Mac Pro 2019: dual-GPU cards ARE BACK!!! :D

[Drak3]

Just now, missed_sla said:

Probably the W-3223

It's not. The W3223 has less cache than the chip Apple is using.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, missed_sla said:

The whole thing brings me to the question of why Apple chose the Xeon at all, given the massive price advantage of Threadripper. My guess is it's either contractually required to use Intel, or they're designing for AVX-512 workloads.

1. Thunderbolt.
2. AVX (not just 512).
3. It takes quite a bit of work to get OSX running on AMD CPUs.

[missed_sla]

 

13 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It's not. The W3223 has less cache than the chip Apple is using.

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/xeon_w/w-3223

 

Except Intel's spec page shows 8 MB of L2 cache and 16.5 MB of L3 cache. Total is 24.5 MB. Apple's spec page  shows 24.5 MB of cache.

[RoseLuck462]

I wonder if you’ll be able to upgrade the CPU easily if you get the base model, but choosing the best Dual-GPU

[Drak3]

24 minutes ago, missed_sla said:

 

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/xeon_w/w-3223

 

Except Intel's spec page shows 8 MB of L2 cache and 16.5 MB of L3 cache. Total is 24.5 MB. Apple's spec page  shows 24.5 MB of cache.

Great, except Apple has a history of labeling their cache the same way Intel does. That means they either list L3, or they use Intel's generic "cache" or "smartcache" number.

There is no reason to change that now.

 

I might be wrong, but I doubt it.

[79wjd]

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Great, except Apple has a history of labeling their cache the same way Intel does. That means they either list L3, or they use Intel's generic "cache" or "smartcache" number.

There is no reason to change that now.

 

I might be wrong, but I doubt it.

L2+L3 is actually the convention Apple is using on the iMac Pro. So @missed_sla probably right.

[jasonvp]

20 minutes ago, RoseLuck462 said:

I wonder if you’ll be able to upgrade the CPU easily if you get the base model, but choosing the best Dual-GPU

It's never been an issue in previous tower Mac Pros.  They've always been pretty easy to pop the CPUs out and replace them.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, missed_sla said:

The whole thing brings me to the question of why Apple chose the Xeon at all, given the massive price advantage of Threadripper. My guess is it's either contractually required to use Intel, or they're designing for AVX-512 workloads.

I think the biggest reason Apple isn't going with AMD is because Apple can't have as much control on AMD's platform due to the secure enclave (the PSP) being on the processor itself. Considering that secure enclaves are black boxes, Apple can't guarantee what it wants from the PSP. Intel's secure enclave still resides outside of the processor on the chipset, and is likely easily bypassable or they can just ask Intel for a chipset that has it disabled.

 

My only other guesses are due to Threadripper's quirks on the system level and they don't really want to deal with that.

[79wjd]

12 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

I think the biggest reason Apple isn't going with AMD is because Apple can't have as much control on AMD's platform due to the secure enclave (the PSP) being on the processor itself. Considering that secure enclaves are black boxes, Apple can't guarantee what it wants from the PSP. Intel's secure enclave still resides outside of the processor on the chipset, and is likely easily bypassable or they can just ask Intel for a chipset that has it disabled.

 

My only other guesses are due to Threadripper's quirks on the system level and they don't really want to deal with that.

Apple would probably have enough leverage over AMD to work around not having as much control over PSP.

 

Do AMD APUs support some variant of Quicksync,? Because I could imagine Apple not wanting to support both AMD and Intel, and Quicksync can be a massive advantage when looking at laptops without a dGPU.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, 79wjd said:

Apple would probably have enough leverage over AMD to work around not having as much control over PSP.

The thing with how AMD realized Zen is it can be considered an SoC. Coupled with the way AMD describes the PSP's tasks, such as handling secure boot (which is what the T2 is supposed to do), I can't imagine that it would be easy to remove or suppress PSP functionality so a "third party" can take over secure enclave tasks. And I also can't imagine having two active secure enclave processors on a system is a good thing.

 

The only other way I can think Apple can get around this is to engulf the system with its own system, like how the PS4 works.

 

1 minute ago, 79wjd said:

Do AMD APUs support some variant of Quicksync,? Because I could imagine Apple not wanting to support both AMD and Intel, and Quicksync can be a massive advantage when looking at laptops without a dGPU.

That wouldn't explain why Apple doesn't want to go with AMD for say the Mac Pro.

[Drak3]

@Mira Yurizaki Still confused how they stuffed this:

Into this:

[79wjd]

 

13 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

That wouldn't explain why Apple doesn't want to go with AMD for say the Mac Pro.

That coupled with not wanting to support two different processors would though.

[Mira Yurizaki]

As a system builder from top to bottom, Apple introducing AMD into their ecosystem would effectively create a third system that they would need to manage. Remember, just because it's a system running x86 doesn't mean it's going to run to the same standard if you throw it on another system running x86. Aside from the aforementioned way AMD designed systems around Zen, there's also the fact that AMD and Intel have implemented x86-64 differently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Differences_between_AMD64_and_Intel_64)

 

It's similar to why I no longer call the PS4 a PC. It lacks things that OSes built for IBM PC based systems expect. It's likely if you run an OS built for a PC on a PS4, it will fail to boot. PC is a system architecture specification that has more requirements than "it uses an x86 processor"

 

2 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

That coupled with not wanting to support two different processors would though.

Well either way, I should take back in saying the security thing was the biggest reason. But it could be a big reason.

[realpetertdm]

Why is the base model so low spec'd? The 6000 dollar one is going to get beaten bad by the iMac Pro. The current base mod for the Mac Pro is overpriced wayyyy too much.

 

Apple, really. Just throw out the 8-core model.

[Oalei]

Nah I don't think I can buy it even the stand is like a big no no for me.

[Doobeedoo]

Dual GPUs may not be as popular as once in general but looks awesome. Would be cool to see a standalone unit tested. 

[Guest]

On 6/5/2019 at 9:18 AM, ScratchCat said:

Say what you want, it is a nice looking aluminium case. I hate all the plastic out now, silver aluminium just looks great.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, floofer said:

it is a nice looking aluminium case.

It's not nice looking.

[DrMacintosh]

Personally, if I was given a blank check, yes I would definitely get one and use it as my main rig. I wouldn’t even hesitate. 

 

Unfortunately Apple actually meant it when they slapped the Pro label on this new Mac tower. 

 

The Mac Pro is simply too expensive for a regular consumer like me who really only needs the power of an RX 580 and an R5 2600. I’m not the target audience and that’s fine. 

 

At least we can see it in AR on iOS though, because man is it pretty looking. 

[SenKa]

42 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It's not nice looking.

Up to personal opinion. I love it.

[DrMacintosh]

46 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It's not nice looking.

I would say the old G5 looks better immediately, but the new Mac Pro is an acquired taste. 

[Drak3]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

acquired taste. 

Otherwise known as Stockholm Syndrome.

[DrMacintosh]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Otherwise known as Stockholm Syndrome.

[wasab]

All for the price of your kidneys. 

[ScratchCat]

9 hours ago, floofer said:

Say what you want, it is a nice looking aluminium case. I hate all the plastic out now, silver aluminium just looks great.

It's certainly better than a trashcan but it still seems a step back from the pre-2013 Mac Pro design.