User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Speculation and Rumors »

Mac Pro - 2011 and beyond


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Mac Pro - 2011 and beyond
Page 1 of 20 [1] 2 3 4 5  Next Last Thread Tools
Jason
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
 
2011-02-26, 07:15

Okay, so I know the trusty old Mac Pro is not a part of everyone's agenda these days but technology moves on. I'd like to ask everyone's thoughts on the next likely machines - their specs and a possible time frame for a release.

I know the machines were only last updated in July but I wonder if we'll see a new machine this year?

Where do Apple and Intel go forward in terms of processors? Whats the next likely implementation.

Regards
 
nikstar101
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Send a message via Yahoo to nikstar101  
2011-02-26, 10:29

Ahh the good old workhorse that is the MacPro.

Well I would imagine that there will be an updated version this year, probably July again adding the new Thunderbolt port. I am not usre what Intel's workstation processors are doing this year but would guess there will be a Sandybridge setup?? Probably update the graphics card with AMDs 6000 series.

What would be interesting to have a built in SSD (MacBook Air type) with MacOS on it. For quick access and startup.

Last edited by nikstar101 : 2011-02-26 at 11:03.
 
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2011-02-26, 11:47

Whenever the next generation of Xeons come out, Apple will release them shortly after that with a Thunderbolt port or two. There are several sites around the web that usually have a good handle on Intel production schedules so shouldn't be too hard to extrapolate. I think it's likely Apple will continue to leave the Mac Pro as it is, just adding processor and architectural upgrades as needed for new tech. Should see an update every 12-18 months.

As it is I think Apple's SSD prices are worse than their usual RAM prices. Gouge city. I will never buy an Apple-installed SSD until the prices are cut in half at least.

...into the light of a dark black night.
 
Jason
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
 
2011-02-27, 09:33

According to the store, you can order 64GB of RAM rather than the previous 32GB limit.
 
Ebby
Subdued and Medicated
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Over Yander
Send a message via AIM to Ebby  
2011-02-27, 13:44

Where do you think that thunderbolt port will be on the Mac Pro? On the motherboard or the graphics card?

Since it uses the same video port and can handle external video monitors, logic would suggest a compatible video card could handle a upgrade. Though if the port resides on the motherboard the Mac Pro would have a secondary GPU chip built-in. Not really ideal. Third option is to route the graphics card info back through the PCI system to the thunderbolt port.

Hmmm... wonder what is going to happen.

^^ One more quality post from the desk of Ebby. ^^
SSBA | SmockBogger | SporkNET
 
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-02-27, 14:08

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?

.........................................
 
Mugge
Thunderbolt, fuck yeah!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
 
2011-02-27, 14:23

I suppose a Mac Mini with an i7 CPU and an SSD would be close to that. Might be a bit lacking in the RAM department, but otherwise it sounds like what you are describing.

How about daisy chaining Minis for multiplied performance?
 
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2011-02-27, 14:36

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
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?

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
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2011-02-28, 12:23

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
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.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
 
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2011-02-28, 13:28

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.

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
Yarp
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
 
2011-02-28, 15:28

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
Apple Historian
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-02-28, 15:55

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?

"We are reviewing some 9,000 recent UNHCR referrals from Syria. We are receiving roughly a thousand new ones each month, and we expect admissions from Syria to surge in 2015 and beyond." - Anne C. Richard, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
 
Dave
Ninja Editor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
 
2011-02-28, 16:10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiahtosh View Post
A processor can have multiple cores, if I understand it right? What is it, exactly, that a core does as opposed to a processor?
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.

When I was a kid, people who did wrong were punished, restricted, and forbidden. Now, when someone does wrong, all of the rest of us are punished, restricted, and forbidden... and the one who did the wrong is counselled and "understood" and fed ice cream.
 
nikstar101
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Send a message via Yahoo to nikstar101  
2011-02-28, 16:20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
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.
.


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!
 
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2011-02-28, 17:04

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikstar101 View Post
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.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
 
nikstar101
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Send a message via Yahoo to nikstar101  
2011-03-05, 08:54

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
Subdued and Medicated
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Over Yander
Send a message via AIM to Ebby  
2011-03-05, 19:48

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
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.
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.

^^ One more quality post from the desk of Ebby. ^^
SSBA | SmockBogger | SporkNET
 
Dave
Ninja Editor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
 
2011-03-05, 20:43

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebby View Post
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, 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.)

When I was a kid, people who did wrong were punished, restricted, and forbidden. Now, when someone does wrong, all of the rest of us are punished, restricted, and forbidden... and the one who did the wrong is counselled and "understood" and fed ice cream.
 
Ebby
Subdued and Medicated
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Over Yander
Send a message via AIM to Ebby  
2011-03-06, 00:23

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.

^^ One more quality post from the desk of Ebby. ^^
SSBA | SmockBogger | SporkNET
 
Jason
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
 
2011-06-20, 05:02

Lots of sites jumping on Brian Tong's tweet about new hardware.
I was under the impression that there are no new chips ready for a new Mac Pro.
 
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
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.

...into the light of a dark black night.
 
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
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/...-time-capsule/

...into the light of a dark black night.
 
nikstar101
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Send a message via Yahoo to 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
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
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
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
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
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to 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
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
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
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to 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
Fishhead Family Reunited
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Slightly Off Center
 
2011-06-22, 12:52

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM View Post
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
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2011-06-22, 17:25

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu
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.

Last edited by Eugene : 2011-06-22 at 17:56.
 
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 20 [1] 2 3 4 5  Next Last

Closed

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Baseball 2011 kieran AppleOutsider 84 2011-10-11 11:35
iPhone 2011 Robo Speculation and Rumors 727 2011-10-04 14:26
PCT: Out Of The Box (January 2011) PB PM Creative Endeavors 22 2011-02-06 21:51


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:51.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova