-
Nice thread on the future of the Mac Pro on the Videoguy’s forum
-
nice post.
Now that Apple has finally given us Mac Book Pro w/ Retina and iMacs that have NVIDIA GPUs, we can finally run Adobe CS6 on them without having to sacrifice performance. This is a huge upgrade, and as I said initially, it means that with these models they can cover the bulk of the NLE business. I use the 90% figure, feel free to use your own.
I’ll go back to my original rant. With 90% of the market covered, and the new FCPX driving even more sales at $299, I just don’t see Apple needing or wanting to stay in the high end workstation market. I know Apple editors WANT a new Mac Pro, I just don’t think it’s going to happen. I’m thinking we may get a hybrid type machine – call it an iMac Pro or even a Mac Mini Pro. I can even see Apple designing a new expandability that allows you to cluster them into a more powerful beast. I just don’t see them actually ever releasing a new line of hi end workstations. But once agoan, that’;s just my opinion.
Gary
COW members get 5% OFF with Coupon COW5OFF
https://www.videoguys.com 800 323-2325 | We are the video editing and production experts!
-
[Gary Bettan] “I just don’t see Apple needing or wanting to stay in the high end workstation market. I know Apple editors WANT a new Mac Pro, I just don’t think it’s going to happen. I’m thinking we may get a hybrid type machine – call it an iMac Pro or even a Mac Mini Pro. I can even see Apple designing a new expandability that allows you to cluster them into a more powerful beast. I just don’t see them actually ever releasing a new line of hi end workstations. But once agoan, that’;s just my opinion. “
It may depend on how you define a workstation. It won’t be a tower if that’s what you mean.
While FCPX can even run on a MacBookAir, Apple seems to be pushing for the use of more system resources. As Thunderbolt moves to optical in a couple of years give or take, that’s only going to escalate.[Gary Bettan] “I can even see Apple designing a new expandability that allows you to cluster them into a more powerful beast. “
I’d absolutely agree with that. I don’t think any of this precludes the use of Xeon processors or 16x GPU. My own guess is that Apple’s motive for the MP replacement (MPr) will be to push people to buy it but taking advantage of the higher powered system resources available.
If you mean by iMacPro MacMiniPro with i7 and mobile GPU, I’d strongly disagree with you. I simply doubt that would take that many years to design a new case given the rest of the technology is already present.
The only reason I can see for such a long period between 2010 and “later in 2013” is they’re once again pushing technology. The Xeon and GPU issues with Thunderbolt have been the challenge.
One thing seems clear to me in the professional market. Demand for real time performance and real time file delivery. That’s just not going to happen with Xeon processors and GPUs to match. The demand for that is expanding. This is where Apple’s MP replacement will focus on. Granted the processors and GPUs are obviously there on Windows but the Apple difference is ubiquitous Thunderbolt (still very rare on Windows). That may grow further when Thunderbolt Optical happens.
Apple also is not inclined to fragment itself by making an iMacPro or MacMiniPro using the same i7 and mobile GPU technology. They just don’t do it. There’s no recent history to that IMHO.
If you mean by MacMiniPro something in that form factor with Xeons and 16x professional GPU, that might be the case… with a much bigger case given cooling issues. To me the only big variable is how they handle the GPU issue. Will it be built into the motherboard only? It’s possible they may do something odd such as mobile GPU on the mobo but a separate 16x PCIe slot (or two) that the user can populate with another nVidia or AMD GPU.
Just to be clear, I believe Apple’s MP replacement will have Xeon CPUs and room for one or two 16x PCIe GPU cards. I believe the design and features will reach as many if not more potential users than the current MacPro. Apple’s goal is not simply “units sold” though. It’s about profit. They will make a Xeon based system that will be more profitable to them.
Gary, you haven’t said flat out, do you believe Apple will abandon multi processor Xeons and limit themselves to moble GPUs?
At least for me that’s what the question comes down to. As long as Apple’s software keeps pushing demands up (and I think they will push up more than i7 and mobile GPUs can deliver for maximum performance) they going to push up in the resources a system can deliver.
-
Craig, some very good points.
I don’t see Apple releasing a multiple XEON CPU computer with multiple 16x (or faster) PCIe slots. It’s just not that lucrative a market and HP / Dell are far ahead of the current Mac Pro.
I don’t see them sticking with only mobile platforms either.
Below is not my speculation, but a kind of dream/wish list:
What if Apple released a scalable solution, perhaps built around optical Thunderbolt, that would allow users to add additional performance as needed. A modular system that would include the ability to add a GPU module or additional CPUs or huge banks of memory. Now that would be sweet!
So you get a base iMac Pro, then you can attach via optical thunderbolt a Mac Mini like device that accepts multiple GPU. Or an external box filled with RAM or additional CPUs.
When the Sony Playstation 3 first released, I heard rumors about the engineers in Japan running Vegas Pro on multiple Playstations pooling their CPUs together for massive acceleration. Something that never materialized, but really opened my eyes to the potential. Could optical thunderbolt be the missing link for this??
Gary
COW members get 5% OFF with Coupon COW5OFF
https://www.videoguys.com 800 323-2325 | We are the video editing and production experts!
-
I think the whole “modular” approach is not the sort of thing that Apple would do, it’s not elegant.
Steve Connor
‘It’s just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure” -
[Andrew Richards] “only then will it no longer be able to run on the newest Mac to come.”
Andy, I agree with your general assessment, but I don’t think you are at all at odds with what Gary is saying. Prior to 2008, or so, improvements in clock cycles and RAM access were pretty much the only ways that a new computer could boost the performance of FCP. This was still true in 2010 for NLEs, though other graphics programs were beginning to get a boost from GPUs. Since then GPUs have become far more important. I think Gary would have no problem agreeing that FCP7 would gain from a boost in cpu speed, but that his point is that much of the recent speed gains are do to changes in GPU usage, and legacy FCP will not garner anything from that. Also, your point about OS X is of course correct, but I think Gary implies that as well. Far more than Microsoft can, Apple tailors it OS to current and recent machines. We all know that it won’t be long until an OS upgrade no longer supports Legacy. If there hadn’t been such an outcry, it might already have happened.
-
[Gary Bettan] “So you get a base iMac Pro, then you can attach via optical thunderbolt a Mac Mini like device that accepts multiple GPU. Or an external box filled with RAM or additional CPUs.”
As long as we are all trying to think of what’s coming next, there’s the very real Phi from intel that is basically a lower power, but rather large wad of coprocessors.
Since it operates with very little additional programming (unlike other GPUs), and requires Xeons to work, I could see this is a modular processing outfit good enough for Apple as long as these can fit in an “optical Thunderbolt box”.
https://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/intels-50-core-xeon-phi-the-new-era-of-i/240105810
Or maybe I am just over analyzing, and thinking wishfully.
If you look at what FCPX can do, and a lot of it can be done concurrently such as import, edit, transcode proxies (high or low), analyze, export, effects previewing to name specifics, then an i7 Retina or iMac simply won’t have the guts to get this all done. If broadcasters start to see any value in FCPX and what it can do just from the standpoint of a massive volume of file flipping with editing and titling, then they are going to need all the CPU/GPU/Coprocessing they can get.
FCP 7 and below forced you to do the above list in separate stages and routinely forced you to stop what you were doing while it worked in the foreground. FCPX seems to have been redesigned out of those restrictions, it doesn’t really stop you from doing anything concurrently within the one application, but the computer itself will obviously get filled up with tasks pretty quickly.
Jeremy
-
[Gary Bettan] “So you get a base iMac Pro, then you can attach via optical thunderbolt a Mac Mini like device that accepts multiple GPU. Or an external box filled with RAM or additional CPUs.”
Maybe Intel will surprise us but I don’t think Optical Thunderbolt is ready yet. Once that happens it certainly does open the door to external GPUs through Thunderbolt.
My guess, not this year.
[Gary Bettan] “I don’t see Apple releasing a multiple XEON CPU computer with multiple 16x (or faster) PCIe slots.”
I can’t see any other reason for them to release a MacPro replacement. There’s nothing “pro” about i7 and the motherboard GPUs. They’ve already done that. If there’s no performance improvement, Apple is not going to fragment what they currently offer.
[Steve Connor] “I think the whole “modular” approach is not the sort of thing that Apple would do, it’s not elegant.”
I agree. If anything Apple is locking things down tighter much to the chagrin of some. Apple is not one to sell a case with user changeable CPU. Apple wants the user to have as little contact with the innards as possible. If anything they’re moving further in that direction.
They may have a single box with BTO between 8 and 16 cores. They might even do something like lock down the GPU.
Just to clarify the GPU situation, there’s notable performance difference between the nVidia GeForce GTX 680MX which is on the iMac motherboard and the nVidia GeForce GTX 680C which some people have used in MacPros. There are even better GPUs but that’s always been Apple’s bane.
The GPU is going to be one of their biggest challenges.
If Gary is right and Apple will live with the limitations of i7 and motherboard based GPUs, I just don’t see any motivation for Apple to come out with another box with those specs. What would make it iMac”Pro” or MacMini “Pro” if there’s no improvements with the specs and, sans optical Thunderbolt, no way to improve the GPU? Even if the big surprise were Optical Thunderbolt, they’d just incorporate that into the top of the line iMac.
The wait has been too long for this to be a box with specs no better than an iMac. Too much R&D time for a box that doesn’t reach what they already reach.
[Gary Bettan] “It’s just not that lucrative a market and HP / Dell are far ahead of the current Mac Pro. “
Apple’s not about “market share” though.
It’s about increasing profit margin.
Apple, the commodity company, will make a box that given the supply chain and costs, will be one size fits many (not all) so they will have a good margin on each box sold.
It’s about ecosystem sales expansion
Once you buy Windows Tower, you have less motivation to buy Thunderbolt based MBP and iMac and Thunderbolt peripherals. Someone buying a Thunderbolt based MacPro replacement will be able to use Thunderbolt peripherals across the entire product line so you can take your RAID or Video I/O from your workstation to your MBP or your iMac. MacPro Replacement workstation helps both the peripheral makers and encourages you to buy into the rest of the Mac line for compatibility. -
Jeremy,
You may just be onto something. An MP with a Xeon in 2013 will be able to support the Phi coprocessor which has a Jan ’13 general availability date. This combo can be sealed Apple style into a unique “magical” product which outperforms all nVidia/AMD GPU’s and with t-bolt connectivity doesn’t rely on extra PCIe slots for anything. In my speculative fever tonight I predict it will be sold as a desktop “super computer” based on the Phi becoming the goto coprocessor for top clustered true supercomputers. The Phi is supposed to run OpenCl, and CUDA ports are supposedly quite manageable, and mainstream x86 code, too. This gets Apple out of the perennial angst over multiple, esoteric gpu programming models. AMD and nVidia can fight over orders for the next iMac/MBP on-board gpu socket space. And Intel can be held somewhat more accountable by Apple for the Phi working with the Intel Xeon main cpus.
It wont be cheap, with the Phi going for 2k, but as a one-size-fits-all, sizzle-core beast Apple may be able to crank out good margins at a pro-affordable price. What BTO options will be left? It will come with SSD and user upgradeable memory. I am liking this fantasy. Why not, guys?
-
[Craig Seeman] “I think the key to the date is mostly in Intel’s hands given the challenges I suspect they’re facing. Xeon motherboard supporting Thunderbolt. Handling a GPU that’s not on the motherboard as has been the case with Thunderbolt computers to date. The other issue which is in Apple’s rather than Intel’s control, new case design and handling cooling in what I suspect may be a smaller case. Intel has been known to delay things.”
Craig, I’m not picking on you specifically here, but I want to use this as a jumping-off point.
If the huge innovation in the new Mac Pro successor is really a cross-platform Intel technology, then are we really all supposed to be excited about Apple’s big contribution of a new case design?
If the huge innovation in the new Mac Pro successor is specifically an Apple-only technology, then will it matter outside of Cupertino? Look how slow Thunderbolt uptake was, or how no other developers in the post space are exploiting AV Foundation.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Craig Seeman] “I guess you think Autodesk is drinking Apple Kool-Aid as well.”
[Craig Seeman] “It seems Autodesk is amongst those happy with the iMac and rMBP.”
It seems like you’re trying to borrow some of Smoke’s luster (see what I did there?) to puff up the iMac and MPB, as if these are the systems Autodesk built Smoke for. I’m not sure that’s fair.
Smoke on the Mac was released in 2010. Presumably Autodesk started work on it a couple years prior. It’s been said that Smoke 2013 has been in the works for three years.
Smoke is very UNIXy, and a Mac port must have been vastly easier (and seemed much smarter back around 2008/2009) than a Windows port (though I do see the question about Windows arise pretty often).
I wouldn’t assume that Autodesk has inside knowledge of Apple’s long-term hardware plans. In fact, see this post [link] where Grant says Autodesk wouldn’t be supporting Retina yet because they couldn’t even get a rMBP for testing a month and a half after it was announced.
Finally, a lot of Smoke rendering is on the GPU via OpenGL. Since there are so few serious GPUs available for the Mac Pro, the performance penalty of working on an iMac (especially with fast-ish RAIDs via Thunderbolt and new compressed framestore options to lower disk requirements) isn’t that huge.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up