Yes and yes. But I can also tell them they're being imbeciles on forums like this.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP All Models 2023 Mac Pro! [MERGED]
- Thread starter OW22
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Disposable computers can only be justified at a disposable price. A base price of $7,000 is anything but.
A Hackintosh is starting to look the way to go.
So "How about selling it and buying something newer/faster?"...Oh but don't sell it to YOU! Yeah, you don't want it. Someone, somewhere will want a non-upgradable "pro" computer when I done with it. Suuuure.
Great advice.
Where else would antique types source old Macs if no one replace them at the latest of a decade.So "How about selling it and buying something newer/faster?"...Oh but don't sell it to YOU! Yeah, you don't want it. Someone, somewhere will want a non-upgradable "pro" computer when I done with it. Suuuure.
Great advice.
I strongly suspect that they had this in development when they decided not to do an M1 Extreme... If you throw an M2 Extreme (which could still happen - it was the M1 version that was cancelled) in this, it suddenly makes a LOT more sense. The M1 Ultra (and I strongly suspect the M2 Ultra, but I haven't actually seen any confirmation on that) uses a special heat sink in the Mac Studio. Ultra Studios are two pounds (nearly a kilogram in the 90% of the world that uses sensible measurement) heavier than Max Studios, at least almost all of which is a huge copper heatsink, and I suspect cramming a double-Ultra in the Mac Studio case would be one of four things.
1.)Impossible (sufficient heatsink and power supply just wouldn't fit).
2.)Loud (you could do it - RTX 4090s fit in compact PC cases, after all - you just wouldn't like the sound of the fan)
3.)Liquid-cooled (Apple once actually released a liquid-cooled G5, and they might be able to do that with the Extreme in a Studio, but where do you stick the radiator in the tiny Studio case)?
4.) Throttled (M-series chips run really, really cool at low power - they could get a lot of cores in there, assuming the physical size of the silicon is not an issue - if they accepted a lower clock speed).
The big ol' Mac Pro case means that a Mac Pro running an Extreme can be none of those things - except that Extremes don't exist!
We knew from the beginning of the M-series project that RAM and GPU expandability was the loss for the extraordinary power and efficiency of Apple Silicon. We knew that there was a hardware limitation precluding extraordinary amounts of RAM, while massively increasing RAM speed. Similarly, we knew that the best integrated GPU ever made (and by a significant margin) precluded external GPUs, and that the GPU was optimized for certain tasks, and not for others (gaming).
For the vast majority of Mac users, running anything from a MacBook Air up to a big MacBook Pro, it's been a huge win - look at them compared to any PC laptop of similar weight and battery life (there isn't any). Big workstation and gaming laptops can be as fast or faster than a M2 Max MBP, but they run much hotter, have short battery lives (and are throttled even then), and are often much heavier, especially when you include the adapter.
Even the Mac Studio fits very nicely into a market niche - the Ultra is faster than anything that isn't a lot more expensive (the largest Xeons and Threadrippers are several times the price). For non-game tasks, the GPUs are competitive with anything in the same price range. What it's NOT competing with is creative workstations several times the price. We'd all hoped the Mac Pro would do that, and it's a Mac Studio Ultra with a card cage...
If the Mac Pro DID have an available M2 Extreme chip that the Mac Studio didn't offer, it would make more sense. An M2 Extreme would likely Geekbench (v5) over 40,000 - that's similar to, or faster than the fastest Threadrippers. The 96 core Epyc 9654 and some of the Sapphire Rapids Xeons may be somewhat faster, but at what cost in power and money? Certainly, dual (or more) processor workstations can be faster - but those tend to be well over $20,000 for reasonable configurations - before adding tons of RAM.
A 152-core version of their graphics should give anything a run for its money, especially outside of games (Apple Silicon performs better on non-game benchmarks than its game scores would suggest - or, conversely, it's worse in games than its other scores would suggest). Again, maybe not multiple super-high-end cards, but that's a niche within a niche (Apple may be giving up on render farms, and has never supported crypto...).
The big issue would be use cases that wanted massive RAM. An M2 Extreme should support 384 GB - a lot, but much less than the last Intel Mac Pro. It would be almost unimaginably fast RAM, but only a lot, not an enormous amount.
Without the Extreme, the Mac Pro looks a little silly (it's a compact workstation in a huge case, selling for $3000 more than a compact workstation version of the same thing). With it, it would look like a high-end single processor workstation with superb performance and competitive capacities for the class. The "no RAM expansion" would be a little odd, but the RAM speed would help make up for it, and 384 GB would be a decent max.
1.)Impossible (sufficient heatsink and power supply just wouldn't fit).
2.)Loud (you could do it - RTX 4090s fit in compact PC cases, after all - you just wouldn't like the sound of the fan)
3.)Liquid-cooled (Apple once actually released a liquid-cooled G5, and they might be able to do that with the Extreme in a Studio, but where do you stick the radiator in the tiny Studio case)?
4.) Throttled (M-series chips run really, really cool at low power - they could get a lot of cores in there, assuming the physical size of the silicon is not an issue - if they accepted a lower clock speed).
The big ol' Mac Pro case means that a Mac Pro running an Extreme can be none of those things - except that Extremes don't exist!
We knew from the beginning of the M-series project that RAM and GPU expandability was the loss for the extraordinary power and efficiency of Apple Silicon. We knew that there was a hardware limitation precluding extraordinary amounts of RAM, while massively increasing RAM speed. Similarly, we knew that the best integrated GPU ever made (and by a significant margin) precluded external GPUs, and that the GPU was optimized for certain tasks, and not for others (gaming).
For the vast majority of Mac users, running anything from a MacBook Air up to a big MacBook Pro, it's been a huge win - look at them compared to any PC laptop of similar weight and battery life (there isn't any). Big workstation and gaming laptops can be as fast or faster than a M2 Max MBP, but they run much hotter, have short battery lives (and are throttled even then), and are often much heavier, especially when you include the adapter.
Even the Mac Studio fits very nicely into a market niche - the Ultra is faster than anything that isn't a lot more expensive (the largest Xeons and Threadrippers are several times the price). For non-game tasks, the GPUs are competitive with anything in the same price range. What it's NOT competing with is creative workstations several times the price. We'd all hoped the Mac Pro would do that, and it's a Mac Studio Ultra with a card cage...
If the Mac Pro DID have an available M2 Extreme chip that the Mac Studio didn't offer, it would make more sense. An M2 Extreme would likely Geekbench (v5) over 40,000 - that's similar to, or faster than the fastest Threadrippers. The 96 core Epyc 9654 and some of the Sapphire Rapids Xeons may be somewhat faster, but at what cost in power and money? Certainly, dual (or more) processor workstations can be faster - but those tend to be well over $20,000 for reasonable configurations - before adding tons of RAM.
A 152-core version of their graphics should give anything a run for its money, especially outside of games (Apple Silicon performs better on non-game benchmarks than its game scores would suggest - or, conversely, it's worse in games than its other scores would suggest). Again, maybe not multiple super-high-end cards, but that's a niche within a niche (Apple may be giving up on render farms, and has never supported crypto...).
The big issue would be use cases that wanted massive RAM. An M2 Extreme should support 384 GB - a lot, but much less than the last Intel Mac Pro. It would be almost unimaginably fast RAM, but only a lot, not an enormous amount.
Without the Extreme, the Mac Pro looks a little silly (it's a compact workstation in a huge case, selling for $3000 more than a compact workstation version of the same thing). With it, it would look like a high-end single processor workstation with superb performance and competitive capacities for the class. The "no RAM expansion" would be a little odd, but the RAM speed would help make up for it, and 384 GB would be a decent max.
So the Mac Pro has the same CPU power as the Mac Studio? Am I reading that right?...?? Apple didn't make the CPU any better????? The M2 Ultra in the Studio is the same as it is in the Mac Pro (CPU only, im not interested in the GPU cores...)
Apple has more than enough money to piss away on niche product.
IMO this new Mac Pro was released to migrate the entire Macintosh lineup off of Intel. The AS chips are great low end and mid range chips but they're not scalable enough to high end systems.
Hopefully GPUs can be added to this new Mac Pro or else it will suffer the fate of the 2013 Mac Pro. By GPU standards this Mac Pro is already well behind. Memory is another issue. It starts (and will forever remain) at 64GB of RAM? With a maximum of 192GB? This is almost like the 2013 Mac Pro all over again.
It shares the same M2 Ultra chips. The extra $3k pays for the PCIe slots and the extra bill of materials to ship and power it.
For one the Mac Studio does not share the Mac Pro's 1280W PSU
Mac Pro has 2 10GbE ports while Mac Studio has 1.
Mac Pro is up to 14.51kg heavier. It ships in a larger box.
Apple's not a charity to satisfy niche needs.
My guess would be the 2023 was designed to satisfy at least 80% of Mac Pro users.
The Ultra chips should be benched before it being taken the piss out of it.
What's wrong with the GPU cores of the M2 Ultra? Are there any benchmarks indicating them being worse than any dGPU currently on sale?
And yet people still bought the 2013 Mac Pro...? It tested the waters for a pro desktop without PCIe slots.
It would be interesting to see how many % of Mac Pro users from 2019-today that uses more than 192GB memory.
Is it approaching 20%?
Correct but for pro/semi pro users the base model isn’t sufficient and the price jumps immediately for larger ssd and ram
2019 Mac Pro $2k diff with the 2021/2023 Mac Studio Ultra has to do with all of the above, R&D and more.
The additional $1k on top of the 2023 Mac Pro has to do with covering the forecasted lower economies of scale.
2023 Mac Studio is taking away users who would have bought the Mac Pro if they had no other choice but to subsidize PCIe users.
Doesn't Macs retain their value better than PCs?
I think many dislike this path as it is more inconvenient than parts upgrade.
Apple has changed their business model when it comes to the Mac Pro.
Mac Pro is just a Mac Studio with PCIe slots. Seeming these requirements are often found on higher-end use cases and bigger businesses then Apple charges appropriately.
You guys can simply charge extra as everyone within your industry will parallel that move to cover the cost of frequent upgrading.
I feel like you're reaching to justify $3,000 extra for the Mac Pro. It's a pointless purchase over the Studio.
Many here do not understand things cost money. So you end up itemizing things to reach said amount.
When you understand how much something costs then you appreciate what it is.
But I do agree with many who raise the that the Mac Pro does not allow for user replaceable parts like SoC, memory, etc. For that the only way out would be to go AMD/Intel workstation.
No company can satisfy everyone's needs all the time.
I actually like Apple's decision to split pro desktop users between the Mac Pro & Mac Studio. Wish they executed this correctly during the Power Mac days.
You're in the wrong forum. The Mac Studio forum can be found here.
Let's see - Porsche 911... would that be the incredibly distinctive sports car that has kept its shape since forever and is what immediately springs into my mind when I hear the name "Porsche"? Now, I have no idea what the GT2RS bit is, but I rather assume its the souped up version designed to go round tracks very fast, win trophies while looking like the cheaper 911 I might conceivably aspire to if I felt so inclined? The one that even the Porsche Cayenne probably takes a few design cues from to play up the association, even though they're probably pointless on a SUV (Googles: yup, yup and yup...).
You know - a bit like the fact that even though I own a freaking Mac Studio when I hear the name "Apple" I think of the famous products from Apple like the Apple ][, the original Mac, original iMac, iPod or iPhone...?
I know what my PC-using friends think of the Mac Pro - its the thing with the $800 wheels and the $1000 monitor stand. That's not a halo product, its a horn product and it's there strictly for people who think it would cost a lot more than $7000 to change their MacOS workflow.
Thanks for proving the point and admitting you dont even know what a GT2RS is.
Yes - it's the same CPU as the Studio. Apple doesn't discuss clock speeds, so it remains to be seen if the extra thermal (and power?) headroom means that it's clocked somewhat higher.
Would have made a lot more sense with a double CPU option that the Studio didn't support
Would have made a lot more sense with a double CPU option that the Studio didn't support
Hackintosh is a short term measure.
Now that Apple migrated the last Intel Mac off the shopping list then the clock ticking down on Hackintosh.
Hackintoshes been great in the Intel era as could with some careful picking get very close to Apple Computer.
However there Golden Age is over as unless start being able acquire components close to the Apple Hardware and not sure how will present Media Engine and Neural Engine to an unmodified Mac OS.
May as well go the whole hog and go windows.
Everyone realizes that. No reasonable person would assume it would cost nothing to go from the Mac Studio to the Mac Pro. But also no reasonable person would accept $3,000 extra for some PCIE slots and bigger case. The same way that it's unreasonable to charge $2,000 for a 4TB SSD drive when a similar high end drive sell for $300;
WD_BLACK 4TB SN850X NVMe Internal Gaming SSD Solid State Drive - Gen4 PCIe, M.2 2280, Up to 7,300 MB/s - WDS400T2X0E - Newegg.com
Buy WD_BLACK 4TB SN850X NVMe Internal Gaming SSD Solid State Drive - Gen4 PCIe, M.2 2280, Up to 7,300 MB/s - WDS400T2X0E with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!
Nearly 7 times the price... that's just disgusting.
Antique types... like the still very capable 2009 MP I'm typing this on right now?
Very capable because it's... (wait for it) upgradable.