Mac pro and XDR display orders available now + unboxing

[Bombastinator]

20 minutes ago, ryao said:

They did not work with Intel to bring Mac OS X to Intel processors. They had 1 engineer do it over like 18 months:

 

https://www.theverge.com/2012/6/11/3077651/apple-intel-mac-os-x-retrospective

 

That being said, Mac OS X runs on AMD hardware with what are presumably minor patches:

 

https://amd-osx.com

My understanding is OSX has been totally portable for years.  They could puti it on anything they wanted to in months.

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Yes, but they argued that Threadripper is objectively better for everyone, not just for them.

did they, or did they argue it was better from their perspective?  I see @Sauron posted in the new thread about the mac pro (ifixit tear down) and has basically said the same thing,  for those who wish to put together their own system and know what they want a TR is a better option.  I see no problem with those claims. they are not saying the mac is pointless for everyone, they are not claiming it isn't as powerful as other prebuilts, they are simply putting out on scenario where it isn't the best option.   

 

To be honest I find myself back at the problem of people defending the mac like it has feelings.  Why does it matter if someone thinks the HP or a custom built machine is better?

 

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

My understanding is OSX has been totally portable for years.  They could put it on anything they wanted to in months.

That's my understanding too,  I honestly think there are no real reason they can't release an AMD version.

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's my understanding too,  I honestly think there are no real reason they can't release an AMD version.

Well it wouldn’t be free to do.  If something isn’t going to make money they’d literally get fired for trying it.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Well it wouldn’t be free to do.  If something isn’t going to make money they’d literally get fired for trying it.

Which indicates it's a choice by apple and not a condition of economics/practicality.

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Which indicates it's a choice by apple and not a condition of economics/practicality.

Depends on how you view it.  It’s a publicly held company.  They’ve got all the same rules as others.  If the stock holders feel that an employee is costing them money (lowering stock value) they’ll get rid of them.  No executive no matter highly placed is immune.  This.  These are the same rules that make drug company executives quintuple drug prices.  They’ll literally get fired if they dont

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Depends on how you view it.  It’s a publicly held company.  They’ve got all the same rules as others.  If the stock holders feel that an employee is costing them money (lowering stock value) they’ll get rid of them.  No executive no matter highly placed is immune.  This.  These are the same rules that make drug company executives quintuple drug prices.  They’ll literally get fired if they dont

You've lost me, I don't understand how this relates to apple being able to make an AMD mac product.

[descendency]

5 hours ago, Commodus said:

Yes, but they argued that Threadripper is objectively better for everyone, not just for them.

It's pretty easy when you look at benchmarks. 

[RejZoR]

8 hours ago, ryao said:

They did not work with Intel to bring Mac OS X to Intel processors. They had 1 engineer do it over like 18 months:

 

https://www.theverge.com/2012/6/11/3077651/apple-intel-mac-os-x-retrospective

 

That being said, Mac OS X runs on AMD hardware with what are presumably minor patches:

 

https://amd-osx.com

I didn't say it was a contract because of x86. I said it was simply a contract between Intel and Apple where Intel would be a sole supplier of CPU's for them for X years or some other binding condition. Otherwise Apple could and most probably would offer ThreadRipper workstations.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I didn't say it was a contract because of x86. I said it was simply a contract between Intel and Apple where Intel would be a sole supplier of CPU's for them for X years or some other binding condition. Otherwise Apple could and most probably would offer ThreadRipper workstations.

what contract? 

[RejZoR]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

what contract? 

There probably is some internal contract they have with each other, why else would Apple absolutely strictly stick with Intel when AMD has better options and has had them for 3 years now?

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

There probably is some internal contract they have with each other, why else would Apple absolutely strictly stick with Intel when AMD has better options and has had them for 3 years now?

Would like to add it's not likely an explicit exclusive supply non-compete contract but there is likely minimum purchase qualities to meet to get the agreed upon unit prices, which effectively means you wouldn't put a superior product on the market that would mean you wouldn't reach those targets and get penalty costs applied.

[RejZoR]

18 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Would like to add it's not likely an explicit exclusive supply non-compete contract but there is likely minimum purchase qualities to meet to get the agreed upon unit prices, which effectively means you wouldn't put a superior product on the market that would mean you wouldn't reach those targets and get penalty costs applied.

We don't know. Could be exclusivity contract, could be quantity, could be something else. But something has to be going behind their doors, otherwise I'm fairly certain Apple would use ThreadRipper for their systems, especially given they are already working with AMD as far as graphics go.

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

We don't know. Could be exclusivity contract, could be quantity, could be something else. But something has to be going behind their doors, otherwise I'm fairly certain Apple would use ThreadRipper for their systems, especially given they are already working with AMD as far as graphics go.

Apple wouldn't sign an exclusive supply contract, not in that way. They have for mobile processors for Iris Pro when those first came out but that was Apple restricting Intel not the other way round. Not meeting a supply contract is in itself pretty big, penalty clauses can be huge plus calculated price adjustment on units supplied and not supplied on top of that. It's not something you would just do because there is a better product, Apple doesn't actually get effected much by this so they wouldn't really sell a lot more otherwise. Choice between 20% more product sold or massive contract penalty, just sell less and wait out next product generation.

 

It's not like Apple can't refresh product lines with AMD CPUs at any point it makes sense for them to do it, highly doubt it's because they have exclusive supply from Intel because Apple just doesn't roll that way. Realistically why would Apple allow such a clause and at the time why would of it been necessary, AMD just hasn't had competitive products and when they have they aren't mature enough for Apple to have signed on to. Timing is a big factor and AMD hasn't had Zen+ out long enough for Apple to care and Zen 2 is even newer, and AMD still hasn't got proven low power high performance mobile CPUs which Apple cares the most about. 

 

Edit:

Apple is too busy selling $999 monitor stands to give a crap.

[Commodus]

9 hours ago, descendency said:

It's pretty easy when you look at benchmarks. 

Got a Final Cut Pro or Logic benchmark with a Threadripper?  If not, be quiet forever.  You're not buying a workstation to run benchmarks, you're buying it to get things done.

[RedRound2]

4 hours ago, RejZoR said:

There probably is some internal contract they have with each other, why else would Apple absolutely strictly stick with Intel when AMD has better options and has had them for 3 years now?

Exclusivity contract? I highly doubt it because Apple is usually always the bigger shark in deals. But I can think of a lot of other reasons why

 

1) Maybe there's a lot of macOS optimization with specific Intel Processors

2) They depend on QuickSync for Final Cut

3) Intel mobile chips are still far better in laptops and I doubt Apple wants to split focus optimizing for different hardware

4) Thunderbolt 3. Even though it's open now, I have yet to see TB3 implemention in a non Intel device. Maybe things will change after USB4 gets finalized

5) AMD just came out on top this year. If they remain on top long enough, I'm sure Apple will switch. But it's not worth it to keep switiching if it ends up being one on top the other every other year

6) They're in good terms with Intel and I'm sure AMD is also happy with them for buying their GPUs. So they have no real pressure from anyone to switch platforms and they've already invested a lot in both companies to do anything that would disrupt their agreements and good faith and whatnot

 

And besides, Apple is far more interested right now in switching to ARM more than anything, even if Mac Pro like performance may be half a decade away

[Commodus]

22 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Exclusivity contract? I highly doubt it because Apple is usually always the bigger shark in deals. But I can think of a lot of other reasons why

 

1) Maybe there's a lot of macOS optimization with specific Intel Processors

2) They depend on QuickSync for Final Cut

3) Intel mobile chips are still far better in laptops and I doubt Apple wants to split focus optimizing for different hardware

4) Thunderbolt 3. Even though it's open now, I have yet to see TB3 implemention in a non Intel device. Maybe things will change after USB4 gets finalized

5) AMD just came out on top this year. If they remain on top long enough, I'm sure Apple will switch. But it's not worth it to keep switiching if it ends up being one on top the other every other year

6) They're in good terms with Intel and I'm sure AMD is also happy with them for buying their GPUs. So they have no real pressure from anyone to switch platforms and they've already invested a lot in both companies to do anything that would disrupt their agreements and good faith and whatnot

 

And besides, Apple is far more interested right now in switching to ARM more than anything, even if Mac Pro like performance may be half a decade away

I almost forgot about Thunderbolt 3.  That alone would be a good reason to pass on AMD for now.  There are too many Mac professionals who depend on fast external SSDs and other TB3 peripherals to simply toss it out in favor of USB-C alone.  It's technically possible to have an AMD rig with TB3, I believe, but I wouldn't expect any kind of widespread Thunderbolt support until USB 4.

[williamcll]

ok, well I've found a site that could beat that price, though I might be missing a part or two: plenty of spending space for a cooler and a total price is 50293.57 for four quadros and that's without coupons.

[Commodus]

7 minutes ago, williamcll said:

ok, well I've found a site that could beat that price, though I might be missing a part or two: total price is 50293.57 for four quadros and that's without coupons.

Trying to compare a hand-built rig to a Mac Pro?  Er... no.

 

If you're in this price class, especially if you're at a company that may be deploying numerous systems, you're probably not treating it like a hobbyist project using cobbled-together parts.  Maybe if you're building one machine and can afford to spend a few hours troubleshooting problems.  But if you're a movie studio upgrading your production team?  Hell no, pre-built the whole way, whether it's Apple, Dell or someone else.  You want to know there will be a working system at someone's desk virtually all the time, and you don't want to go hunting on AVADirect or Newegg for a replacement part.

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, williamcll said:

ok, well I've found a site that could beat that price, though I might be missing a part or two: plenty of spending space for a cooler and a total price is 50293.57 for four quadros and that's without coupons.

You're better off with titan computers, they offer everything apple does and the last system I customized on their site was $10K cheaper. 

 

Because for DIY systems we already know it will be cheaper.  Anyone who tries to argue a prebuilt for those who WANT to build there own is just crazy.

[williamcll]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

You're better off with titan computers, they offer everything apple does and last system I customized on their site was $10K cheaper. 

 

Because for DIY syste,s we already know it will be cheaper.  Anyone who tries to argue a prebuilt for those who WANT to build there own is just crazy.

I took a quick look at titan computers and their EPYC workstation only supports up to 3 graphics cards.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, williamcll said:

I took a quick look at titan computers and their EPYC workstation only supports up to 3 graphics cards.

Try building one with Xeons.  It might be an AMD motherboard thing.

[hishnash]

36 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Try building one with Xeons.  It might be an AMD motherboard thing.

Strange given that EPYC provides so many more PCIe lanes. I suppose in a server situation they will most likely not attach the GPUs directly to the motherboard but rather on a breakout board at the front of the case. And those types of server configs might not even sell the board on its own requiring you to buy the full unit as one.

Many server boards will have (one or more) 32x PCIe slots that you can break out with a riser.

[hishnash]

On 12/19/2019 at 1:35 PM, mr moose said:

That's my understanding too,  I honestly think there are no real reason they can't release an AMD version.

At this point they are very deeply embedding into Thunderbolt3, Zen2 still does not have greate support for this. ZEN3 will have USB4 so that would free it up.

That said apple could put it the work to get TB3 working well on ZEN2 but that would most likly be more than a few months.

Also for the macPro this has been in dev for the last 2000 days! so i do not expect there were any ZEN2 sample AMD could have sent over at that time. Same apple had such a long lead time on this machine, it would have been much better if they had released it 2 years ago and then been able to iterate into Zen this year.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, hishnash said:

Strange given that EPYC provides so many more PCIe lanes. I suppose in a server situation they will most likely not attach the GPUs directly to the motherboard but rather on a breakout board at the front of the case. And those types of server configs might not even sell the board on its own requiring you to buy the full unit as one.

Many server boards will have (one or more) 32x PCIe slots that you can break out with a riser.

 

It would really just come down to the motherboard they chose,  sometimes they just don't support many PCIe.