“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.]
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.