I use a iMac at work everyday and the last thing I do is look at the back of it to see how thin it is! Apple does have a problem with thickness of things.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macpro 2016
- Sort by reaction score
I use a iMac at work everyday and the last thing I do is look at the back of it to see how thin it is! Apple does have a problem with thickness of things.
Well with Ive gone, the "Baby Got Back" crowd seems to be exercising their influence again with the iPhone, iPad and MacBook Pro getting thic(c)ker in their latest iterations.
iPhones have been getting thicker since the 6S. The last iPad is the thinnest yet. The Apple Watch has been getting thinner the last few generations but is still marginally thicker than the original.
There's plenty to complain about with Apple's focus on design in terms of aesthetics to the detriment of design in terms of usability. However, the idea that Apple or Ive were obsessively focused on thinness to the exclusion of all else is and always has been nonsense.
I find it amusing that a lot of reviews of the 16" MacBook Pro complained about its heft, when it's still thinner and lighter than the original rMBP. People like thin and light to a large degree. The only real argument to be made is that Apple should still have options for the people who prioritize power and/or flexibility more.
Regardless of what truly happened with 2016 MBP, it was a disaster in terms of engineering. Vastly limited in thermal threshold and a thin but failure prone keyboard. Added the fact that Apple pretty much screwed up the CPU power controlling scheme on '16 model while offering a goddamn hot i9, the combination of all ended up as a disaster.
People are generalizing all these as "thinness over functionality" issue, and perhaps what people perceive this issue as Ive's philosophy may be overblown, but surely, Apple's decision to go thinner caused the many issues.
If the software engineers could consider the plight of the honest and wholesome computerphile for a moment. There might be a wonderful opportunity to use macos to rid the world of a horrific scourge.
Seeing what is happening in the hackintosh community, they might be able to utilize macos as a defacto trojan horse to deploy some RGB-killer software on non-supported (read : All) platforms.
Nothing too crazy, just something that would spike the voltage and fizzle those horrific little leds with a satisfying pop.
I would happily fork over 10k for a macpro.. if only to support a company that is doing some honest good in the world.
It's stuff like this that makes me think maybe ignore list
i would have to agree. i frequent battlestations subreddit on reddit, for office/desk ideas, and I acknowledge RGB to be the scourge of our society
By all means do it. If it makes your MacRumors experience more enjoyable...
Forget the case and lights-look at the performance.
The fact that this build smokes much of what is out (many iMac Pro configs) and what will be out (what the Mac Pro entry has been clocked at) is why AMD chips have been a sub topic of discussion.
Did any of you even watch the damn video or just saw the lights and commented!?
You're not wrong.
People need to look past the ugly RGB lighting and understand the point: What Intel and Apple are calling "professional" performance is now mainstream with AMD.
(And FWIW, I've built several high-performance PCs, and none of them have RGB lighting.)
Did you notice that the CPU used in that build has just 2 memory channels, and tops out at 128GiB, with a max 47GiB/s memory bandwidth ? Or that it has only 20 lanes of PCI?
For reference, the 12 core Xeon Apple will use has 6 memory channels (3x as many), tops out at 1TiB (8x as much) with a max 131GiB/s memory bandwidth (3x as fast), and 64 lanes of PCI (more than 3x as many).
So that machine, is not comparable, at all. Even if you ignore the PCI lanes and memory speed, it supports less memory than a 2017 model iMac Pro, so to suggest it's appropriate/better than a 2019 Mac Pro shows exactly who that stupid PC is aimed at: people who want a tower but don't have *any* use for the actual features a Mac Pro has. That's fine, you can want that, you can even go build that - but that doesn't make it "better" than a Mac Pro.
Just for kicks I went and looked to see at what point the AMD processors a select group are circling up around like a game of soggy sayo actually start to match the Xeons in terms of memory channels, memory speed, PCI lanes, etc. (A million cores won't help you if you can't get data to them quickly enough to keep them busy).
So the first Ryzen 9 with 64 lanes of PCI is the 3960X, with 24 cores.. It supports half the memory of the 24 core Xeon (1TiB vs 2TiB), has 4 rather than 6 memory channels.
Which one is better for a given task will depend on the demands of that task. My point is that all this foaming at the mouth about core counts from AMD processors ignores the other aspects where they're still worse than the Xeon offering.
The only released AMD processors that are close to/match the Xeon in terms of PCI lanes are the two "High End Desktop" models, which both support fewer memory channels than any of the Xeon's Apple will be using, and are limited to the same memory capacity as the base model 8-core Xeon Apple will use.
So based on all this, I have to ask, what is the expectation of all you who circled up around AMD to show your appreciation?
Would you really prefer a Mac Pro with only two processor options, with significantly slower memory bandwidth and half the memory capacity? Just so you can say "ooh looky 32 cores"?
I thought after the ridiculous inflated MHz ******** at the beginning of the century people had learned that a single higher number doesn't necessarily mean the whole thing is "faster" or performs a given task "better".
It has 24 lanes of PCIe 4.0, which is equivalent bandwidth to 48 lanes of PCIe 3.0.
But if you need more PCIe lanes and memory channels, Threadripper and Epyc can give you far more than Xeon-W.
Here is a partial list of "actual features" of a real Mac Pro which are shared by "that stupid PC":
- The ability to upgrade individual components without discarding the entire machine
- Large, quiet fans and enough space in the case for excellent cooling
- A modern CPU that can be run without concerns about throttling
- Acceptably high RAM limit for most users
- 10 gigabit ethernet and the ability to easily add more esoteric networking like SFP+
Here is a partial list of "features" that are not present in the actual Mac Pro but are present in "that stupid PC":
- Accommodation for internal hard drives
- Industry standard GPU upgrades that can be purchased just about anywhere and are priced attractively due to competitive pressure from multiple manufacturers
- Zero mystery and uncertainty when it comes to future upgrades and release timelines
- A steadily decreasing component cost over time rather than fixed pricing for years and years that is locked at artificially high component "launch" pricing
As always, it merely comes down to what your specific needs are as a user. There are plenty of users for whom this Hackintosh build would be as good or even better for their uses than a real Mac Pro and at about a third of the cost. That's just a fact.
For a lot of people it would be.
So far in this discussion you are the only one who seems fixated on core count. The post you replied to didn't mention it a single time, and only talked about overall performance. And in that regard, the AMD platform is a credible competitor to Apple's offerings in the low to mid range of the Mac Pro lineup.
I'll concede that if a customer intends to make use of the 1.5TB RAM capacity of a higher-specced Mac Pro, then an AMD solution would not be as appealing for them. That doesn't close the door on the discussion for the other 95% (a number I've pulled straight out of my RAM slot) of potential Mac Pro buyers, though.
You're invited to join the rest of the discussion which has not fixated on a single metric at all.
So, either (the equivalent of) an entire x16 slot gone, or 2 x8 slots gone? Isn't a bunch of PCI expansion the one thing almost everyone says they want from a "tower Mac"?
Ok, point taken the, Threadripper uses PCIe v4 so it provides effectively more PCI lanes, but its still got less memory bandwidth and supports less total memory than the high end Xeon's.
Epyc can provide more memory bandwidth and capacity, but what are the trade-offs for a "server" designated processor? The 24-core 7402P has a "turbo" clock speed a full GHz slower than the 24-core Xeon.
This is my entire point, which you seem to have missed - I'm sure the AMD processors work fine, but to claim that they're just better in every way means someone is ignoring those aspects where the Xeon's still have more favourable qualities.
Do I really need to go back and find all the posts about how the Xeon doesn't have as many cores?
A credible competitor that supports less memory than an iMac Pro from 2 years ago? Ok sure. You keep telling yourself that.
I thought after the ridiculous inflated MHz ******** at the beginning of the century people had learned that a single higher number doesn't necessarily mean the whole thing is "faster" or performs a given task "better".
/s
The processor in that video has less everything than the low end xeons you’re suggesting it is a replacement for.
The memory capacity is simply the most ridiculous limit. It’s not just less than what you’re saying it competes with now, it’s less than a machine released two years ago that’s meant to be an intermediary below the machine you’re saying it competes with.
But this is the trade off we all agree to when we enter the walled garden. Outside those few years when Mac clones almost destroyed Apple, the walled garden has always been the default. This should come as a surprise to absolutely no one.
Jobs returned it to that state when he took over in 1996/1997, because he knew it was the only way for Apple to survive and thrive. Windows had already won the war for the desktop. This is part and parcel to Apple’s DNA, and while I understand some of the frustration, it’s also something that you either learn to accept or you don’t.
Untying macOS from Apple hardware is something Apple will never sanction or pursue. Neither will they pursue a mid-size $3K tower...think about how hard it was to get them to cough up the 2019 Mac Pro model...it’s just not a market they want to tackle or pursue, which may be frustrating, but it is what it is.
I did.
I'll reserve my comments till some real workflow comparisons / benchmarks are put out. Not that synthetics are useless, but ...
I'm a big proponent of the argument that Apple is shooting itself in the foot by not having a slotbox product around the $4k mark ( call it a xmac if you want ). I think the AMD effort is another example of that being true.
Well, both Timmy & P.T. Barnum have made it easier to leave the walled garden. Cancelling the X-serve, the Apple Monitors, the Time Capsules, and the Air Expresses. The value of these products were how they helped insulate Mac users from the rest of the computing universe. Once people started sticking their noses outside, it becomes harder to convince them to pay more to get less.
If Apple doesn't want to provide a reasonably priced tower - they should just say so. I wouldn't have wasted 2 years trying to keep my 4,1 going, if I had known that Apple was only coming up with a different looking dongle for Final Cut & Logic.
"If Apple doesn't want to provide a reasonably priced tower."
Their desired profit margins clearly indicate to them that it isn't worth the investment at this time. They may be thinking that a 3K$ tower is just 'giving away' their operating system for minimalist return. They've been chasing the ever increasing cash cow by moving to higher priced and tricked out machines. This is easy for the iMac series as they are essentially locked down. The Mac Pro 7.1 isn't locked down as much - so the steeper price. I bet if you got Tim Cook drunk enough he would spill it that he does hate and has always hated the Mac Pro line. And now with the fiasco of having the actual president of the united states forking you over with tariffs and visits to the operating plant (that Tim probably wanted to close anyway) - well - I think Tim would love nothing better than to puke all over the 7.1 line and bury it in a south dakota wheat plain.
No need to ply Tim with liquor. Just look at how he's ignored it in the nine years since Jobs died. That tells you all you need to know.
Lest anyone think of shutting this thread down, the wait is very much not over.
The massive pent up demand, coupled with it being made in a US factory with a track record of not being able to keep up with Mac Pro demand in 2013 through 2014, means many of us will still be waiting for quite some time.
Related, was this ever resolved?
The massive pent up demand, coupled with it being made in a US factory with a track record of not being able to keep up with Mac Pro demand in 2013 through 2014, means many of us will still be waiting for quite some time.
Related, was this ever resolved?