“Despite the coming availability of a new generation of Sandy Bridge desktop CPUs suitable for advancing Apple’s Mac Pro line, the company has reportedly been evaluating whether to continue to invest in furthering its full-sized workstation line beyond this year in the face of limited sales,” Kasper Jade reports for AppleInsider.
“Although the Mac maker has reportedly developed a revision to the existing Mac Pro that may or may not see the light of day, people familiar with the matter said management as far back as May of 2011 were in limbo over whether to pour any additional resources into the product line,” Jade reports.
“According to these people, the consensus among sales executives for the Cupertino-based company was that the Mac Pro’s days — at least in its current form — were inevitably numbered,” Jade reports. “In particular, internal discussions were said to focus around the fact that sales of the high-end workstations to both consumers and enterprises have dropped off so considerably that the Mac Pro is no longer a particularly profitable operation for Apple.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Lava_Head_UK” for the heads up.]
dear apple,
please don’t make me go to a windows machine for my high end photoshop needs.
pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!
Just wondering, are you looking for better performance than the latest high end iMac for photoshop? What kind of upgrade(s) were you hoping for.
Don’t mean to sound like a Apple Marketing person….just someone who is interested.
Nevermind….I should have read the others first.
I’ve been a Photoshop Pro for over 15 years. You don’t need a Mac Pro for Photoshop. Just load up an iMac with RAM and you’re set. If you had said Premiere or After Effects, or a 3D program, then I would agree with you.
Photoshop. No.
Okay, but this proves that there is still a market for the Mac Pro.
The problem being that Premiere and AfterEffects and Encore run quite well on Windows PCs and even include some features not available on the Mac (such as Blu-Ray authoring). The 3D software I use (SolidWorks) is only available for Windows. Now that I no longer use Final Cut, I have no reason to have this hulking Mac Pro other than the fact that OSX is so much more enjoyable. I run Windows 7 via Parallels Desktop for the increasing number of Windows-only apps I need to run, so, yeah, I’d love to see another generation of Mac Pro, but, just because you need a good bit of power to run Premiere doesn’t mean there’s still a market for the Mac Pro.
Wait, you’ve chosen to use crappy products, when there are superior options (e.g.: Final Cut Pro X) and you think its Apple’s fault you’re getting a worse experience?
Of course adobe wants to force you onto windows….its time to stop giving money to that no account, disreputable company.
FCP X is not a superior product. It’s different. It has some forward thinking organization and is quick for some uses, but also lacks essential features a lot of professionals need. Not want. Not prefer. Need. It’s different. For some, better. For others, dramatically incomplete.
No, it shows that only idiots use Adobe products.
There are better alternatives that don’t install spyware and don’t make you upgrade every year.
I’ve read enough posts from Engineer to confirm he is a troll.
I’ve read enough posts from “fake engineer” to know he’s a Maobama-commie-lover.
The iMac has a glossy screen. I refuse to use a glossy screen for my high-end Photoshop work. If the Mac Pro is eliminated, I’m not sure what I’ll do for my next computer.
Please, Apple, give him the computing power he needs to properly illustrate his next book, the sequel to “Learn With Gurn”.
I was hoping that Apple would build a combined Workstation/Server model. It would keep the numbers up, and these two markets could be served by a similar piece of hardware (recognizing that we’re not talking about 1U rack-mount server setups or even proper data centre use, but that most Mac servers are used by smaller workgroup setups).
They did, it’s called the Mac Mini. If you need beefy hardware, you’re better off getting dedicated hardware — for instance, a Thunderbolt equipped HD video transcoder.
This sucks. They’re completely abandoning professionals. First Final Cut Pro, now this.
Please, it’s a dumb rumor. It’s not going to happen. Apple has to keep the “high ground” with a Mac that has 12 cores (soon 16 cores) on multiple processors. For one thing, iOS developers use them. People in the creative arts use them, and they are important to Apple’s image.
According to these same rumor-moron types, back when laptops started to exceed desktops in sales, ALL desktop Macs were going away and Apple would focus on laptops. Or back when iPod started to become a major force (when “Apple Computer” changed its name to just “Apple”), Apple was becoming a “consumer electronics” company and abandoning computers.
Or iPod classic would be canceled (still hanging around). Or Mac mini would be canceled (it was significantly improved).
But I think a new design is in order. The current (external) design has been around since the first Power Mac G5 (2003). Maybe it can use Thunderbolt to become much smaller and modular, with an array of additional hard drives stored in a separate (matching) enclosure, for those who need more storage capacity or a RAID. The main Mac Pro case would only have an SSD and room for one 3.5-inch hard drive, and that would also cut down significantly on the size of power supply and cooling system that is needed.
Remember that people who write about rumors want hits to their web sites. Therefore, the rumors are going to be as “sensationalist” as possible. They are going to write about things that are in the realm of possibly but highly unlikely, because “probable” things are not as exciting; no one wants boring rumors. That’s why some companies were actually making and selling “iPhone 5” cases, based on a bogus rumor.
“Please, it’s a dumb rumor. It’s not going to happen. Apple has to keep the “high ground” with a Mac that has 12 cores (soon 16 cores) on multiple processors. For one thing, iOS developers use them. People in the creative arts use them, and they are important to Apple’s image.”
The mission of NeXT was to produce a UNIX workstation, as easy to use as a Mac, for University research centers.
The market for high end Macs continues, albeit not like it used to be, but enough to keep development of the high end going. The ‘pro’ market may have to spend two or three hundred (or more) for them, but they will be available.
I actually think this is funny, because 9 or 10 years ago I stated on the AOL Apple board that Apple would be better off abandoning the creative market (1% of total market) in favor of the much larger general use market. In a weird way Apple did just that, only Apple did it in a particularly Apple way. They made creativity available to the masses, on Macs 1000X more powerful that G3/4/5 work stations of the period.
It is in Apple’s “Think Different” DNA to support the Creative Market. To do otherwise is to lose its soul. Even Pixar needs high-end equipment- Apple cannot abandon the pro market. On the contrary- I’d like to see them dominate it completely- buy Adobe. Make it Mac-only.
I think Pixar uses more specialized hardware and software for rendering its animation, and they are not high-end Macs. But I’m sure there are plenty of Macs (including Mac Pros) at Pixar HQ, performing many functions.
Even if it’s not a significant source of profit, I can’t imagine Apple abandoning the work station high ground. It would be like BMW abandoning racing. The Mac Pro in the editing suite and complex design is a symbol of their superiority and seriousness.
Agreed- Apple will not discontinue the Mac Pro.
You’re an idiot.
If you were a professional, you’d know that Final Cut Pro is a dream to work with… doing professional work. In fact, I just cut the most professional short in my life using Final Cut Pro. (I held off on upgrading for a few months because other projects were taking priority…)
That program is, without a doubt, the best cutting tool in history.
Anyone who complains about it not being “professional” is an idiot. (And yes, there are professional idiots. Some people don’t understand they are just trained monkeys… a lot of those types in the video editing industry… but even if your’e a trained monkey, refusal to learn to use new better tools makes you less of a professional, not more.)
I look forward to the day when you types are out of work because younger guys took the time to learn FCPX and are much more efficient editors as a result.
Why would you need to? The top-end iMac uses desktop components rather than laptop ones like the cheaper machines.
You obviously missed the report that said Apple were reintroducing FCP.
I could see it coming but I am still sitting here slack jawed in disbelief. First FCP, now this. I hope it’s just a rumor…
Remember when all the rumors were about Apple planning to discontinue the Mac mini?
Some people have nothing better to do than invent silly rumors to mess with Apple’s stock price. Thank goodness MDN is too smart to fall for their transparent schemes.
Oh wait…
I remember the rumors that the new iteration of Final Cut would take it in a prosumer direction. They were quickly squelched. They turned out to be right. I tend to think this has legs.
The statement did not come from Apple, therefore it is a rumor. Do not believe anything until Tim Cook or someone in upper management says it is so.
You got it.
And remember this:
Just days, even hours, before the iPhone 4S event, we were told that Sprint was getting an “exclusive” to sell the phone into early next year. That there would be two new phones.
And that Steve Jobs would make an appearance.
If there is a prize for the most wildly, tragically wrong rumor of all time, that last one really qualifies.
Substituting an iMac for a MacPro could be feasible since:
1. Current iMac cpus can be very powerful
2. Current iMac gpus can be very powerful
3. Currnet iMacs can hold 32 GB RAM
But:
1. We need a lot more Thunderbolt storage options, esp, reasonably priced ones.
2. We need a lot more Thunderbolt to PCI conversion boxes so that everyone with high powered video and audio cards can continue to use them. Again, these boxes have to be reasonably priced.
I wish Apple would simply make a rack-mountable demi-Mac Pro with half the memory slots (four), hd bays (two), optical bays (one) and PCI slots (two) but at least three or four Thunderbolt ports. If they could figure out a way to swap out the optical drive for a back-up power supply, then it could also double as a rack mount server.
Im currently using a Mac Mini as my primary workstation for Photoshop. 8GB of RAM works just fine. I wouldn’t mind having 16, but 8 works.
32 GB RAM????
I own a current iMac!
But my iMac can hold only 16 GB max. RAM?
yeah I have heard that also.
Macsales.com shows I can put in 32gb.. *everywhere* else says 16gb.
Even Apple says Max 16gb.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4621
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/iMac/2011/DDR3_21.5_27
32gb ram
I switched from a Mac Pro to a high end iMac last year. In general, I am happy with the iMac – even with 3D rendering using Modo, game development in Unity3D and some video editing.
Say it isn’t so. I’m dying to get a new macPro. Just waiting for them to release it with thunderbolt.
Obviously, Apple is succeeding in the consumer space and it is logical to continue to concentrate there.
This is the first time in 30 years that I see a “need” for Apple to license it’s OS. One pro/server licensee that would deliver hardware in the space Apple is abandoning.
+1
Holding out hope they license OSX Server to a high-end rackmount server maker like HP or IBM.
That would be sad. I like my Mac Pro. But I suppose I could everything I do on it on a iMac. I’ve had the same Mac Pro since 2006 with no problems. My Mac Pro 1,1 was the best investment I have ever made with a computer. Its extendable. You can add PCI cards to it. You have options with RAM.
I own four of the big silver boxes, one of which I bought used last week. Hard to beat a 2008-2009 3,1 Pro with twin quad-core processors for $1,400.
The Mac Pro is a DREAM for upgrading and maintaining. Optical drives, vid cards and RAM are replaced in minutes; hard drives in seconds. I replaced an optical drive in an older Mac Book two weeks ago and it took nearly an hour; a blindfolded child can replace a Mac Pro optical drive.
With a 1-gig 5770 vid card from Apple and 8 gb of RAM and a 120 gb SSD boot drive from OWC, plus a nice little stack of 1 tb HDDs, I will have 8 cores, 12 gb of RAM, 3.2 tb of on-board storage, a fast graphics card and twin optical drives in an enclosure lovely enough to be a liquor cabinet on a corporate jet — all for $2,200. Top that for your porn streaming needs. Apple might not earn a shit ton of money from the Mac Pro, but there’s nothing wrong with a flagship computer for the users who helped sustain the company during its darkest days.
I can understand the end of the desktop tower form factor but getting rid of the only model Mac that has expand-ability to suit the needs of the professional workstation is beyond me……unless of course we see an expansion of peripherals that can be plugged into another model to really push it to the limits. but wouldn’t that just mean you need more desk space and now have to deal with a myriad of other form factors playing cohesively.
Not a good sign if true. We all get that Apple’s now focused almost exclusively on the consumer space, but not supporting *any* pro products would be unfortunate.
If they drop the current Pro they must replace it with a smaller pro form factor. There are plenty of places where an iMac or Mac Mini is just not practical, e.g. not powerful enough, can’t add specialized expansion cards, can’t easily replace or add hard drives, etc. If Apple doesn’t want to cater to that market, fine… but to borrow Steve Jobs’ own analogy, remember that trucks are still very necessary for the heavy lifting, even though cars greatly outnumber them. If people need trucks, they’ll simply migrate to another truck maker.
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised, although it is disappointing. The benefit of a Mac Pro is its expandability. And yet, at the same time, getting a fully tricked out Mac Pro with all the expansion can still run you over 13K. I don’t know how much money studios have these days, but for a single computer to run that hot does seem kind of uneconomical compared to just getting several team members fully tricked out iMacs.
“…the company has reportedly been evaluating whether to continue to invest in furthering its full-sized workstation line beyond this year…”
Damn, that would suck.
I suppose that would mean no more need for Apple monitors too then? Oh yeah, a Mac mini with a 27″ T-bolt display *smile*. Yeah, riiiiiight…
Apple has already nuked X-serve. I hope this doesn’t happen or I’ll be selling a kidney to get one of the last ones in production.
You are forgetting about all the great benefits of the Thunderbolt display with laptops. The display pretty much acts as a dock just needing a thunderbolt cable plugged it, and you also have your laptop power from the display too.
I think the thunderbolt display was designed for the laptops, not for the Mac Pro. The writing may be on the wall right there.
I don’t mind as long as they give me an iMac with 8 true cores, a Blu-ray drive, four drive bays and two Ethernet ports.
Four drive bays ain’t gonna happen, but a Thunderbolt enclosure would accomplish the same trick.
An extra Ethernet port would be nice on the 27 inch iMac.
I’m on my 3rd MacPro (G5 before that) and I DON”T WANT a EXTERNAL drive bay enclosure. Thats one less thing to keep powered up, one less power supply, less cabling tangled up on my desktop etc…
How about a bigger version of the Mac mini? It could be like a cube…
Agreed. A modular pro system to replace the current concept of a box that can have multiple processors, disks, etc.
Then the modules might also be used to augment Mac book and Mac book pros so even non-pros who want more power could add to the market.
YB, that’s not what Paul meant.
This my second iMac used for my design work including high end photoshop and to be honest dont see any real difference to when I used a macPro.
Obviously those doing serious 3D work or FCP and/or need expansion and more flexible connectivity may suffer but these are an ever decreasing minority considering the capabilities of the iMac and potential of Thunderbolt. Fact is most design companies have tended to use pretty dated equipment rarely as powerful as I use. Also apart from ram I have never exploited the expansion potential even when it was there. A lot of this is about bragging rights.
That said I hope that an option is left open for those that do need the expansion.
Those expansion needs were taken care of by Thunderbolt.
Rumor and not gonna happen.
“reportedly been evaluating”…
Well, duh. If they don’t evaluate a line, it dies from stagnation. Before going crazy over this, it behooves the curious to find real information, not something that’s “according to these people, the consensus among sales executives”… Remember, sales executives run Microsoft, while former Mac division head/COO and designers run Apple.
Two words Apple is shifting to: PRO-SUMER
Agreed. The dumbing down continues…
If Apple has to get rid of the Mac Pro, they need to at least coming out with a higher end and/or expandable iMac or Mac Mini (but please don’t call it a Mac Maxi). That way Apple would not have to spend the extra time and resources to keep a completely different form factor up to date, and they would be able to make more profit off the Pro level users.
By the way, I just got a new Mac Pro and LED Cinema Display a month ago and love it. This thing screams. I passed my three year old Mac Pro and Cinema Display off to the new hire, and it runs so well, he thinks he got a new computer too.
If they do this, I hope they seriously consider coming out with a mid range tower. Somewhere between a Mac Mini and an iMac. The reason they don’t have a consumer level tower now is because they don’t want it to compete with the Mac Pro. No Mac Pro, no competition.
Even if they don’t come out with a midrange tower I think the possibility to expand a Mac Mini or iMac with Thunderbolt should take care of the Pro level folks and even allow the midrange folks to have some more expandability.
If the Pro is SO indispensable, why is nobody buying them?
Because Apple messed up FCP X that’s why. Most pro shops are stuck running the old versions that don’t take advantage of the hardware they have, let alone needing new.
Because there aren’t nearly as much professionals and scientists willing to buy $3000 towers as there are ordinary people wanting to get their hands on MacBook Airs?
Because Apple updates the Mac Pro so seldom that when you have the money to make a purchase, you are weighing up buying an old Mac Pro at a high price, a new Windows work station that has been updated more frequently or an iMac. If you are lucky, you have the required money at the beginning of the Mac Pro update cycle as they are terrific machines.
Silly, silly Apple.
It’s okay, if you replace the Mac Pro with an “xMac” I’m sure everyone will forgive you. How many people need ultra-high cost server parts and ECC memory, anyway?
Apple should be able to afford to carry some non-profitable computer line. I’ve never owned an aluminum Mac Pro although I’ve always wanted one because I like the idea of being able to have multiple swappable hard-drives and upgradeable graphics cards which I could do with my G4 dualie FW800. Nothing I really needed, but was nice to say I could do.
It’s a shame to see the Mac Pro die since it was such a well-designed workstation. I suppose I can always buy a used late model Mac Pro if I want one that badly. I sure wish those processors were easily upgradeable. I’ve seen it can be done, but I’d never tackle the project since those processors are so expensive to replace if something goes wrong. Oh, well. Apple is running a business and it’s not in the business of losing money. That’s just how it is. If they decide the Mac Pro has to go, then it’s gone. End of story.
I use my 12-core for chemistry calculations that can take several days with every core working full-tilt and was looking forward to a 16-core…. and to using GPUs for floating point. What now ?
I agree with those saying here that if they drop the Mac Pro they should replace it with a smaller mid tower.
I have a Mac pro but don’t use all the expansion bays.
a mid tower with a thunderbolt won’t need so many internal drive bays. The mid tower should have a replaceable video card.
I can understand Mac Pro doesn’t sell well : cost, bulk (the thing is massive) : but a mid tower might do ok.
I also agree with those that say a current mac mini or imac is sufficient for photoshop but for things like 3D more power is better.
Even if they don’t do a midrange tower, a Mac Mini or iMac with Thunderbolt can have expandable graphics. I read a story on here not too long ago that someone had made a box using Thunderbolt that worked as extra PCI slots for a computer. It wasn’t specifically made for graphics cards because the slots weren’t quite wide enough for the high end cards but that doesn’t mean some one won’t make one that is big enough.
My 4 1/2 year old MacPro may be my last. With Thunderbolt, dual, 7200 rpm and SSD drives plus 32 gig RAM, iMac may do the trick. I can still see where 12 cores should still be available in some future form, though…
How about a quiet, 8 core 1U rack unit that musicians, videographers, photographers and scientists could use with a choice of Thunderbolt expansion chassis for drives and expansion cards?
I still haven’t read a post saying why an iMac with 27″ inch screen, i7 processor, Thunderbolt port, and all the internal goodies is NOT better than a desktop Pro.
An iMac is as powerful and even more powerful than the desktop Pro models. Maybe that is why Apple may be mulling the end of the line of the pro desktop models. Makes sense to me.
I replaced my desktop with an iMac and I am very impressed with it.
MEES, there exists a variety of reasons why a 27″ iMac is NOT better than a Mac Pro. I’ll focus on a few of them here. In the interest of full disclosure, I work professionally as a 3D Motion Graphics artist/Video Editor.
Processors. First and foremost, it comes down to the raw power of the machine. Currently, one can obtain iMacs with up to 4 cores, while current Mac Pros can be configured with as many as 12 cores, or 3x as many as the iMac. When dealing with such tasks as 3D rendering, the more raw power at your disposal, the better. Consider that in an animation one typically renders a minimum of 30 individual frames for every 1 second of playback. Depending on the complexity of the scene, said frame may take anywhere from a minute to an hour (or more) to fully render. Let’s expand on that with the example of a 30-second animation for a commercial. 30 seconds x 30 frames per second = 900 frames x 1min/frame render time = 900 minutes or 15 hours to fully render out. And that is for a pretty lightweight animation at 1min/frame. More typically the stuff I do comes out at about 30min/frame.
Now, these numbers are based off a 12 core setup. If you tell me that I have to downgrade to a measly 4-core setup, resulting in at least a 100-125% INCREASE in my render time, I’m going to want to shoot myself.
Memory. iMacs can house up to 16GB of RAM, Mac Pros can hold up to 64GB of RAM, or 4x as much as the iMac. The amount of RAM dictates how many objects once can have in a scene (and trust me, the 32bit days with 4GB max addressing resulted in MANY ‘not enough memory’ errors), and also has an impact on render speed, as having a lot of RAM prevents the computer from accessing hard drive based VR.
Internal storage. iMacs can house at most 2.25 TB of storage (2TB + 256 SSD). A Mac Pro can house up to 8 TB or roughly 3.5x what an iMac can house. Considering that a full-res 1080P uncompressed rendering of that same 30 second animation can weigh around 5GB, and that it is often necessary to house multiple iterations of a render, not to mention large texture files, resources, and all the normal personal stuff, it is clear that more storage is better and necessary.
This list could go on and on, but just focusing on these three things, we’re looking at Mac Pros having 3x the processing power, 4x the memory capacity, and 3.5x the storage capability, and it is hard to understand exactly where you fuel the assertion that the iMac is even remotely as powerful, let alone more powerful than a Mac Pro.
Sure, an iMac is a great computer for the vast majority of average consumers. However, there is a need for machines of real power to do the work of a professional. Not just in my main field of 3D rendering, but also in the Video and Audio fields. For my purposes, they have yet to make a machine fast enough. If the day comes that I can create a scene with blurry reflections, physical camera depth of field, calculated global illumination, etc, push play and have it render in realtime at 30fps, then I can retract that. That day is a long, long way off though.
I’ll agree on all those points except the storage and the RAM might be questionable. With Thunderbolt you can have an almost unlimited amount of external storage that runs just as fast as the internal kind. As for RAM, I could see some one making an external Thunderbolt enabled box that allows you to have more RAM for an iMac. There’s already a Thunderbolt box that lets you have extra PCI slots. Why not RAM slots too? Also from what others are saying on here, the iMac can have as much as 32 Gigs of RAM.
You can run 32GB of RAM in an iMac, but it is officially unsupported for good reason, thermal management. Running double the specified spec is going to shorten the life of your machine.
Even still, the Mac Pro holds twice THAT amount, within tolerance. Have you SEEN the size of the heat sinks on the RAM board of a Mac Pro?
Thunderbolt is very promising as a connection standard, and yes, it serves up external storage at blistering speeds. It is theoretically possible that the technology could be adapted for extra RAM, but what an inane, clumsy, inelegant, and very UN-Apple approach that is. I already have clutter from my numerous external drives, do I really want a smoking hot box of RAM monopolizing ev
You can run 32GB of RAM in an iMac, but it is officially unsupported for good reason, thermal management. Running double the specified spec is going to shorten the life of your machine.
Even still, the Mac Pro holds twice THAT amount, within tolerance. Have you SEEN the size of the heat sinks on the RAM board of a Mac Pro?
Thunderbolt is very promising as a connection standard, and yes, it serves up external storage at blistering speeds. It is theoretically possible that the technology could be adapted for extra RAM, but what an inane, clumsy, inelegant, and very UN-Apple approach that is. I already have clutter from my numerous external drives, do I really want a smoking hot box of RAM monopolizing even MORE desk space?
And I don’t buy the whole “there’s” no profit in making them. The R&D on the case has surely been paid for, and at the price they are selling those machines for, there is simply no way they are loss
leaders.
Look, there are a great deal more folks like me out there than any of you realize. Tust me, if I could do my job without 10 grand worth of computing equipment, I would. The simple reality is that polished, high quality dynamic content requires as many processor cycles and RAM as you can possibly muster. I often have to network all 6 of our 12 cores, our lone 8-core, and our lone i7 iMac into a single render farm to crank projects out in a reasonable amount of time. I can tell you that, based on frames returned, that top of the line iMac is nowhere near ready to replace the Mac Pro. I get 1 frame back from the iMac for every 3 any of the Mac Pros return. Not even close.
As for glossy screens… I have no beef with them, as I prefer to work in a dark environment, with subtle ‘vibey’ lighting. In such a scenario, I can benefit from the truly gorgeous image quality from my pair of Cinema displays.
I agree completely.
May I add another thing:
I do not intend to buy another iMac. Ever.
Why?
There is a completely useless, glossy monitor attached to it.
If anyone actually likes glossy monitors without being a raving maniac, it must be because they’ve never actually had any part of their screen turn black.
Or they’re obsessed with watching themselves in the mirror.
Personally, I prefer to look at my content, not myself.
Please, Apple – don’t turn into a 24/7 Gucci workshop for people like Paris Hilton.
Annnnnd the dumbing down continues apace.
Interestingly, when there is an unconfirmed rumor like this, there is always some one commenting on how it will drive them back to Windoze. Thankfully, not so far here.
But it will drive me back to buying an existing MP. Only problem is, do I buy now, and possibly get screwed if this is nothing but a rumor, or do I hold out until the MP is officially cancelled, if the rumor is true, and face the possibility of not be able to get a MP at all, particularly w/o the upgraded video option?
And the dumbing down continues…
Get 4 minis instead 🙂
I think it’s time for selective licensing of the Server OS. Let someone else build the big iron.
OK, here’s a reason why Apple shouldn’t do this.
http://bit.ly/qgvcu0
This complex LED wall (the largest in Times Square at 15,000 sq. foot) is powered by four Mac Pros (with even more powering the in-store screens). For quality reasons, each facet is powered by its own video card.
The next (Pro) version of the software will support unlimited layers on each output channel and Apple’s ProRes format subject to machine performance.
No disrespect, but some ‘noddy’ Mac mini/Thunderbolt/external video card just isn’t going to cut it in terms of getting video out of the disk, composited and out to the GPU.
Actually thats not true, Thunderbolt can run as fast as the system bus will allow, as long as the pipe between thunderbolt and the disk is as fat as the system bus then there will be no different between an internal graphics card and an external Thunderbolt one.
What you say is just not true.
You need a high bandwidth communications path between the CPU and GPU to run OpenCL or CUDA applications. Even a 16-lane PCI Express bus limits performance of some GPGPU apps.
The way electronics have shrunk, there is no need for a pro workstation to be so large. Twenty years ago, sure but today you could have a machine a quarter of the size or less if they use a purely SSD array setup. So long as there are still a number of slots and a couple of TB connectors for expansion.
Rethinking the whole tower concept is long overdue.
You’re overlooking the issue of thermal management. SSD’s help some, but RAM, GPU’s and CPU’s generate a lot of heat.
Hence my final comment: Rethinking the whole tower concept is long overdue.
And it would be purely Apple to completely redefine what a workstation should be.
The Mac Pro may be overkill for many imaging pros, but the iMac is inadequate. We need a minitower. As a pro photographer doing high-volume event work, I love the ability of my Mac Pro with Aperture to crank out hundreds of JPEGs from adjusted RAW images in the time it takes me to have dinner. That said, the current quad-core i7 processors are about as fast. I’d be happy with a minitower with one or two PCI-e slots, room for 16GB RAM, three user-accessible drive bays (SSD + two HDs), user-upgradeable graphics, eSATA or USB 3 and Thunderbolt, and no optical drive. And a separate professional display. The iMac display is good, but still not in the same league with NEC and Eizo.
The amount of businesses needing a Mac Pro is dwindling yearly as iMac abilities increase and the advantages become less. As we speak, my small recording studio has recently switched from running a Mac Pro to an iMac (+ extra monitor) and the new baseline iMac simply smokes the old Pro. By dropping the Mac Pro, Apple could spew out daisychain-able iMacs at a much better price point. They’ll gladly leave the low-profit server farms for Dell, IBM, and HP to scrap over.
I think it would be short sighted to drop the pro line. As the Mac continues to grow market share, more corporate and power users who convert to Mac at home will consider changing more machines over to Mac at work. Apple needs to be ready to grow on all fronts, or risk limiting the switchers options.
Argh! Say it isn’t so. My master plan for the past year was to eventually purchase a Mac Pro…for gaming.
All I want is a Mac where I can swap a video card out of every few years? Is that too much to ask for? *sigh*
My two year old iMac is nearly the greatest machine I’ve ever owned but it’s getting a bit past its prime when it comes to playing the newer titles that are coming to OS X in greater and greater numbers now.
Don’t need a new Mac…just need a new video card. Was my hope that a Mac Pro would do the trick for the foreseeable future.
notice how those who state, “my iMac can do that” seldom actually quantifies HOW FAST he accomplishes his mission-critical tasks? Simple fact is, each person has different tasks to accomplish and a different value on his time. If you use software that can really take advantage of multiprocessor horsepower and your computer output is directly linked to your paycheck, Mac Pros pay for themselves in short order. Believe it.
There other reasons besides software to choose the Mac Pro too:
– prior investment in legacy displays
– prior investment in peripherals
– prior investment in PCI cards
It’s cheaper and easier to upgrade from a Mac Pro to a Mac Pro if that’s how your workstations are already set up.
Bottom line: iMacs are great, but you really have to do the comparison for yourself.
We’re very happily sticking with Mac Pros.
Makes sense, they are gradually moving to an itoys only enviroment. Xserve dead, they say to use a mini or pro…. OK terrible options, but at least a pro takes fiber cards, and we can still use them for storage. So now what? Linux? Windows? They kill final cut, but have a reprieve (you can now call and order the old studio) OSX Server sucks now, hope you are good with the command line if you want functionality. Guess we all better like the cloud and itoys, cuz that’s all we will have soon. Better brush back up on Windows and Linux all you sys admins out there. And for all u tools that will say who cares get over it, you clearly don’t rely on Apples enterprise. My bad for drinking the koolaid
It’s not always about the CPU.
I went from an iMac to a Mac Pro to get rid of a shitload of external HDs littering my desk, cluttering things and sucking power.
I also like the ability to upgrade my graphics card without throwing away an otherwise suitable unit.
We do not all need Xeon CPUs, but like the tower form factor and it’s advantages. How about a tower with the i7 and a lower price?
Noooooooo!
This is a BULLSHIT rumor. Enough said.
FWIW, my system is a minimum for the design work I perform:
3x Apple Cinema HD 30″ DVI-D, 2x PCIe 2.0 16-lane GPU cards, PCIe 4x hardware RAID with 4x 15krpm SAS Cheetah striped array, 1x backup SATA in 2nd bay. This only leaves me 1 free 4-lane slot, to route thru an expansion chassis. Main PSU provides an aggregate 300w for all PCI slots, which is grossly insufficient.
If anything, I need a Mac “Max”:
4x PCIe 3.0 slots: 8, 8, 16 double-ht, 16 double-ht. There currently exists a bridge chip with these capabilities. PSU at 600w for slots, 4x GPU power cons. Dual 5.25″ optical bays, lower bay accepts 2x 3.5″ SATA drives sideways, plus motherboard 256 GB boot SSD (2-lane 3.0), Firewire, Airport, Bluetooth, aux external Thunderbolt plus ExpressCard/56 slots on rear panel, SDHC slot on front panel, and an extra two internal USB ports.
Apple needs to make a more flexible, expandable high end machine, not get rid of the only one it has. I would really hate to see this go.
Initial purchase price may be the predominant factor in computer sales, but Apple should understand more than any computer company that many people will pay a premium for elegant, efficient design. Alas, the Mac Pro case doesn’t look new, and consumers to this day still look at individual processor speed as an indication of performance, rather than actually running Geekbench. So despite its superior internal design, expansion, and architecture providing multiple times the capability than ANY all-in-one machine, some people even here think the Mac Pro is outdated.
Apple, sounds to me that it’s time for a fresh Mac Pro case design and a renewed marketing focus: total system capability, not Intel CPU spec sheets.
Guys… Those that are saying the iMac can only handle 16 GB are wrong.
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/iMac/2011/DDR3_21.5_27
Enjoy pouring your logic board into a cup and taking it to the genius bar if you run that configuration very hard for very long.
High end Mac Pros are needed in healthcare for CT scanners, specialized devices and large amounts of data management, processing and storage.
If anyone at Apple can’t see this growth area in the future they should be fired and replaced with someone who has vision.
…and that’s sugar coating it.
Any other machine as the Mac Pro is absolutely useless to my job. No iThing will ever be interesting to me and my activities. No more Mac Pro (or equivalent way to chain CPUs with Apple products – cluster a pile of Mac minis, for example) would push me away from a long “love affair” with Apple: it would be a hard mourning to be made… A big part of my existence to abandon…
Apple does need to do something with the Mac Pro. Having a $5000 dollar computer that nobody buys is simply not good business. I think the sweet spot is $2000-$3500, anything above that is simply not going to sell very well. Maybe using i7 instead of Xion would to the trick.
I think Apple has missed the boat on a smaller Mac Pro design for quite awhile. Like other posts had mentioned, it could have 2 HD bays, 1 PCI expansion slot (or none), 1 optical drive bay (or even none), that should cut the size and cost down considerably.
There needs to be a Mac between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro for someone wanting more performance than the MM, but doesn’t need a MP necessarily, also who doesn’t want to be stuck with a glossy screened all in one iMac. I tried an iMac and hated it simply for the awful reflections it had in my environment.
At home I use a MBP with an external display, KB & Mouse. I do primarily photoshop work and some layout work so the MBP works fine for my needs. At work we use Mac Pros in production work (Graphics, pre-press, retouching, layout & design), in customer service they use iMacs.
Apple should keep a Mac Mini, the iMac, a new Mac Pro Mini, and a Mac Pro for their desktop line. Offer base models with build to order options to keep their costs down.