Mac pro and XDR display orders available now + unboxing

[GDRRiley]

7 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Apple has been building macOS exclusively for Intel CPUs for a good while now, I don't think just switching to AMD suddenly is at all feasible. 

There is a community dedicated to AMD and ryzen on MacOS and according to snazzylabs it was easier on AMD than intel builds.

They 100% can do it and based on the testing I saw they were performing identical to under windows

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

There is a community dedicated to AMD and ryzen on MacOS and according to snazzylabs it was easier on AMD than intel builds.

They 100% can do it and based on the testing I saw they were performing identical to under windows

“Can” is not an issue. of course it’s possible.  They’re am64 atm but the OS is totally portable.  They could run it on power5 if they wanted to.

[GDRRiley]

5 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

This is not how the MPX slot works. The MPX slot is a a full 16x PCIe slot with an additional slot for for power and TB3. It is an addition to PCIe, not a replacement and removing the MPX modules does not prevent regular cards from being inserted. 

 

Threadripper was not as established when Apple was developing the Mac Pro. If AMD wanted Apple to use TR or EPYC, they needed to come to market sooner. The gears were already in motion for the Mac Pro by the time TR was clearly better than Xeon for Apples uses. 

 

Going with Threadripper isn't as simple as taking an off the shelf part and throwing it in, everything about the Mac Pro would have had to have been reengineered. 

 

I'm saying the extra slot apple "created" is nothing new. It is a slightly modified PCIE slot.  I'm just quoting dirrectly from apple what it features. I already know that and have stated it

 

Given how close apple and AMD are GPU side I'm sure apple could have gotten chips earlier.

The only complicated thing here specific to intel the motherboard. MPX doesn't care unless they went up to PCIE gen 4.

 

Case, PSU, cooler and any add in card would have worked.

 

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

“Can” is not an issue. of course it’s possible.  They’re am64 atm but the OS is totally portable.  They could run it on power5 if they wanted to.

I'm saying current builds straight from apple work. You just need a bootloader and drivers for some parts.
power5 would require major re writes.

[Thaldor]

1 hour ago, DrMacintosh said:

And you probably are. Nothing you’ve said has been substantiated with this Mac Pro. 
 

This is a modular l, socketed, upgradable Mac. Give Apple Credit for that. 

Given that Apples recent track record for compatibility and openness is well... Mac Minis complete disassembly = upgradeable memory (while yes, it's upgradeable, but no, that's a lot of work to upgrade the one and only part that you can upgrade) and storage has gone from partially proprietary to completely proprietary (from having only the proprietary connector to completely incompatible with anything that doesn't have T2-chip and proprietary connector) and soldering everything and anything possible.

 

I don't say Apple couldn't do it but I will wait for a lot more knowledge and facts before saying that Apple has done complete 180-degree turn and brought completely freely upgradeable and tinkerable computer to the market when their current track record is closing all of that completely out from their devices.

35 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

at least on the 2009-2012 ones most AMD GPUs work as long as you've got one with the right firmware. Along with people building hackintoshs

There are people who have used rx 560-590, vega 56 and 64 along with Radel VII and the 5700 series.

Apple has never locked down sata storage like that.

Ive put 580s, 560 in 2010s

I have highlighted the problem part. Mac Pro hasn't been freely upgradeable for such a long time that I wouldn't be surprised if the 2019 Mac Pro has some kind of "precautions to ensure complete Apple® Experience®". That you need to have right firmware or whatever BS that doesn't really change anything else than tell the computer that "I'm bought from Apple, you may use me" does mean that the computer isn't freely upgradeable, it does mean you can upgrade it a lot cheaper if you know what you are doing but if you don't be ready to pay Apple® iTax® for that upgrade.

 

Considering the upper point of Apple going even more closed and proprietary than the last time they made other than Mac Trashcan, I wouldn't be surprised if the SATA-ports on 2019 Mac Pro would be somehow locked.

 

I don't hope things are this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were. More or less I hope that Apple would finally pull their head out of their walled asshole and make a computer that isn't expensive as fuck and outdated HW-wise in couple of years because their upgradeability is basicly "buy a new, more expensive one". Apples late developments just don't give much hope for that, more or less they have done such a things that the very thing would look like a miracle, and even if it looks like they are doing it, I still play the "fox tail in their armpit"-card and hope that I am wrong. Apple at the year 2019 just doesn't look like a company that would make basicly a PC that every other company makes that you can do whatever you want to do without making Apples wallet fatter with every step you take.

 

If you can walk to any store, buy any AMD GPU (without anything special "made for Mac"-tags or anything), go home, take the GPU out of the box and without any tinkering (no flashing the firmware, no touching to the MacOS or UEFI, no anything just) slam it into a Mac Pro and after installing drivers after the GPU is inside the Mac, it works, you can paint me impressed by the parkour Apple has made with one product.

[Mira Yurizaki]

18 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

There is a community dedicated to AMD and ryzen on MacOS and according to snazzylabs it was easier on AMD than intel builds.

They 100% can do it and based on the testing I saw they were performing identical to under windows

For a system builder like Apple, it's not as simple as replace the motherboard and processor and call it a day. System builders, especially someone like Apple, love to tinker with the actual system software to get the most out of it. And AMD platforms are different beasts than Intel's. Which means it has to include more qualification and testing to verify that everything meets the system builder's requirements.

 

I think one of the theories I had with why Apple stuck with Intel anyway is because Apple wants to retain the usage of their own security enclave. Intel's security enclave system, the IME, is still in the PCH. AMD's security enclave, the PSP, is on the processor itself. Unless Apple tells AMD to bugger off with their PSP, Apple can't guarantee itself it has exclusive control of the security enclave. It can on Intel's platforms, but not necessarily on AMD's.

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

For a system builder like Apple, it's not as simple as replace the motherboard and processor and call it a day. System builders, especially someone like Apple, love to tinker with the actual system software to get the most out of it. And AMD platforms are different beasts than Intel's. Which means it has to include more qualification and testing to verify that everything meets the system builder's requirements.

I'm not saying they wouldn't want to but given the year between epyc/threadripper gen 2 demoed I'm sure they could have done it.

 

Yes apple doesn't get access to some of that but I'm sure they could ether use AMDs and then add the T2 or something similar to add to AMDs protection.

It is also apple and AMD might just bow down and given them what they want.

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

It is also apple and AMD might just bow down and given them what they want.

I doubt even AMD would do that. It's yet another SKU they have to worry about whereas Intel already has a bunch lined up ready for both Apple and the rest of the market.

[GDRRiley]

17 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

-snip

There is a limit and I think they've gotten close to it. You can still swap CPU or ram in any socket device

It would be stupid given they don't sell any SATA drives at launch

 

They would need a new CEO or at least new chief definer

 

4 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

I doubt even AMD would do that. It's yet another SKU they have to worry about whereas Intel already has a bunch lined up ready for both Apple and the rest of the market.

Given AMDs willingness to with Microsoft I bet they would.

[Thaldor]

2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

There is a limit and I think they've gotten close to it. You can still swap CPU or ram in any socket device

It would be stupid given they don't sell any SATA drives at launch

 

They would need a new CEO or at least new chief definer

It's actually not impossible to limit what CPUs and RAM sticks would work. After all all of them do indentify themselves to the MB and UEFI so, jsut making a step in UEFI to check those indentifiers and if not matched, full stop the boot (don't tell Apple, they probably would implement ASAP).

 

Actually they do sell a SATA-storage for 2019 Mac Pro and considering the power connector inside the case, I believe that's proprietary so it's going to take while (if someone else is interested) to get out adapter or some other power cable. But seems that there isn't any restrictions what SSD/HDD you can add on top of that, so the only limiting factor might be the power connector.

[Mira Yurizaki]

11 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

Given AMDs willingness to with Microsoft I bet they would.

I would argue that's a different situation. Microsoft had to ask AMD for a custom chip and likely had to pay some cost for making said custom chip. I'd believe more that Apple would rather have an existing chip and demand the manufacturer to make them, because they can leverage a lower cost to maximize profit margins.

 

I also don't even think Apple thinks the CPU is that important. Why render things on the slower CPU when you can offload them onto the much faster GPU and/or accelerator card? If that's the way they intend for people who do work on a Mac Pro to use the thing, then it makes more sense to minimize the cost of the CPU and its platform as much as possible. And since they're already cozy with Intel, even if their CPUs are a bit more expensive, the development cost to switch over and support to AMD would probably outpace it.

 

But then again if you're concerned about cost, you shouldn't be getting a Mac Pro to begin with.

[GDRRiley]

6 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

It's actually not impossible to limit what CPUs and RAM sticks would work. After all all of them do indentify themselves to the MB and UEFI so, jsut making a step in UEFI to check those indentifiers and if not matched, full stop the boot (don't tell Apple, they probably would implement ASAP).

 

Actually they do sell a SATA-storage for 2019 Mac Pro and considering the power connector inside the case, I believe that's proprietary so it's going to take while (if someone else is interested) to get out adapter or some other power cable. But seems that there isn't any restrictions what SSD/HDD you can add on top of that, so the only limiting factor might be the power connector.

it isn't impossible just highly unlikely

OWC probably will as soon as they can.

6 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

I would argue that's a different situation. Microsoft had to ask AMD for a custom chip and likely had to pay some cost for making said custom chip. I'd believe more that Apple would rather have an existing chip and demand the manufacturer to make them, because they can leverage a lower cost to maximize profit margins.

 

I also don't even think Apple thinks the CPU is that important. Why render things on the slower CPU when you can offload them onto the much faster GPU and/or accelerator card? If that's the way they intend for people who do work on a Mac Pro to use the thing, then it makes more sense to minimize the cost of the CPU and its platform as much as possible. And since they're already cozy with Intel, even if their CPUs are a bit more expensive, the development cost to switch over and support to AMD would probably outpace it.

 

But then again if you're concerned about cost, you shouldn't be getting a Mac Pro to begin with.

I think it would just be a firmware change.

 

If so then why keep putting in higher core count chips?

A lot of work can be offloaded but much hasn't been.

 

well if they were actually trying to drop costs threadripper would have been ever better. The chip just isn't a bit more tray (I doubt apple makes enough to get that much better than them) of the top chip costs 7K+ vs 2k at retail for threadripper.

 

Apples got plenty of money and arguably they could have charged about the same or maybe a little lower and people would still buy it. Apple needs some optimization and that appears to be it.

 

I'm not concerned because I'd never buy one. Id rather build a hackintosh running threadripper. My real issues is apple has put education in a tough spot. 6K+ for new machines is crazy. Best most schools can do is a near max Imac but those aren't going to last 8-10 years and for many schools will require new networking to replace the fiber channel with 10GB ethernet.

[jasonvp]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

My real issues is apple has put education in a tough spot. 6K+ for new machines is crazy. Best most schools can do is a near max Imac but those aren't going to last 8-10 years and for many schools will require new networking to replace the fiber channel with 10GB ethernet.

If that isn't a massive goal post move, I don't know what is.  This machine isn't aimed at "education".  Not even remotely.  The Mac Pros never have been.  So if that's your "real issue" ... then it's an invalid one.

 

Next?

 

[GDRRiley]

3 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

If that isn't a massive goal post move, I don't know what is.  This machine isn't aimed at "education".  Not even remotely.  The Mac Pros never have been.  So if that's your "real issue" ... then it's an invalid one.

the 2006-2012 were very popular with schools. I can think of a few hundred bough buy just a few school districts around me.

While I have no idea I wouldn't be surprised if schools bought as almost as many or more than the rest apple sold.

 

It isn't invalid its been one of apples goals for decades.  I would never buy AIO for machines that are suppose to last 6-8 years that get beat up buy teenagers every day. The only option for a decent video editing machine that are below 5K is the 27in iMacs. Which aren't bad but if a part fails I better have a spare or 2 sitting around because its going to have to go back to apple.

[Mira Yurizaki]

17 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

I think it would just be a firmware change.

Nothing is just "a firmware change" when you're changing out the entire platform.

 

Quote

If so then why keep putting in higher core count chips?

A lot of work can be offloaded but much hasn't been.

Because why not? Gotta still make the computer look good somehow.

 

Quote

well if they were actually trying to drop costs threadripper would have been ever better. The chip just isn't a bit more tray (I doubt apple makes enough to get that much better than them) of the top chip costs 7K+ vs 2k at retail for threadripper.

That's retail cost. We don't know the cost that Apple is paying Intel. Also they wouldn't use Threadripper, they would be using EPYC.

 

Quote

Apples got plenty of money and arguably they could have charged about the same or maybe a little lower and people would still buy it. Apple needs some optimization and that appears to be it.

Ultimately though, it's not just about what will get them the best performance for the price. It's the longer term issues that go around it. Adding another platform means they've doubled their configurations. There's no if, ands, or buts about it. It's the same thing with any other system builder that does more than slap a computer together and call it a day. The more configurations you have in your lineup, the more it's going to cost to support it all.

[Craesmeyer]

23 hours ago, Belgarathian said:

Uh, guys... I think the Apple FX converter is broken. 1 NZD is a fraction less than 1 CAD.

 

Someone should blind order this for Linus and just get him to read out the receipt in rage mode like the RED camera video.

 

Make sure you pay extra for the wheels and Pro stand. 

 

 

 

Thank god the shipping is free.

 

Edit: I really like that we've already got next gen RDNA cards coming soon for the machine.

In Brazil the top tier one Mac Pro (full specs) will cost about U$103.875,74 (R$428.799,00). This is the price of a used, but in central location 2 bedroom apartment in many capital cities.

 

The base model will cost a whopping R$55.999,00 (about U$13.575,72).

 

For contextualization, the minimum wage here (monthly, 4 weeks, 40 hours/week) is R$998,00.

 

Source:

 

Gizmodo Brasil: Mac Pro custará quase meio milhão de reais na versão completa quando chegar ao Brasil.
https://gizmodo.uol.com.br/mac-pro-meio-milhao-de-reais-brasil/

 

 

[jasonvp]

2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

the 2006-2012 were very popular with schools. I can think of a few hundred bough buy just a few school districts around me.

"A few hundred" isn't even remotely on Apple's RADAR.

 

Quote

While I have no idea I wouldn't be surprised if schools bought as almost as many or more than the rest apple sold.

So you're speculating with no real data, but it's "your real issue".  I see.

 

Quote

It isn't invalid its been one of apples goals for decades.

Not with Mac Pros it hasn't.  Ever.

 

Quote

I would never buy AIO for machines that are suppose to last 6-8 years that get beat up buy teenagers every day. The only option for a decent video editing machine that are below 5K is the 27in iMacs.

I'm sorry, but a high school that's expecting high speed Apple editing rigs for their students is setting their sights completely improperly.  And that's not Apple's fault, either.  Schools can and should either make do with Mac Minis, or teach their students on PCs using a completely different NLE.

 

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

Nothing is just "a firmware change" when you're changing out the entire platform.

 

Because why not? Gotta still make the computer look good somehow.

 

That's retail cost. We don't know the cost that Apple is paying Intel. Also they wouldn't use Threadripper, they would be using EPYC.

 

Ultimately though, it's not just about what will get them the best performance for the price. It's the longer term issues that go around it. Adding another platform means they've doubled their configurations. There's no if, ands, or buts about it. It's the same thing with any other system builder that does more than slap a computer together and call it a day. The more configurations you have in your lineup, the more it's going to cost to support it all.

I'm talking about the chips security.

 

Ether would be valid. Threadripper has ECC  and the same number of PCIE lanes. Epyc would allow for no PLX chips

 

Apple is paying less but it is all based on how many chips they buy

 

I agree it would add more pain but they did just start supporting a new socket/platform so theoretically switching to AMD shouldn't cause them any more issues than trying to iron out a new intel one.

1 minute ago, jasonvp said:

"A few hundred" isn't even remotely on Apple's RADAR.

 

So you're speculating with no real data, but it's "your real issue".  I see.

 

Not with Mac Pros it hasn't.  Ever.

 

I'm sorry, but a high school that's expecting high speed Apple editing rigs for their students is setting their sights completely improperly.  And that's not Apple's fault, either.  Schools can and should either make do with Mac Minis, or teach their students on PCs using a completely different NLE.

 

did you even read what I said. I'm talking 3-4 small sized school districts

 

I'm going to be doing some estimation here. Unfortunately apple doesn't break down sales below just Macs to specific models

16+ million 9-12  students in the US plus 19 million college (2018 numbers from US census) .

If 1/100 kids in high school represents a mac pro bought. At my school it was 1/36. I'll go 1/500 for college kids because most college have a tiny multimedia section

that is 160,000+ est for high schools with 38,00+ for college

That is around 200K machines in the US. Even if we set both at 1/500 that is still 70K+

 

2290+ broadcasting TV stations in the US.(FCC)  (not counting the tiny "translators" ones)

if on average they had 20 mac pros thats only ~46k.

 

Clearly mac pros don't fly off the shelves given that apple waited so long to refresh.

 

if not then why put them on the discount list?

 

then mac minis need D GPUs, I would happy take those. They would be great little editing boxes.

[jasonvp]

3 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

did you even read what I said. I'm talking 3-4 small sized school districts

Yes, I did "read what you said" and you're full of it.  There's no way high schools across the country are buying or have bought Mac Pros in the numbers that you're suggesting or estimating.  Please don't assume the stupidity of California even remotely represents the school spends of the rest of the country.  It doesn't.

 

This machine IS NOT targeted at high schools.  It IS NOT targeted at you or me or anyone else participating on LTT.  It IS targeted at professionals (folks actually getting paid) who actively use apps such as Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, Motion, et al.  Or folks that are doing a bunch of threaded work, AI that can take advantage of the GPUs, etc.  It's targeted at people for whom the cost of this machine is barely a footnote in their budget.

 

The sooner you grok that, the sooner you can stop carrying on like Apple is somehow evil for releasing an expensive Mac Pro.  This isn't the first time they've done this, and it won't be the last.  It'll be bought up by the folks that need it and can use it (and can justify it).  For everyone else: nope.  Apple's OK with that.

 

And I still want one.

[GDRRiley]

2 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

the sooner you grok that, the sooner you can stop carrying on like Apple is somehow evil for releasing an expensive Mac Pro.  This isn't the first time they've done this, and it won't be the last.  It'll be bought up by the folks that need it and can use it (and can justify it).  For everyone else: nope.  Apple's OK with that.

 

And I still want one.

I'm not saying they are evil, I'm saying they are missing a market share that was traditionally theirs and should be growing not shrinking.

 

I'm fairly well tied into the video world and the dry spell of new decent Mac pros has pushed people off of them. Especially now that there is a decent windows editing program that costs monthly. 

While I suspect many large broadcasting stations may buy some I think apple may have shot themselves in the foot by waiting so long.

I'd have to ask my Friend who works on all the main ones in the bay to see if they've kept any Mac.

[mr moose]

I can't see a serious reason why apple haven't positioned themselves to be able to switch from Intel.  Contracts need to be renewed and apple has enough clout in the industry to be able to develop Ryzen on  the side while honoring any existing contracts.  They managed to switch from PowerPC when the writing was on the wall. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

 I think apple may have shot themselves in the foot by waiting so long.

I'd have to ask my Friend who works on all the main ones in the bay to see if they've kept any Mac.

 

 

I watched a few videos when I was considering a video workstation and most of them said While they loved the old macs for video the news ones were a joke(model before this one),  they managed to piss off quite a few editors with inane changes to the software that they made videos about it.   Once you spend up and immerse yourself into adobe or some other platform why would you spend mac size money just to go back?

 

I don't see how updating the OS to work with ryzen is any different from reworking all their other software let alone modifying sockets solely to avoid wires.

[jasonvp]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I can't see a serious reason why apple haven't positioned themselves to be able to switch from Intel.  Contracts need to be renewed and apple has enough clout in the industry to be able to develop Ryzen on  the side while honoring any existing contracts.  They managed to switch from PowerPC when the writing was on the wall. 

But there's no real "writing on the wall" when it comes to Intel.  Their server chip market is quite successful and only looks to be getting more so.  Ignore the desktop and HEDT chips; those aren't what the Mac Pro has ever used when the switch to Intel happened.  It's always been the server/workstation Xeon, generally with ECC RDIMMs.  So where does Epyc supposedly shine over Intel's Xeons as far as Apple is concerned?

 

Answer: nowhere, really.

 

There's literally no reason for Apple to switch to Epyc other than to please the AMD fanbase.  And they're not about to do it for that reason alone.

[Mira Yurizaki]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

They managed to switch from PowerPC when the writing was on the wall.

Apple was part of the PowerPC initiative. The other two that was part of the AIM alliance were simply the manufacturers.

[Blademaster91]

30 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

 

There's literally no reason for Apple to switch to Epyc

Besides the lower TDP, higher IPC, more cores,and lower price there's no reason for them to use Epyc?

And Intel is having some security vulnerability almost every month,so AMD would actually be more secure.

[GDRRiley]

8 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

But there's no real "writing on the wall" when it comes to Intel.  Their server chip market is quite successful and only looks to be getting more so.  Ignore the desktop and HEDT chips; those aren't what the Mac Pro has ever used when the switch to Intel happened.  It's always been the server/workstation Xeon, generally with ECC RDIMMs.  So where does Epyc supposedly shine over Intel's Xeons as far as Apple is concerned?

 

Answer: nowhere, really.

 

There's literally no reason for Apple to switch to Epyc other than to please the AMD fanbase.  And they're not about to do it for that reason alone.

what???

intel has half to 2/3 of the PCIE and gen behind.

Has less cores at a low performance per core.

Dual intel CPUs are furnaces compaired to EPYC.

 

That isn't the reason most of us see

[mr moose]

18 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

But there's no real "writing on the wall" when it comes to Intel. 

I never said there was writing on the wall for Intel.  I said the writing was on the wall for powerPC. 

 

18 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

Their server chip market is quite successful and only looks to be getting more so.  Ignore the desktop and HEDT chips; those aren't what the Mac Pro has ever used when the switch to Intel happened.  It's always been the server/workstation Xeon, generally with ECC RDIMMs.  So where does Epyc supposedly shine over Intel's Xeons as far as Apple is concerned?

 

Answer: nowhere, really.

 

There's literally no reason for Apple to switch to Epyc other than to please the AMD fanbase.  And they're not about to do it for that reason alone.

 

I see no logic or reasoning beyond consumer choice lock down as to why apple do anything,  the discussion I entered was about why apple couldn't swap to Ryzen, I am simply saying there is no reason why they can't, not a legal or physical reason anyway.  It's not like there is a significant financial consideration.