to get the finished product in the first place.

Even on Mac Pros we have people sitting around waiting 3-5 minutes for files to open, for changes or effects to render etc., and when we have to do hundreds of jobs a day literally every second counts.

I don't really care if Apple keeps the tower form factor since memory is getting denser and very high speed external storage is feasible, making an all in one type of unit a possibility - but I need the memory bandwidth and raw processing chutzpah of the Mac Pros, not to mention the expanded memory capacity. If they can do that in an iMac, I won't mind switching everybody to iMacs. But I can't take a processing power/speed/mem bandwidth hit anywhere along the line.

Dorian Gray

2011-11-03, 18:07

I take your points, Dave and Xaqtly, but we should keep in mind that Apple will almost certainly add higher-performance models or configurations of other products if they ditch the Mac Pro. So comparing the Mac Pro to today's iMac isn't all that useful.

Personally, I doubt we've seen the last of the Mac Pro just yet, but it's hard to imagine it being around in five years.

Matsu

2011-11-03, 23:47

So perhaps an "iMac Pro" makes sense? At first as something between an iMac and a Mac Pro, basically taking the place of a low end Mac Pro configuration and price point, with traditional multi-CPU boxen above it.

What would this iMac look like? Would probably need a very fast 6 core CPU at a minimum, maybe 8 cores. Potentially a slightly thicker case for cooling. Display? Probably a matte screen option, maybe with a wider aRGB colour space? A fast standard SSD, more thunderbolt ports, and cheaper/larger standard and upgrade RAM options.

Eugene

2011-11-04, 00:57

The iMac is already upspec enough for most pros. The defining factor of the Mac Pro is its ridiculous expandability. Think of the basic Mac Pro as the building block...it's the catch-all for everyone who needs something more than the iMac. These people don't care about the cost. The Mac Pro starts out with a basic configuration, but can also hold 64GB of RAM and 4 HDDs. It has 4 expansion slots and plenty of airflow to hold it all in one clean, clutterless enclosure. You have the option of mating any display you want to it. There is no way an "iMac Pro" can do all of these things right now.

Frank777

2011-11-08, 10:34

I don't think Apple is trying to "kill" the Mac Pro, per se.

They do realize, however, that an iMac with a Thunderbolt port means it is essentially a Pro machine (http://www.magma.com/thunderbolt.asp).

The Pro lineup must therefore change.

Moogs

2011-11-08, 22:40

Dave

2011-11-08, 23:59

Dave, I understand all your points and remember I am a Mac Pro guy. I am typing this on one just expanded with a USB 3 card to run my external RAID backup, etc... I just suspect that over time, a lot of bandwidth will open up and compute-intensive stuff may be offloaded somewhat to GPUs.
Yes, over time bandwidth will open up and compute-intensive stuff will be offloaded... and by then the really advanced stuff will need more bandwidth and more computing power than what the then-current consumer stuff will be able to offer. How much will RAM will always be enough for everybody again?

The first race car (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duryea_Motor_Wagon) only had 4HP and could only average 7.5MPH (http://www.chevroncars.com/learn/cars/history-auto-racing); today's consumer cars have much more power and speed (and climate control). But tell me, if you were to go down to the Indianapolis 500 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapolis_500), would they be driving right-off-the-lot Kias because those are better than what race cars used to be, or would they pick something a bit more cutting edge because then they can get it done faster and go home sooner?

There will always be specialized tasks that need the mega-ports, etc... but is that enough to keep a product line open if 97% of the user base gets by without the Mac Pro equivalent?
Yes, it is. As soon as Apple drops its profession-level offerings, they go back to being seen as expensive toys. I've seen it happen first-hand when Apple discontinued the Xserve. My IT buddies immediately lost most or all of what little respect for Apple that they'd gained (though my understanding is that the Xserve wasn't nearly as competitive as the Mac Pro is, so that might have something to do with Apple's decision to pull it).

Escher

2011-11-09, 02:47

Has anybody brought up the iMac's built-in display, i.e. the all-in-one design, as a significant downside for Pro users? At least some pro users upgrade their CPUs much more often than they upgrade their displays. With an iMac, even if it is sufficiently powerful to do everything you need, you'll still be forced to get a new display at the same time as you get a new processor.

Even as a consumer, I hate the idea that I will have to get rid of a perfectly good 24" LCD when the family's iMac stops being powerful enough to run whatever software or games the kids will be running in a couple of years.

IMO, Thunderbold isn't just a great prospect for (formerly internal) expansion. Thunderbold makes a "prosumer" or "headless" iMac an excellent proposition. One wire to connect your display (incl. USB, FireWire, built-in speakers and network camera) to your headless iMac or Mac mini certainly won't clutter your desktop like an old PC with a bazillion wires used to...

Moogs

2011-11-10, 16:56

Yah iMac displays are crap for professional purposes other than audio. That's one thing that always bugged me about MBPs too... they'd spin them as video pro machines and it's like... no video pro in their right mind is going to try to color grade clips on a laptop screen. Similarly professional photo editing isn't likely to be done on laptop screens either unless user isn't aware of color mgmt principles.

Hopefully one day all screens are 10 bit, 100+% Adobe RGB and we can just forget about worrying about that part of the equation.

Dorian Gray

2011-11-11, 03:43

Hopefully one day all screens are 10 bit, 100+% Adobe RGB and we can just forget about worrying about that part of the equation.
That'll be the day! The PC industry is making very slow progress on the integration of wide-gamut displays, 10-bit support, and software. Confusion reigns about the merits, downsides, true costs, and practices of a wide-gamut workflow. Frankly, I think Apple will put a wide-gamut 10-bit display in the iMac before the world starts begging for it. Apple will spin it as the next big thing, and we'll finally get some movement from software developers, GPU manufacturers, etc.

I have an EIZO CG223W, a relatively cheap ColorEdge model that's perfect for my needs. It's a beautiful thing: covers 95% of the Adobe RGB colour space, has hardware calibration via a 16-bit lookup-table, supports 10-bit input (not that I can use it on my Mac mini), also has built-in brightness and colour uniformity correction, brightness stabilisation for time and temperature changes, etc. You just don't get these perks on an iMac.

The point remains, though, that I use the EIZO with a Mac mini and have no earthly purpose for a Mac Pro.

Moogs

2011-11-11, 16:47

Eizo FTW. 243W here.

Matsu

2011-11-12, 16:48

This monitor discussion is a timely one for me. My office has seen fit to replace my laptop. A nice perk. Budget's not huge, but it should swing a 15" MBP. A couple of constraints:

1. Money has to be spent before ned of calendar year.
2. I can only buy what's on the approved list, there are no desktops, or I would have considered an iMac. There are a number of Dell, Lenovo, HP, and Apple machines, including MBA, MBP.

A thunderbolt MBP should swing CS5 duties more easily than my 5 year old C2D, but its display just won't do - too small, too shiny. How much is that Eizo? Could I get by with a nice Dell unit? They seem to be a decent budget alternative...

Dorian Gray

2011-11-13, 05:34

My EIZO is crazy expensive (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/687611-REG/Eizo_CG223W_BK_ColorEdge_CG223W_22_Widescreen.html ) in the US, an odd thing because these goods are usually substantially cheaper there than in Europe. (Moogs' display is even more expensive, but you get a larger, higher-res, IPS panel, etc., for the extra money.)

In the US I'd look very closely at the NECs instead. NEC's marketing is seriously messed up in Europe: the necessary software to support the hardware calibration is unavailable or ridiculously priced (by contrast, EIZO includes it for free). In the US, however, there are some very attractive NEC bundles.

When I last checked, admittedly a while ago, the Dells, etc., didn't support hardware calibration, i.e. they're not smart monitors. (Not saying you need that, of course.)

Matsu

2011-11-13, 17:04

Dell's u2711 and Apple's 27" are basically the most affordable 27" 2560x1440 options. Both about 1000, but the Dell can often be found with some discounts.

They're both 8 bit panels, but the Dell is matte, and can be switched between aRGB and sRGB - it reproduces both spectrums. Connectivity includes DVI and display port, with USB2 and multicard readers built in.

The Apple is thunderbolt only, glossy, and strictly sRGB. Of course it offers one plug convenience. Not sure if it can be made to work with DVI and/or display port. I read somewhere that display port macs could not connect to it. Weird, I thought display port was integrated into TB, must either be wrong or something about the implementation.

The next step up would be from NEC, about $1400. This is 10bit, and has a bunch of other features.

There's a big drop in price moving down to 23/24" panels but my cramped space is better suited to a single large display, so I'd rather go as big as possible.

Decisions...

Moogs

2011-11-14, 11:28

What Dorian said. If you're looking for an "almost Eizo" quality at cheaper prices for a dept or whatnot, NEC is the way to go.

Matsu

2011-11-14, 13:09

In your view does it make more sense to go with a smaller, but higher quality 1920x1080 panel? It's for home.

Every so many quarters I'm allowed to benefit from deptartmental purchasing, but these are not items that are on the list.

Our labs have 27" iMacs and or Powermacs with 23" Viewsonic displays. I'm quite spoiled by the large iMac screens.

At home I'm using an older 19" 1280x1024 Dell attached to my 15" MBP. Not a great combination. I can get the Dell where I need it for brightness, but two mismatched screens don't really work, even after I've taken all sorts of time to launch the palettes into one screen and open images into another. Every time you grab a tool, or move up to the menu at the top of the screen, you lose track of the cursor for a moment, or you find one control over to one side away from the palette you're going to use near/over the image. Annoying.

Apple/Adobe should build some dual screen UI parameters into menu heavy apps, so that we can more easily accommodate custom screen configs. A palette monitor mode would be great. Something that puts all the menus/boxes in a window on one screen, and launches/expands the working palette overtop the image on another screen. You can almost set it up that way, but not quite. What you can't do, for instance, which might be especially useful for browsing images in bridge, or for filmstrip views: Browse in one window, expand image onto second screen, full screen...

But back to the monitors, I think the trick to buying a Dell is to hunt for the right promo/coupon combination that lops $200-300 from the price of the thing - it happens enough that deals can be found.

The problem now is that my wife has seen the 27" Thunderbolt display in action with a Macbook and she's in love... She does have good taste :) but she views these things as a matter of decor and functionality. She's completely insensitive to technical specifications and the subtle minutia of small variations in colour - unless dealing with garments/decor - ask her to look at two different color profiles of an image, or the difference between a 1080P and 720P (or even 480P) screen and she'll quickly lose patience and tell me they all look the same :lol:

Try now convincing her why the ugly screen with lots of wires costs more than the pretty Apple one...

Moogs

2011-11-14, 22:32

If you have room for it I think these days any time you can afford extra screen real estate of high quality, you should do it. I'd have 30" on my desk but there's just no room for it. I'd go one large screen over two-display setup any day, for example. Eizo even has a screen now that allows you to monitor video on it although it's very expensive.

Matsu

2011-11-18, 07:54

Turns out the u2711 is a 10bit panel with 12bit LUT. Not bad, basically a slightly smaller u3011. Reviews rate it rather well, perhaps best of the budget bunch, before you move on to NEC, and then in the nosebleed section, Eizo - which are both better overall.

Still, the monitor can reproduce the aRGB space, and seems to have well calibrated preset modes to constrain it into sRGB or aRGB in unmanaged environments. Best news, I can find it for $750.

Deals on 30" panels are harder to find, but from time to time there are aggressive deals that get the u3011 down to about $1,000. I think the slightly taller/larger panel has some advantages for photo work. You sit back just a little more, and since a lot of photos are taller, it translates into nearly an extra MP of full size viewing.

On a 30" display, a 3:2 image could open up to 2400x1600 = 3.84MP
On a 27" display, a 3:2 image could open up to 2160x1440 = 3.11MP

So, it's actually 3/4 MP, but they're also larger, so you can sit back a little more for perspective.

It's just a little thing, but it adds up depending on how you like to view, organize and edit, and how good/bad your eyesight is...

Some people say they find them too big to work with. But a lot of those don't seem to like 27" either. I have no problem with 27" screens, never really used a 30" screen except to ogle them. I know I actually manage to find 21" screens cramped now. Just watching other people work at their desks, the sweet spot for many seems to be 23-25" - that is they just sit down and work, and don't adjust the screen or their keyboard or chairs, not super scientific, just an observation.

Moogs

2011-12-12, 17:11

Moogs is here to say that he is buying a new Mac Pro next rev because his is dying a slow death and fears the next rev may be the last (and he has a Apple discount). I am going to have to ship 3 old computers back to their recycling facility; good thing they're all paid for. :lol: G4, G5, this Mac Pro.

Moogs

2011-12-22, 17:29

And because I want one of these so I can max out my COD settings at 1920x1200 :sarcasm:

http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/12/amd_radeon_hd_7970.jpg
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/12/22/amd-announces-new-mac-pro-suitable-radeon-hd-7970-graphics-card/

chucker

2011-12-22, 17:42

These are getting more and more deliberately penis-shaped, right?

Xaqtly

2011-12-22, 18:58

I believe so, yes.

I'm more curious than ever as to what Apple is going to do about the Mac Pro., and the tower form factor in general. Plenty of people still want the expandability and the option of using a card like that, and putting 4 HDDs in, and having 32-64GB of RAM and PCI slots for specialized purposes.

But high end workstations are no longer where Apple's bread is buttered. Like the XServe before it, I am expecting it to ride into the sunset... just don't know when. I expect the upcoming rev to have the same case and the normal speed bumped components, and a variant of that 7970 card as an option, but after that?

I guess it'll depend on how much Mac Pro functionality they can fit into a different sort of form factor. I'm probably going to get the next rev, as I'm on a 2009 version right now and it just feels to me like the next rev might be the last one unless Apple does something drastic and actually compromises with the non-tower headless Mac we've wanted for so long. At this point I can't even guess what Apple's going to do, I don't know what sales numbers are like for Mac Pros these days and whether it's worth the effort to keep them going.

GSpotter

2011-12-23, 02:38

Plenty of people still want the expandability and the option of using a card like that, and putting 4 HDDs in, and having 32-64GB of RAM and PCI slots for specialized purposes.I think (although no data to back this up) that there are at least two groups of people interested in the MacPro:
1. People who just need more memory / more computing power and need a different monitor
2. People who need specialized cards (in addition to point 1), e.g. for audio and video production or scientific applications.

So I'd like to see a successor of the MacPro where the current model is split into two modules:
1. A core containing the processor, memory, drive bay and a graphics cards slot (maybe one additional slot, in case you want to upgrade e.g. to new interfaces)
Should be smaller and cheaper than the current MacPro
2. A thunderbolt extension box (could be designed snap to the core box to become one enclosure) with expansion cards for those who need this expandability.

A nice option would also be an 'entry' model with just the same motherboard than the high-end iMac to lure those people who want a desktop with a faster processor and graphics card than the mac mini and without the monitor of the iMac...

Moogs

2011-12-24, 11:51

These are getting more and more deliberately penis-shaped, right?

I think the new processor is called "Bone-core Extreme".

drewprops

2011-12-24, 16:03

WHEN my finances allow it I'm going to build a Hackintosh. It has been decided in my heart.

...

nikstar101

2011-12-24, 16:40

Well I think there will be a 2012 Mac Pro but I wouldn't count on one much further than that. I just think that consumer Macs/PCs have become so powerful and flexible (not so much expandable) that they can now cope with even highly demanding tasks. Additionally apart from storage I would hazard a guess that most Pros don't get upgraded too much either.

Anyway I will but a new one before they disappear, if only out of habit.

Moogs

2012-01-04, 13:17

Latest rumors seem to be further spreading the doom and gloom. I am seeing the same shipping changes to 1-3 weeks when changing the stock configuration of each item (like changing the processor speed). Could be read either as "clearing the channel" or as "EOL soon because new CPU parts not close to ready AFAIWK."

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/02/mac-pro-build-to-order-ship-dates-slip-as-future-remains-uncertain/

nikstar101

2012-01-04, 15:30

Well i think that the current delay in shipping times is too coincidental with the new line of Sandy Bridge-E processors, so i think we will be in luck.

But having a look at some PC websites the system performance isn't a huge improvement over the standard Sandy Bridge system, and i know that everyone will say its more than that it is the expandability of the Mac Pro, but with every new generation of iMac i see the need to expand (apart the HD space) slowly ebb away.

Anyway i will be more interested how they will implement Thunderbolt ports into the Mac Pro. Will it pass through the graphics card or be a separate port?

Xaqtly

2012-01-04, 16:31

Anyway i will be more interested how they will implement Thunderbolt ports into the Mac Pro. Will it pass through the graphics card or be a separate port?

My guess is that the graphics card will have a DVI and two Mini-DP ports like current cards do, and that the thunderpoop ports will be on the logic board, routed to the back panel.

Yeah, I think an iMac with chunderbolt and the ability to put in 16GB of RAM and an SSD will cover the needs of even some of the more power-hungry Mac Pro users. It covers everything except PCI expandability, pretty much. I really think the Mac Pro's days are numbered now, but Apple has surprised me before. It'll eventually come down to the group of users who need the multiple-core performance for things like rendering, and things like Quadro cards. Seems like there is always going to be a market for that, even if it's very small. Hard to imagine Apple getting rid of it entirely.

PB PM

2012-01-04, 18:42

Part of what may be killing the Mac Pro is the number of users willing to make a hackintosh, order to build a similar system from scratch for less. That may not be a huge number of users, but in a time when desktop sales are sliding, every person that does not buy is hurting the future of such products. Add the current power in the high end iMac and you have poor Mac Pro sales.

Matsu

2012-01-04, 19:52

I think they'll keep it around for users that need it, but never actually price it down to the rest of us who just want it. That leaves the iMac and Macbook Pro. The problem with the iMac is the screen. Personally I think there's room for better iMac screen option. I don't mind using it, but calibrating it is hard, and when you dim the screen enough for real editing, reflection becomes much more annoying than at typical viewing brightness.

I think there's certainly room for a matte screen option , even if i get no other improvement in bit depth or gamut.

But this is a mac pro thread. If they ever killed it, what would/could they replace it with?

PB PM

2012-01-04, 20:19

Just a thought, but maybe they have no intention of replacing it?

Moogs

2012-01-05, 09:21

Yah if they do kill it, I doubt it will be replaced by anything.

Matsu

2012-01-05, 10:38

But are professionals ready to adopt iMacs, Macbooks, and mini's as their main machines? Mac Pros customers will want with something, maybe even a PC ?

If the technology landscape changes enough to make desktops extinct, then Apple will probably go there first, but eventually so will every one else. I don't see it happening soon. I can see Mac desktops, all desktops, occupying increasing specialized niches for certain industries/applications. They already are.

All my friends/family use laptops and iPads - they don't use "pro" applications. I only see desktops at work, because they're cheap, and in our labs, because they're for specific applications - FCP, CS, design, and other A/V, internet, and creative production.

Xaqtly

2012-01-05, 13:11

Yeah it depends on which professionals we're talking about. The only real, tangible benefits a Mac Pro has over an iMac is more physical cores to do the work, and the PCI slots for specialized cards, graphics or otherwise. If you're not doing anything that is using all 8 cores on a Mac Pro, then you're likely not doing anything that requires PCI slots or specialized cards either.

I dunno. Apple could keep the Mac Pro going, they could build a new sort of half tower headless that has a couple PCI slots, a couple HDD slots, good RAM capacity and a much lower price point, or they could just dump the tower entirely. It's hard to predict, especially without Jobs. If he were still there I'd guess he was just going to axe the line.

Dave

2012-01-05, 16:03

The only real, tangible benefits a Mac Pro has over an iMac is more physical cores to do the work, and the PCI slots for specialized cards, graphics or otherwise.
Also a higher RAM ceiling and not having to eat up Thunderbolt bandwidth to add fast storage (RAIDs and SSD would more than saturate FW800, so I'm not counting that).

Dorian Gray

2012-01-06, 07:48

It's hard to predict, especially without Jobs. If he were still there I'd guess he was just going to axe the line.

Alternatively, the Apple crew may be keenly aware of this, and vow to be more Steve than Steve! Especially with the first few releases after his departure, in order to establish that Apple's culture really is Jobs' culture.

As you say, hard to predict.

Moogs

2012-01-06, 11:10

No one is more Steve than TEH STEVE ¡

Sacrilege!

PB PM

2012-01-06, 12:40

Secretly the "fake" Steve Jobs is now running the show.

Moogs

2012-01-06, 16:51

And no one is more of a real fake than Fake Steve... or something.

Moogs

2012-03-01, 22:09

Looks like chips have been in the channel for a while and a embargo ending next week. Therefore Mac Pros could be announced at any time.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/01/mac-pro-update-now-possible-with-new-xeon-e5-chips-next-week/

Frank777

2012-03-01, 22:15

I think Apple should put USB 3 alongside Thunderbolt on the new Pro, just to confuse everybody. :D

Eugene

2012-03-02, 00:03

USB 3.0 would only be available via the ASMedia or Renesas controllers. None of the current LGA2011 chipsets have built-in USB 3.0 support...

Moogs

2012-03-02, 09:55

I would like USB 3 just to make sure I have built-in compatibility with my MAXimus backup, which I currently have to use a PCI card / driver for, and which doesn't always boot / mount normally.

I don't know if it's just my specific computer or what but for a while now I've had problems with any kind of Firewire, USB, USB 3 drive mounting when I plug it in. The guys over at OWC tell me I should "turn the drive on first, then the computer"... which is BS. I should be able to turn on the drive at any time and have it mount correctly, including doing it consecutive times during a short period.

Not sure if these are OS problems or machine problems but they're annoying as hell.

Frank777

2012-03-02, 14:55

I was actually kidding. Can you imagine the outcry if Apple put USB3 solely on the Mac Pro?

Charging a thousand dollar premium for USB3 would serve to make Thunderbolt look like a bargain....

hmurchison

2012-03-02, 18:50

It's interesting that Intel's interest in USB seems to have waned with the continued irrelevance of AMD.

USB being a technology that leverage the CPU was a great way for Intel to upsell faster CPU. Want to reach higher I/O speeds in USB ...get a faster CPU.

Intel isn't driven by the same motives so USB 3.0 has had a real tepid launch

Moogs

2012-03-02, 21:24

Frank... I didn't mean solely I just mean I'd like support for it. They can go all Thunderbolt on us all they want but a couple USB 3 ports would be nice too.

Eugene

2012-03-02, 22:53

I think Intel understands the Post-PC world has no need for all the features provided by their PCH.

For example, I do not think Apple uses the integrated NIC on the majority of its Macs (possibly all of them.) Apple most certainly does not use all 12 USB 2.0 channels or 6 SATA ports on most of its Macs. Furthermore the PCH is no longer necessary as a PCIe multiplexer as more/wider PCIe lanes become standard on the CPU...

Dorian Gray

2012-03-03, 09:56

I don't know if it's just my specific computer or what but for a while now I've had problems with any kind of Firewire, USB, USB 3 drive mounting when I plug it in. The guys over at OWC tell me I should "turn the drive on first, then the computer"... which is BS. I should be able to turn on the drive at any time and have it mount correctly, including doing it consecutive times during a short period.

Not sure if these are OS problems or machine problems but they're annoying as hell.

For what it's worth, I've also had random problems with my LaCie d2 Quadra external drives not immediately mounting on my Mac mini (via FireWire 800). Seems a bit random. However, when they're mounted they're rock-solid. I'm daisy-chaining drives, of course, and they're also all encrypted, which means I have to turn them on in the right order and enter passwords sequentially. Heck, thinking about it, it's a wonder it ever works! :lol:

Moogs

2012-03-03, 14:04

Well my problems have been related to single directly connected drive, and varying the port hasn't mattered. IOW, If I try port 1 a bunch of times I get just as many random failures as port 2 - on either the drive or the Mac. Although strangely, if I start up a drive and it spins up but won't mount, and then I swap the port on the back of the drive or Mac, sometimes it will then mount. As if to taunt me a second time...

http://thewisecracker.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/John-Cleese-Monty-Python-Holy-Grail-French-taunt.jpg

This is one of those "attention to detail" areas Apple never pays any attention to (sort of like the Finder quirks we've had all these years). With the mountain of cash they're sitting on now, I'll never understand why they don't hire a few people whose mission in life is to squash these usability annoyance bugs and add polish across the product-line. Insanity. They could solve all of these problems in 6 months probably.

Moogs

2012-03-06, 20:12

I give you Sandy Bridges of Power.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5553/the-xeon-e52600-dual-sandybridge-for-servers

Moogs

2012-04-02, 20:20

Not Mac Pro related per se but the addition of anti-reflective glass on iMac screens would address one major complaint of pro users regarding iMacs. Should they become more expandable in their next offering I fear that might signal the end...

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/02/apple-to-utilize-anti-reflective-glass-in-next-generation-imac/

chucker

2012-04-03, 06:36

Indeed. And if they manage to cram that technology into their MacBook Pros, I might consider going glass the next time.

Matsu

2012-04-03, 07:45

What kind of expandability could be added to an iMac to make it a suitable Mac Pro replacement?

All I can think of are more thunderbolt ports, USB3, and more on-board storage, but the storage would make the iMac much bulkier, and somewhat redundant considering the availability of thunderbolt. Maybe Apple should make their own external storage solutions, something like Drobos, in 2, 4, and 8 bay flavours?

Frank777

2012-04-03, 09:40

Dave

2012-04-03, 10:53

Matsu

2012-04-03, 11:35

Dave, I should have been clearer, I was referring to the iMac in its traditional AIO form. Personally, I'd love a smaller, more affordable tower that has just enough room for extra internal storage.

Frank is probably right, user serviceable HDD, SDD, alongside the RAM would make an "iMac" upgradeable enough - setting aside the question of acceptable system performance.

The other issue would be the display. Maybe these are reaching commodity levels. Certainly there are lost of cheap 27" and under panels out there. Many are TN, and not quite up the task of graphics work. But there are also relatively affordable IPS panel based displays, like Dell's u2711. Integrating the panel and it's circuitry might drive costs down a little more then. So, if you take about $500-700 worth of high quality display and add another $500-1000 worth of computer, you more or less get the iMac's current price range, plus a bit of a premium for the Apple-i-ness of it all.

Moogs

2012-04-03, 16:24

What kind of expandability could be added to an iMac to make it a suitable Mac Pro replacement?

They'd have to do at least a partial redesign but the short answer they can't make a true replacement. What they can do is make a version with a hot-swappable GPU that's easy to get at, more RAM banks that are easy to get at and a second HD that's easy to get at. If they did that it would effectively kill the Mac Pro IMO or turn it into a complete niche product with only one or two super-expensive variants being offered (12-core and 16-core maybe both with max available clock rate for those configurations), 12 RAM slots, Thunderbolt galore, USB 3, etc.

And don't get me wrong, if the new iMac had this level of expandability AND a much better (wide gamut) screen, plus the anti-reflective stuff, I'd at least consider it as a replacement. Especially if it could drive my existing monitor too. I'm not such a Mac Pro snob that I wouldn't consider switching IF the right conditions were met. But I don't think they'll go that far, and at the same time might still EOL the Mac Pro, which would piss me off.

At that point I'd probably opt for the Macbook Pro with the best CPU / GPU combo and drive my big screen from that.

chucker

2012-04-03, 16:32

Hot-swappable? I assume you mean just swappable at all. Hot-swappable GPU sounds awesome, don't get me wrong, but seems a little excessive.

Moogs

2012-04-03, 16:45

Yah I just meant not soldered onto the board. Pop open a little hatch in the back, press a button to release, pull it out, put a new one in, close the hatch.

BTW I didn't realize until today Mac Rumors has subdomains for specific products so you can skip all the other stuff.

http://macpro.macrumors.com/

Moogs

2012-04-03, 16:58

Hate to say it but this makes me wish Apple licensed to HP for Workstations...
http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/workstations/z820_features.html#.T3txqu3Rj6s
(click the product tour)

pretty impressive although the industrial design is still more complicated than a Mac Pro.

Frank777

2012-04-03, 17:21

Hot-swappable GPU sounds awesome, don't get me wrong, but seems a little excessive.

:lol:

Frank777

2012-04-03, 17:49

The real problem for the Mac Pro is that Print Publishing and Video Production now work largely on an iMac.

If you want to see a souped up Mac Pro in the future, somebody has to find a market for it other than Photoshop gurus in an age of RGB websites.

Thunderbolt now essentially offers PCI expansion (http://www.magma.com/thunderbolt.asp) to the Mac Mini and iMac.

So if the next iMac has a non-reflective display, 32 GB RAM, three PCI slots and Thunderbolt hard drive expansion:
What are you going to use the Mac Pro for?

pscates2.0

2012-04-03, 18:57

A couple of those are pretty big "ifs" though, aren't they? :confused:

I don't know what's going to happen. I can see the Mac Pro going away this year, and I can also see it staying around forever, getting updated once every 16-22 months (in other words, business as usual). :)

Frank777

2012-04-03, 22:49

1. Non-reflective displays are the current rumour du jour. That's really the only iffy part.

2. The current machines do 16GB, so I'm assuming the new chips will push that one further.

3. The expansion chassis for PCI cards have already been announced.

4. Thunderbolt arrives on PCs this month so hard drives are about to be more affordable.

Your next iMac is a Pro machine, whether you know it or not.
It's going to frustrate gamers and Photoshop gurus who want to change their GPU, but who else really does that?

pscates2.0

2012-04-03, 23:34

I'm not disagreeing that the iMac is a capable machine (I'd choose one over a tower any day). I just wasn't aware of those components. I thought you meant the slots would be built in.

Matsu

2012-04-04, 08:08

The current iMacs support 32GB when you use 8GB modules, and together with an SSD, they can probably meet most memory intensive needs. Besides expansion, pros will probably want faster CPU and GPu combos. Dual CPUs are probably out of the question, but a 6 or even 8 core chip would be welcome.

pscates2.0

2012-04-04, 08:18

The other thing too is the display. Don't demanding, high-end users get very picky about their displays, and sometimes spend quite a bit for them?

Are the ones in iMacs good enough for them? I don't know, I'm asking. :confused:

Matsu

2012-04-04, 13:22

I think there's many that are picky, but a very great many that are simply finding a good quality IPS display to be sufficient for 90% of their needs. I see the iMac on desks all over print shops and graphics design shops. I'm told it calibrates well and doesn't shift too much, and people are mostly happy. Where I take some digital photography classes (the college recently updated its program descriptions to specifically note 'digital'; 'film' is only covered in a class under 'alternative processes' now) most of the instructors use an iMac or Macbook Pro. There's only one real orthodoxy on displays: IPS plus calibration. People seem very content to meet that standard. Some have new cinema displays, some have old Apple 30", some have Dell.

For me, I really would prefer the option of wider gamut, just to be sure I could see all of the potential output on some devices, but I know it probably wouldn't make a huge difference to the finished product - black and white inkjet, and chromogenic colour prints.

So, with a constrained budget, I know, for me, a Mac Pro is out of the question. Is it better to go for a high quality monitor and a mac mini, or an iMac? I think it depends on how quickly we have to chew through files.

PB PM

2012-04-04, 13:38

I think you'd have to be working with some very hefty files to bog down any of the modern Macs (MBA/Mini aside due to RAM limitations). The mini is a good option, as long as you can get by with 8GB of RAM. For me, I find iMac to have the sweet spot, since it reduces desk clutter, making it far easier to work with. Even with the current glossy screens you can buy anti-glare covers to fix reflection problems.

Matsu

2012-04-04, 18:02

I agree, which is also part of the reason I think the iMac makes the most sense for someone like me. Especially if it gets a bit better display, it mostly takes away the last outstanding concern and keeps everything neat and tidy. I'd probably spec it with the max affordable RAM, likely 3rd party 4x4GB, and an SSD for system performance and keep all my project files on some sort of external back-up system. Either USB3 (assuming they add it) or Thunderbolt based.

Not quite sure the mini is ready for 12-16-36MP RAW files. 500-800 at a time, 100-200 selected out and given very quick edits/corrections/crops etc, 40-50 of those more carefully processed and laid out for photobooks and such. That's more or less the workflow I've been practicing with 12 and 16MP files, can't wait to try 36 :eek:

Moogs

2012-04-04, 19:20

Re: screens - Apple doesn't sell one that is anywhere close to wide gamut standards you see in Eizo or the better NEC screens. In fact in the recent past some of their laptop screens were not only not 10 bit, they're not even 8 bit.

Apple has always taken the "good enough to do press proofing" approach but the thing is, four color presses (like sRGB working spaces) are not capable of reproducing many colors. It's actually a pretty shitty technology where color reproduction is concerned. Many high end inkjets are far more capable in that respect, although obviously you're not going to make anything high volume on an inkjet without bankrupting yourself. So think of "press monitors" and the presses themselves as being 80s tech / standards, because that's basically what they are. So when Apple says "XYZ PDQ Press Proof Approved" that's another way of saying "this monitor is not less limiting in the colors it can display than your average magazine press".

Video someone said? Sorry but I doubt any serious video editing company is working on iMacs as their primary grading machine. They probably use them for rough cuts and general playback evaluation but for the color work they'll use a real monitor.

Again though if Apple ever makes the GPU swappable and adds room for one more drive plus a true wide-gamut screen, that's the end of the Mac Pro. And probably the beginning of a new high-end price point for iMacs around $3000+. For people who still need to use PCI slots they'll probably offer a single "psycho power user" Mac Pro configuration and price it around $5000.

709

2012-04-04, 23:10

True, more and more it's an RGB world, but since I've hopped from my MP to an iMac >2 yrs ago the only real beef I've had is the inability to hook up externals via eSATA. My print work hasn't been affected at all (but, I've always had the Pantone CMYK bible next to me - and if you aren't at the print shop watching the first run come off the press then you shouldn't be in the business in the first place.... that smell! :) ) and my video work is handled just fine by this kit.

True, there's no FC connecting, which is a pain sometimes, and nobody color corrects on an iMac anyways (I jump over to the DaVinci box for that slice of hell), but it's a perfectly capable machine for 95% of anything print or video related. The one thing I *do* think should be standard is a Blu-ray burner. Now that Steve is gone (RIP) I expect a bit of relinquishing on the obvious shit that people really want, personal objections from inside the company be damned. I can't remember the last time I burned a DVD for playback. They're like the VHS of media in this day and age. It's all Blu-ray and 720/1080p files nowadays.

Robo

2012-04-05, 01:32

Are you talking about Blu-ray on the iMac or Mac Pro?

I think the next iMac might ditch the optical altogether, but I agree that only including DVD drives on $1200+ machines is ridiculous. Basically, if a Mac has an optical drive, it should be Blu-ray -- it's just that the only Mac with an optical drive is likely to be the Mac Pro.

Matsu

2012-04-05, 05:19

chucker

2012-04-05, 06:07

He's talking about external PCI Express expansion through Thunderbolt, not internal slots.

Matsu

2012-04-05, 09:06

Matsu

2012-04-05, 09:52

posting error

nikstar101

2012-04-05, 12:52

From my point of view, as much as i want the MacPro to continue living, ThunderBolt and a Matte screen does allow Apple the flexibility to start transferring Pro functions to the iMac.

I mean the two main reasons people pick the MacPro over the iMac is the choice of screen and the increased storage capacity. OK some people do it so they can have extra PCI cards in and all those things, but i bet most simply do it for the storage and graphics.

ThunderBolt means that external hard drives are now as fast as internal ones. So in Apple's mind adding another ThunderBolt device is simpler than upgrading an internal drive.

And a Matte screen could mean that Pros could use that instead. As well as adding a second screen using ThunderBolt.

Eugene

2012-04-05, 14:18

Then there's really not that much that needs to happen to make the iMac into a more "pro" machine:

1.) Upgrade the screen. Minimum matte/anti-glare set-up. Or, better, a wide gamut display.

2.) Add USB3 and even more thunderbolt ports.

3.) Upgrade CPU to 6 or 8 core BTO option.

4.) Make the internal storage as well as the RAM user accessible.
I guess I don't see the point. That's more stuff consumers won't use or want to pay for all the while not giving you display flexibility. Forcing someone to upgrade a display every time they upgrade a CPU is silly. And then there's the real Mac Pro. Apple is the largest company in the world...they can afford to keep a high-margin, low-volume "hobby" like the Mac Pro around, right?

PB PM

2012-04-05, 15:42

That's what gets me, they really can afford to keep it. If Apple can hang onto a "hobby" project like the Apple TV, surely they can handle keeping the Mac Pro around.

chucker

2012-04-05, 16:09

The difference is that Apple TV is related to markets they're slowly getting into, whereas Mac Pro, much like Xserve, is a market they consider secondary at best.

Moogs

2012-04-05, 17:07

Moogs, I can't figure out what an iMac design with PCI slots would have to look like, at least not an AIO iMac.

As for the rest, how does OSX handle having one display in sRGB (the iMac) and a second display in aRGB. I've never had the luxury of dual high quality displays and having to worry about color management before. Is it easy, or is there anything to worry about?

I think there's a little confusion here. ALL modern LCDs / CRTs are RGB screens, and none of them are driven by or locked into in any way sRGB or Adobe RGB in the way that's being described. Screens are profile independent devices, other than the fact they themselves can be calibrated and profiled to use as part of your CM workflow. Where sRGB or other spaces come into play is with documents... and whether the screen you're using has a wide enough gamut to encompass all the colors in your most used documental workflow or profile.

For web people all they'll ever need is sRGB because that's what the web is based on, basically. For people who do press work, having a monitor that can display the RGB equivalent colors of all the press colors they need, is important. For video types who do HD broadcast stuff a screen that encompasses the rec.709 standard and then some, is important. For pure photography (i.e. no third party printing - you're doing it all yourself on a high end Epson 4800 or something similar) having a display that can encompass all or most of the Adobe RGB space can be very important. And the printer's gamut is very important too. If you're really gung-ho there's ProPhoto RGB but this space is so large that there are many colors within it that the human eye supposedly can't distinguish and so that's more of a raw editing situation where you want to maximize the possibility that every color in your scene is rendered into the file that's exported to Photoshop... but you'll never see a "ProPhoto" monitor because the tech is not there yet and we as humans couldn't see every color the monitor displayed to begin with. :)

So with respect to the iMac screens, they're typical 8-bit screens (8-bit LUT in other words, which can result in tonal or color banding if you feed it an image that has a wider gamut than it has). To jump into Mac Pro territory, Apple would need to release one with a 10-bit non-refelective screen IMO, in order to appease people who want to do high end photography or video work. At least with respect to the screen. RAM and GPU horsepower and the rest is another thing all together.

As for multiple screens, I wouldn't do that with an iMac. I'd simply get the largest, widest-gamut screen they offered. I might however, drive two smaller monitors from my MBP, if it had two DisplayPort out plugs. Otherwise I'd just do one big screen if there was only one DisplayPort.

Robo

2012-04-05, 17:12

The difference is that Apple TV is related to markets they're slowly getting into, whereas Mac Pro, much like Xserve, is a market they consider secondary at best.

Exactly.

Apple can "afford" (monetarily speaking) to make many more products than they currently do. But one of the reasons that they've been so successful — the reason they can afford to make so many more products! — is because they're laser-focused on only the products they can give their full attention to. They don't halfass things. They'd rather not make a workstation at all than a halfassed one. That's why they stopped making the Xserve, as chucker noted.

There are a few exceptions. The Apple TV is probably Apple's most obvious "hobby" product. I wouldn't quite call if halfassed, but it's clearly not a major focus of Apple's iOS strategy in the same way the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch are. It's a stopgap, in sort of the same way the ROKR was (only less bad). Pretty much everybody "knows" that Apple is going to make a more significant play in the television market in the future. They haven't done it yet not because they don't have the money to, but because they've been busy with the first iPhones and iPads. But they need something to complete the iTunes/iCloud picture in the meantime, so they made their hobby product.

(That's why I qualified "afford" with "monetarily speaking" at the start of this post. Apple could afford to make dozens of new products, momentarily speaking, but money isn't exactly Apple's problem right now. They have zillions of dollars but only one executive board. Can Apple's leadership afford to give dozens of new products their fullest attention? There's different types of "afford.")

Apple might decide that the Mac Pro is worthy of being another exception. They might view the Mac Pro as something of a support prosuct for the products they care more about — iOS devices (and consumer Macs) are great because of their awesome apps, and so Apple wants to give developers the best tools to make their awesome apps. It certainly helps that Apple can make beefy margins on a workstation that takes far less engineering effort than a tightly-packed mobile device loaded with custom silicon. But at the same time, they sell far fewer workstations.

Eugene

2012-04-06, 07:13

If it's all about branding and the media market, then why not keep the product that sits at the head of video production/post-production. I personally don't care if the Mac Pro lives or dies as long as the only alternative is an iMac. The iMac is neither green nor reliable according to my own experience. It's expandable to a point via external add-ons, but I personally would prefer and have opted for a tower and separate display.

I really doubt picking off the shelf parts and maintaining one extra assembly line for nice professional segment is going to break Apple.

Moogs

2012-05-15, 09:48

Hmm. No idea what kind of gamut these would-be Retina-for-Mac displays have, but if Apple can find a way to boost the expandability somehow and the screens DO have good gamut, could well spell the end.

Whatever happens I think we'll have our Mac Pro answer within a month.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/15/retina-displays-also-coming-to-next-generation-imac/

Matsu

2012-05-15, 10:14

I say bring it on. I don't think they'll upgrade every screen though. Just the top end.

Axl

2012-05-15, 10:34

Redundant power supply needed here at work.

Mac Pro update wanted.

Moogs

2012-05-15, 21:10

SPeaking of power supplies, my brand new UPS back-ups was spinning its fans and clicking a couple times today. Don't know if that means surge or if it was just cooling off.

nikstar101

2012-05-21, 16:35

While wasting some time online I noticed that a lot of Mac forums are all talking about the demise of the Mac Pro, or the speculation around it. To be honest I think that Apple will update it this year but these days you nvever know. I think if Apple did ever discontinue the Mac Pro they would announce that they were going of end of line it and then give users and businesses time to buy what they need.

But it got me thinking, as all these forum users said they would jump to windows etc, what would i do. I think I would go crazy a buy a maxed out Mac Pro just before they got rid of it. I mean mine is only 3.5 years old but the Mac Cult-ist in me would like to get a 12 Core daddy of a machine and that would probably be my last big Apple purchase. As I think I would move to Mac Mini's when the 12 Core Mac Pro gave up ( or what ever computers look like then).

Anyway just passing some time with my crazy rumblings..... :lol:

Matsu

2012-05-22, 04:56

Yeah, it seems generally that Apple's pattern with the pro desktops is that at launch they're very expensive, very powerful, and a reasonably good deal if you happen to be in the market for that sort of machine. They launch the product and that's that. It doesn't get updated for a long while (in computer terms) or get price adjustments, or promos, because that just isn't its target market.

Moogs

2012-05-30, 09:02

So much for more transparency in Apple's desktop strategery.

According to Cook, they'll be "Doubling Down" on Secrecy... that's like...... George Lucas doubling down on contrived character types and cheesy dialog. There is no room to double-down.

Humorously, MacRumors isn't sure it will work as evidenced by new iPhone part leaks from China. As if anyone has any question that there is always a new iPhone around the corner and it will look very similar to the last model and it's little internal buttons and parts will look pretty much like the parts inside every other glass smart phone. Talking here about secrecy surrounding new product designs. You'd think in any case desktop towers would get a pass in this department as Apple is not really competing with anyone in this space.

Moogs

2012-06-01, 09:33

Noticing that stocks of refurbed Mac Pros are very low now. Usually there are 3-5 models available and multiple in stock. Right now there's one model available. Not sure what that would signify.

Either people are buying them up like crazy assuming there will be no more (and no one is selling)... or... ?

PB PM

2012-06-01, 13:13

Appleinsider posted yesterday that a trusted source indicated that the Mac Pros demise is greatly exaggerated, and that it will be updated at least once more.

pscates2.0

2012-06-01, 14:04

Jim Dalrymple is that source and he's got a pretty awesome track record for knowing inside stuff (even more than Gruber, IMO). So if he says the Mac Pro is going to be updated and stick around a while longer, I tend to believe it. Probably about as close as you'll get to an official statement from Apple.

Moogs

2012-06-01, 16:04

Yah he is a pretty good source.

Quagmire

2012-06-01, 18:41

Not sure if it means a refresh is close, but the 12 core Mac Pro is shipping in 2-4 days while the rest are in stock. Not sure if it is a buying frenzy due to rumors of its demise or inventory is starting to go down as a refresh is coming soon.

pscates2.0

2012-06-01, 19:08

The buyers guide at MacRumors shows all Macs, except for the MacBook Air, with a red dot beside it. That means "don't buy, updates soon". As we know, the Mac Pro is long overdue, and it's been over a year now for the iMac.

And the MacBook Air, which is the only Mac with a yellow dot beside it (meaning "buy only if needed...approaching the end of a cycle"), was updated last July which is almost a year.

It's entirely possible the entire damn lineup gets updated in the 4-18 days. I actually think we'll see something next week, pre-WWDC (something not involving a redesign, perhaps the Air or Mac mini).

Quagmire

2012-06-01, 19:48

I wouldn't listen to the MR buying guide. It's a computerized calculation taking into account the average cycle to generate the don't buy recommendation.

screensaver400

2012-06-01, 23:30

^Why not? I suppose the "Updates Soon" marker isn't well-worded--I replace it in my mind with, "It's been a long time since an update, suggesting that an update could come at any time." That's good to know, isn't it?

Moogs

2012-06-05, 22:45

Ask and ye (we) shall receive. It seems.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/05/mac-pro-to-finally-see-updates-next-week/

Frank777

2012-06-05, 23:03

Ask and ye (we) shall receive. It seems.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/05/mac-pro-to-finally-see-updates-next-week/

Or you could have just stayed quiet, and the result would have been the same. :D

Apple was never going to cancel the Mac Pro.

Xaqtly

2012-06-06, 00:32

I wouldn't say never. The age of the tower is quickly coming to a close, and I still maintain Apple is going to do away with the Mac Pro.

Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpoyshqB8-o

Frank777

2012-06-06, 02:04

It could happen, but it's more likely that the Mac Pro will be cut to one version which is customizable, instead of the good-better-best options.

The future versions will be smaller and rackmountable, to allow larger companies to use them as a 'real' server.

The age of the tower may be over, but there's no reason the breadbox can't be remade into a modern computing appliance.

Eugene

2012-06-06, 02:07

The age of the tower already past unless you're a gamer or DIY builder or a very specific type of professional.

Frank777

2012-06-06, 02:21

...or a very specific type of professional.

Indeed. But government, education & science, Photoshop designers, application developers and large media businesses are very specific types of professionals that still spend a lot of money.

Moogs

2012-06-06, 09:52

I think it's time we put a stop to "The War on Very Specific Types of Professionals". Congress needs to hear our pleas.

BTW, looks like the prices will be about $3000, $3600, and $4600

http://9to5mac.com/2012/06/06/new-macs-spec-sheet-leaks-out-into-the-internet-pricing-and-names-included/

wtd

2012-06-06, 10:04

Yeah, but those are Australian prices. Judging from how much higher Australians tell me Apple prices are there, I'm guessing they may be much lower in North America.

Matsu

2012-06-06, 10:33

So Apple is going further up market? Wow. I didn't realize they were Australian prices Though a straight currency conversion doesn't sound all that promising, I understand there's usually a level of retail punishment inflicted on Aussies. What's the approximate translation of Aussie retail into Can/US prices?

Honestly though, I think iMacs have plenty of horsepower for most users. Almost the entire media arts cluster at my college is on either new iMacs or older Mac Pros. CS5 is the standard suite, switching to CS6 in September, amongst other tools for the those doing video and web design. There's some PC hardware mixed in for some of the engineering and statistical applications. Purchasing seems mostly driven by software, and relatively mid level equipment meets most of the requirements but for a few users.

I'm positive that just about all of the creative pros who staff and teach the various programs would be just fine with an iMac so long as Apple bumped the screen up a notch or two: Switchable sRGB/aRGB, matte screen. Many of the photographers already use iMacs with SSDs, maxxed RAM, external storage, and a separate proofing display.

Frank777

2012-06-06, 12:57

Perhaps one of our Aussie friends could chime in on the current prices of the Mac Pro over there, so we can have a useful comparison.

Axl

2012-06-06, 13:13

I'd like to see a redesign. Allow the Mac Pro to be rackmountable in server cabinets as a 3U component.

My IT guy made put our current Mac Pro on its side, on top of some plywood to fit it in the rack :lol: pretty ugly solution

Frank777

2012-06-06, 13:24

One of the main issues with using the Pro as a server is having a hot-swappable power supply, right?

Given that they actually incorporated the power supply into the Mini's chassis in the last redesign, is there any chance they'll include this on the Pro?

Axl

2012-06-06, 13:26

At work, we need the hot-swappable power supply-- Keep it in there! :)

Frank777

2012-06-06, 13:28

The current Mac Pro does not have a hot-swappable power supply.

Dave

2012-06-06, 14:00

Axl

2012-06-06, 14:15

The current Mac Pro does not have a hot-swappable power supply.

:o

I thought it did. I suggested the IT dude to go for a Mac mini as a server and he was talking about the power supply being an issue…

Edit: we have three in our setup:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7226/7160804539_0047a9a2e6_z.jpg

Moogs

2012-06-06, 14:28

Current AUSD to USD is almost 1:1 (1.0009 AUS). The prices are the the same in that case and I don't see Apple changing prices based on currency fluctuations. They'll just set the price points based on current trends and leave it. How that will work with other western currencies that are more spread out I don't know but I suspect they adjust in that case. Canadian dollar is very close to 1:1 (1.02 CAN) also.

Frank777

2012-06-06, 14:29

Yikes.

wtd

2012-06-06, 14:39

On checking the Apple Store, it seems Aussies pay a 20% premium. So, the Australian prices quoted are inline with current pricing.

Dave

2012-06-06, 15:19

On checking the Apple Store, it seems Aussies pay a 20% premium. So, the Australian prices quoted are inline with current pricing.

Yeah, that's what I was talking about.

Moogs

2012-06-06, 18:03

Hrm so you're saying our prices would be:

$2500, $3000, and $3833?

That would work for me but I can't see the uber model being less than $4000. They never are. Current ones are $5000. Prior to that they were like $4200 I think. But a price drop would be righteous.

Eugene

2012-06-06, 22:31

Indeed. But government, education & science, Photoshop designers, application developers and large media businesses are very specific types of professionals that still spend a lot of money.
How many of these people need 12-16 general purpose cores at their feet again? Isn't the idea to have PC -> high-speed external I/O -> high-density Tesla/Stream or other HPC box + storage arrays? Anyway I'm in no way hoping the Mac Pro goes away. I've always been in favor of Apple keeping it around 'because they can.'

709

2012-06-06, 23:33

Honestly, if there's a stock Mac over 4 grand I'll eat my hat. I just don't see that happening.

You'd have to be wildly out of touch to throw a box like that in the mix. Especially with a year-old video card, as Apple tends to do.

GSpotter

2012-06-07, 00:12

On checking the Apple Store, it seems Aussies pay a 20% premium. So, the Australian prices quoted are inline with current pricing.If you compare the new prices with the prices of the current offerings in the AU Apple store, the entry price is identical. So I assume that also for other countries, the prices of the new machines will match the current price points... :(

Well, I had hoped for a bit cheaper entry level MacPro...

Dorian Gray

2012-06-07, 03:03

9to5 Mac puts the new prices (http://9to5mac.com/2012/06/06/new-macs-spec-sheet-leaks-out-into-the-internet-pricing-and-names-included/) at: A$ 2999 and A$ 4599, plus a server at A$ 3599.

By comparison, the current Australian prices for the Mac Pros are A$ 2999, A$ 4199, and A$ 5999, plus a server at A$ 3599. One model will be dropped, presumably in response to declining sales.

The same machines in the US are $2499, $3499, $4999, and $2999 for the server.

The same machines in the UK are £2041, £2859, £4083, and £2450 for the server.

The same machines in France are 2399 €, 3399 €, 4899 €, and 2899 € for the server.

So it looks like the entry-level Mac Pro and server model will stay roughly the same price, while the new high-end model will sit between the two existing high-end models, splitting the difference.

Question: who buys these nowadays? Is it possible a significant portion of sales go to Apple geeks who must have "the best"? There's an ad agency (http://www.dream-on.fr/) not far from me, with scores of iMacs in a huge open-plan office facing the street. Peering in, I can't see any Mac Pros. I thought an ad agency would be natural territory for the Mac Pro, but apparently not.

drewprops

2012-06-07, 06:22

I still want one, just like I want a Lamborghini.

I am the serious.

...

Ryan

2012-06-07, 11:41

Question: who buys these nowadays? Is it possible a significant portion of sales go to Apple geeks who must have "the best"? There's an ad agency (http://www.dream-on.fr/) not far from me, with scores of iMacs in a huge open-plan office facing the street. Peering in, I can't see any Mac Pros. I thought an ad agency would be natural territory for the Mac Pro, but apparently not.

I did some web development work for an online branding firm last year and the designers all used brand-new Mac Pros with dual 23" monitors. When you're building comps with over a thousand layers and different inline versions for each web page, you need all the power you can get.

Moogs

2012-06-07, 13:37

Question: who buys these nowadays?

Just a few whiny geeks on AppleNova and Macrumors... and the 12th Grade lab at Crabapple HS in Guidoslick NJ. Oh and several university labs. No one else uses them. ;)

Dorian Gray

2012-06-07, 16:47

'Twasn't a rhetorical question, clever-clogs Moogs. :p

Ryan has a likely scenario, though drewprops' is probably more common.

I'd like a Mac Pro too, but I'd need my own wind turbine to power it. I have a problem using over 130 watts (http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/Mac-Pro-Environmental-Report.pdf) to surf AppleNova. :lol:

Moogs

2012-06-07, 23:08

Sorry I couldn't resist. Seemed rhetorical. :D

The most simplified answer to who is people that:

a) need 3rd party monitors to get accurate color
b) need 3-4 HD in their machine (scratch disks, etc)
c) need 10+GB of RAM (Photoshop, AE, 3D, etc)
d) upgradable GPUs (Call of Duty! ;) )
e) slots for PCI cards (video / audio processing most common)

f) want to look down on the rest of you mortals. (I kid)

Jason

2012-06-07, 23:48

Looking forward to seeing the specs On these new machines. In addition to the reasons given above, I think some people like Mac Pros because they don't then feel the urge or need to upgrade every two years.

Ryan

2012-06-08, 00:01

a) need 3rd party monitors to get accurate color

That was the other reason we had Mac Pros. All the designers' displays were fully calibrated as we did a fair amount of print work on all sorts of mediums. Mine weren't since I only worked web, nor did I have anywhere near as nice a setup. :(

nikstar101

2012-06-08, 02:27

Matsu

2012-06-08, 07:54

I think that B and C are not really issues any longer. iMac's can handle 32GB with current modules, even MBP's can accept 16GB, though a bit pricey to do. And between thunderbolt and USB3 it can argued that external storage solutions might actually be a better practice for pro use.

Jason

2012-06-08, 08:36

I wonder what the Graphics Card options will be?
Haven't a clue what's readily available now. I'm assuming we've moved on from the Radeon HD5870?

Moogs

2012-06-08, 09:23

I wonder what the Graphics Card options will be?
Haven't a clue what's readily available now. I'm assuming we've moved on from the Radeon HD5870?

I don't know but hoping the best all-purpose card currently on the market. My guess is a choice between the Radeon 7950, one of the lower 7000 series.

That's always the problem with these OEM cards. The manufacturer makes one set of drivers for one or two cards, which means you can't throw in their newest card in 6 months and expect it will work. You have to wait a year usually for a new card and driver to be released for Mac. I think I read somewhere that Apple had gotten really fed up with this practice and was switching to one company or the other for all GPUs. And I think it was a switch to AMD / Radeon. I can't recall for sure but seems like Nvidia had made plans to write Mac drivers for some of their hyper-fast GPUs with CUDA and all that stuff, and they balked after a time / skipped it... writing drivers for only a single card (the Quadro 4000).

PB PM

2012-06-08, 13:24

There was a rumor a while ago that Apple was going to switch back to Nvidia for this upcoming generation of machines. It seems like Apple switches back and forth every other generation.

Moogs

2012-06-08, 16:47

Yah I could be mistaken... it's hard to know what the hell is going on because Apple rarely comments substantively on these things. We'll find out soon enough. I don't care which company; I just want a good card with excellent CUDA / OpenCL support (one or the other) and better than avg gaming performance. IOW a card that will give me the power I need for at least 18 months or so before i have to go in search of a new card (boxed product).

Matsu

2012-06-09, 13:38

A while back Macworld benchmarked an SSD iMac i7 as slightly faster than an (older) HDD Mac Pro. Naturally disk bound processes enjoyed an advantage on the iMac - I don't think processor bound tasks would shake down the same. Assuming I could afford any Mac Pro (not really) it would certainly be a single CPU machine. How do those CPUs stack up? Maybe a used Mac Pro makes sense compared to a new iMac? Right now used Mac Pro's are a little on the high side, but new machines are immanent. Do new models have any effect on used equipment? I've never purchased a used Mac before...

Eugene

2012-06-09, 17:18

I wonder what the Graphics Card options will be?
Haven't a clue what's readily available now. I'm assuming we've moved on from the Radeon HD5870?
The HD 5870 was only an option, with the 5770 being base. So I'd almost expect the HD 7770 to be the base config with an HD 7870 as an option. Technically the HD 7970 the top of the line, but I doubt Apple will use that.

If we're looking at Nvidia it becomes hazy. There's no good low-end '600 series' offering, so we might see something like a GTX 560 in the low-end with a GTX 670 being the high-end option. Who knows..?

Moogs

2012-09-07, 10:53

Looking like Nvidia intends to keep trickling out super-high-end GPUs for the Mac at the rate of about 1 every 18 months. This would be an expensive BTO option but looks pretty impressive. For the true "time is money" set producing video and motion graphics, this card would pay for itself quickly.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/07/nvidia-announces-quadro-k5000-professional-gpu-for-mac-pro/

Moogs

2012-10-11, 22:43

So if you guys could get a 6 core 3.33 GHz Mac Pro (current version) with 16GB of RAM and 5870 card for $2800 + tax, would you do it... despite the oldness of the CPU and that we'll probably have something new in 8-10 months? And if your current Mac Pro was starting to slow you down / go on the fritz occasionally?

Matsu

2012-10-12, 10:20

Depends whose money I'm spending. Dept. money? As long as there's a need, yes. My own, probably not, just because I tend to use my computers for a long time. My MBP is going on seven years old now...

Moogs

2012-10-12, 11:55

My money. It's for business though, so also an amortized tax deduction (unless Romney stops me from deducting it as an expense! :lol: ).

I usually buy every 4-5 years. Going on 5 now.

Brave Ulysses

2012-10-12, 12:12

I'm shocked Apple hasn't at the least cut prices on the Mac Pro.

Moogs

2012-10-12, 17:50

Well they did drop them a little when the whole Cook debacle was going on. Mainly the RAM prices came down substantially for those models. Everything else is the same (I don't think the CPUs dropped any at that time, if they did it wasn't by much -- I think that was part of everyone's rage).

Frank777

2012-10-12, 18:02

digitalprimate

2012-10-12, 19:19

Apple has stubbornly held the Pro to sky-high prices (and margins), figuring that business could afford it.

They probably won't change that unless the 2013 update is some kind of a game changer, and the economy still looks like, well, what it does now.

True. One of my clients is going to buy a Mac Pro next week, despite me advising him that if he could wait (which, in principle he can), he really should.

Moogs

2012-10-13, 16:30

The thing is, are we talking about early 2013 or late? No one knows. If it's early then waiting is the way to go and you can always pickup a refurb Mac Pro if you don't like the new Thunder Cat design. :)

Frank777

2012-10-14, 16:22

I doubt the Apple CEO would talk up a product update that is more than a year away.

Cook made the comments in June, and I personally expect that the Mac Pro will debut by WWDC in 2013. That is, by June of next year.

Moogs

2012-10-15, 14:47

So 8 months max eh? I've never been that confident in predicting Mac Pro release dates because they don't seem to follow any pattern. The last several updates have seen releases in January (1), March (1), June (1), August (2). They clearly do not link it with WWDC. I don't think Mac Pros are that big a demographic with developers anyway although I suppose they'd help spur compile times.

If it's next August or next Fall, it would almost be worth buying IMO. If it's January or March I'd want to kick myself in the nuts. One positive thought is, if they're doing some type of form factor change (seems very likely), future updates for that design might be easier for Apple to handle more regularly (whenever Intel has new chips). In that case, if there's an update every 6 months it wouldn't be as big a deal to not time the first one correctly.

Frank777

2012-10-15, 18:25

The Pro isn't really 'linked' to WWDC, but its aim at the Big Business, Higher Education, Government, Scientific and Developer markets do make it more of an item of interest to many WWDC attendees.

Moogs

2012-10-15, 19:36

I suppose that's true. But I doubt they'd force that arrangement in general. Might be more like "hopefully we can announce at WWDC but it's ready when it's ready" since it's not a big profit center for them (although it is profitable generally). Actually I think NAB is the more likely event, if they're choosing one. That's where they're losing customers to HP (in the Adobe / Video space). That's in April...

Showing a new Mac Pro that has kick-ass GPU and CPU options that run Premiere and AE demos faster than HPs machines would be a big win for them in that space, because they're really losing mindshare there to both HP and Adobe especially. Whereas I don't think the threat is nearly as big in the developer / pro business user space. The niche where the perceived loss is really big, is video. They need to crank out something that is sexy, cost-competitive, and beats HPs best boxes in all sorts of Premiere, AE, and Photoshop bake-offs, as well as showing off latest version of Final Cut Pro X.

Frank777

2012-10-15, 19:41

Yes, NAB is a contender as well. Perhaps alongside a new version of FCP.

I expect it to be earlier than later. Nobody at Apple is unaware of what happens when you announce a new version of a machine is in the pipeline.

If it was potentially 18 months away, Cook would have kept his mouth shut.

Moogs

2012-10-15, 19:43

I think I'm going to hold off for now and just try a CC CLone of a new system drive and see if that works. But if the wonkiness continues I'll have to bite the bullet this winter / not wait for April / June / WHenever. I will check the Refurbs also. If they have the model I want in Refurb and it's another few hundred dollars cheaper I'll get that. Perfect stop-gap machine.

Moogs

2012-10-15, 19:55

No doubt this will be a BTO option as well, although I suspect it will cost around 2 grand. Not a small investment for a GPU.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro-k5000-mac.html

Ebby

2012-10-16, 01:11

Yes, NAB is a contender as well. Perhaps alongside a new version of FCP.

I don't really see Apple taking NAB or post production seriously anymore. In fact, most "Pro" applications need a major kick in the pants just to get up to date, much less stay competitive. Don't get me wrong, I have been using FCP since 1999 and love it, but they shot themselves in the foot with FCPX and are years behind industry trends. Apple is riding on momentum until they remember how to be a real computer company again, not just an ipod/iphone company. :(

Last time I checked only the basics of Blu-ray authoring is available from Apple software so if a studio needs a second PC-based system to polish a product, why use Apple hardware at all? Unfortunately, that was the consensus of my TV/Film college as well and last I heard they made the switch.

Moogs

2012-10-16, 16:50

I think that's an exagerration about FCPX. Everyone lost their mind because they removed about a half dozen pipeline type features (XML stuff, etc). All six were back in the app within a few months and a few extra, but suddenly it's "years behind the times"?

What does Premiere Pro do functionally that FCP X can't in terms of editing professional quality video? Not much, if anything. For the most part, it's faster because of GPU acceleration and better integrated with other important products like AE, Speed Grade and Photoshop. So the main advantage is as much about the other suite apps as it is the editor. Apple is one sharp update away to FCP X and Color, from being back on top in this sphere, if they can just handle the hardware side too. I'm not a video guru but they're not that far removed from the fray.

Some of these "plugs" you're seeing by various trainers and whatnot for other platforms are just them going with the trendy pick of the day and getting some love from the vendors in the process (i.e. free gear). If Apple releases a kick-ass product in April, they're right back on the Apple bandwagon.

709

2012-10-16, 21:38

I'll have to give FCP(X) another shot. I had to ditch it, unfortunately, for Media Composer. The first release was just so bleh and I need a full-on editor. One thing I do miss incredibly is DVDSP. That was the easiest and most elegant drag-n-drop software ever. Encore just, well, isn't.

I will say one thing about Encore though - it makes gorgeous Blu-Rays*. The UI needs work, but damn if if it doesn't produce the goods.

*(has external and loves it - gives zero fucks about the SuperDrive)

Moogs

2012-10-16, 21:48

Yah Encore is a bit wonky but definitely more intuitive than DVDSP was.

Moogs

2012-10-17, 09:33

Hoping we get a Mac Pro or GPU rumor update in the next few weeks to clue us in on likely release time frame.

Moogs

2012-11-01, 12:56

Brave Ulysses

2012-11-01, 13:05

I wonder if we'll get a Mac Pro rumor / leaked part picture like we do with the other Macs / devices in the next few months. Probably not. Now that everything else has been updated though I am hoping for it.

probably not. We only get those leaked photos because of the supply chain. As far as I can tell, Apple could probably go back to building Mac Pros in a garage to meet demand.

I am a bit surprised that Apple hasn't just been honest about it. It would not be unprecedented for Apple to put a product line on temporary hiatus. And it would be very goodwill for the pro community for Apple to just come out and share their plans. It's not like it would impact Apple's bottom line doing so.

pscates2.0

2012-11-01, 13:19

In light of recent releases, I'm kinda curious to see how Apple approaches a Mac Pro update. At this point, what do they consider "pro". What things will they be okay with jettisoning/omitting for a "next-generation professional desktop"?

Do they need to take into account FireWire users or will they just say "buy a card". Will they even support cards?

The Apple I see these days doesn't mind alienating one group (longtime users) to pursue/appease another (newcomers, switchers, regular people).

But are the rules different when it comes to this particular machine and its user base?

My first reaction is "yes", but then I factor in real life.

Does Apple go all-out and make a true no-compromise tower with all the tech and connections video/music/audio professionals uses and need (even if some if them are older, "yesterday's tech")? Or do they approach it more like the recent pro notebooks and and just offer current, future-looking tech/components/ports?

"Hey, we're only interested in looking forward...come with us, or look elsewhere."

I can so see them taking that approach. Can't you?

Again, a rational answer would be "they'll include everyone and make sure their valued pro customers aren't left dangling...".

But, then, it's kinda tough to say that with a straight face and any sincerity, considering the past two years. They've not exactly gone out of their way to please this group and, in fact, everyone except their pro customers seems "valued".

I can honestly see them, taking recent moves and history into account, releasing a Thunderbolt-only (no FireWire) machine. I can imagine them doing several things to "force an upgrade".

I can see them doing with hardware what they did in software with Final Cut a couple of years ago...completely rewrite the rules and split everyone (and their reactions) right down the middle.

I honestly think this alleged updated Mac Pro is going to alienate/piss off at least half of the very people who are waiting so long for it to appear.

Look at the MacBook Pro. Look at the iMac. Factor in the Final Cut brouhaha a while back. And sprinkle in at least a half-dozen genuine "WTF?!?" moves from the past couple of years. And do not underplay their obsession with thin, sleek, appearances and design. Yes, I know such things (should) count less on such a machine for such a user base...but you know good and well that, with Apple, it won't/doesn't.

Fold all those together, let them simmer and I believe you'll have your answer.

And depending on what it is you do - and the level in which you're doing it (and your investment in other, related gear) - your response is going to fall into one of only two camps.

"OMG, I have to leave the platform in order to get the machine I truly need" or "they finally did it right and this is something I can sink $3,000+ into without a single reservation".

I predict there will be no middle ground.

I have no dog in this hunt, so anything they do in this area matters nothing to me. But it'll still be interesting to follow and observe. And I still think they'll "go future" and incur the wrath of a few million users...

709

2012-11-01, 15:25

Do they need to take into account FireWire users or will they just say "buy a card". Will they even support cards?The ability to add PCI cards is the singular most important thing that makes it "Pro", so yes. It will definitely support cards. I need a Fibre Channel card. I need an eSATA card. Most Pros do if they're working with massive amounts of RED footage and have multiple RAIDs. There are no two ways about it. The ability to change video cards to the latest and greatest for color correction and whatnot is what makes it a Pro machine.

If Apple loses the cards, they lose the Pros. Period.

I'm willing to forgo FW800 and write it off (teeth clenched) as a legacy port, but I do hope that they keep at least a couple on the front panel. That would be nice.

Thing is, there's not a whole lot Apple can do better than the the current machines wrt to size. They could maybe shave an inch or so lengthwise, possibly a tad with the width (though I doubt much - 3.5 drives aren't getting any smaller), and maybe even an inch or so on the height if they can figure out better cooling, but it's still going to be a hefty box, no matter what.

Moogs

2012-11-01, 15:26

Trying not to get my hopes up but you're probably right about some of that stuff Paul. I think what's going to happen is, they're going to redesign the machine so that they can still include high-end features, but they might specialize them a bit more and offer fewer BTO options.

Something like:

Config 1: 3D Render Beast (12 core, 16GB+ RAM, non-gaming top-end GPU that costs $2000 by itself. This machine will probably cost about $6500-$7500 just as it would if you configured an HP Z-series machine today to do the same thing.)

Config 2/3: Creative Suite Beasts (6 or 8 core, about 12GB of RAM stock, 2 SSDs, high-end but multiple purpose GPU like Radeon 6970 that supports all the important standards, and tricked out with extra USB 3 / SATA Ports, and extra slots. Probably around $5000.)

Config 4: "Bargain Model" (4 core high clock speed, 8GB RAM, HDDs, mid-range GPU, fewer ports). Probably around $2800.)

I think they'll leave the accessibility intact because unlike all the other Macs historically, the towers are built around an identity of swapping parts out every so many months to maintain the value after initial expense. To pull a Retina-book trick on Mac Pro users and take away user upgradable / expandable options, would effectively kill the market. Their investment will be for nothing.

But I think it will have a different form factor (probably smaller) and be more specialized per model. We'll see. I was looking at configuring an HP workstation the other day, and even with mid-range components the prices are well over $6000. There is nothing at all bargain about PC compared to Mac Pros. That remains a myth.

The only way you get a bargain is to build your own PC (not hackintosh, I mean a Windows 7 PC). I could build a totally tricked out PC for less than $4000 and that same machine from Apple or HP would probably cost closer to $7000, assuming you could even get the same parts in Apple's case. Talking multiple SSDs, kick-ass GPU, USB 3 everywhere, 3+ GHz 6 core processor, 8 ram slots, etc.

pscates2.0

2012-11-01, 15:53

I think the Mac Pro case, as it is, suits the job just fine. It doesn't need to be "stylish or cute" because that's not the market it caters to. Half the time it's probably hidden below a desk, or in a closet, anyway. So even though it's looked the same for nine-plus years (summer 2003 is when the G5 debuted, in pretty much this exact design!), nobody's complaining because...well, this isn't for consumers and teenagers who want stylish accessories.

If they just update it to the latest things so people don't feel bad about those $2,500+ outlays, that instantly nips most of the squawking right there.

I agree with 709 that cards/expansion are part of what makes a pro machine "pro" (otherwise, why bother...it's just a big Mac mini). So I'd be stunned if Apple didn't do this. But I've spent 2012 being stunned and doing this :eek: and :err: a whole lot, in regards to Apple. :D

So...

Point is, anything is possible and I'll believe it when I see it. I take nothing for granted at this point.

Moogs

2012-11-01, 18:54

Yah I don't think they're going to turn it into a sphere or something crazy. More like they may make it slightly smaller, round the edges in different ways, change the speed holes to a different approach, etc. Inside though it might be very similar, modularly speaking. Yah what if Apple made it upgradable but only by buying "Apple modules" instead of going to TigerDirect or whatever to buy your own drives, RAM type, etc... I wonder how people would react to that even if the prices were competitive.

Brave Ulysses

2012-11-01, 19:13

I don't know guys. Thunderbolt allows apple to make pretty drastic change to the Mac Pro if that's the direction they want to go. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Mac Pro turn into a much small rack mountable CPU powerhouse and have expansion via thunderbolt. Apple could possibly even sell these thunderbolt expansion boxes itself with a variety of features/focuses.

Apple doesn't seem to think that much is needed beyond extremely fast processor/graphics and storage. I don't see their approach to the Mac Pro being much different.

I'm all for it, especially if the price can be reduced and the RAM and storage remain easily accessible, which I'm sure they would.