MP All Models 2023 Mac Pro! [MERGED]

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

I reckon this is a stop-gap solution.

Apple likely didn't want to update the Mac Studio on its own because the value difference between it and the base '19 Mac Pro would have been ridiculous, to the point that they would have not only received considerable negative response towards the lack of update, but also to the future of the platform.

Yes, I'm aware that Apple was in effect a 'damned if they do / don't' situation, but I don't think they could wait much longer.

It was a given amongst critics and customers that 7,1 was only useful once it had been configured to the required CPU and GPU needs. That's great; however as we're well aware the base price was already inflated. By the time the essential specs were chosen, you were talking five-figure sums, which is acceptable for many large businesses and Apple's close partners, but not for the sole professional or smaller businesses.

And I think that's really the point here: Apple is using Studio as the future platform because the demographic that once relied on PCIe components and the best CPUs (which could only come from a Mac Pro enclosure) can now complete those same and new workflows in what is essentially a taller Mac mini. Whether people want to hear it or not, Studio is a clearer vision of Apple design than the Mac Pro.

The M2 generation is enough of a performance improvement Apple clearly felt it represented value as a base configuration, and I do see the logic in that - you could view it as the best value $1,000 upgrade of any Mac, given the performance upgrades of both the CPU and GPU compared to the previous Xeon and Radeon. I take no issue with this, there is obviously a market there. SSD can be added inside the machine, RAM is a fraction of the previous capacity but still large enough for the overwhelming majority. (It's worth pointing out here that Apple never pursued a 1.5TB capacity - that just happened to be a compatible spec of the Intel components used)

I'm betting that Apple is going to release a new enclosure for 9,1 that allows for a 2 x Ultra configuration, for the simple reason that getting to where they want to be specification wise will take far longer on an Ultra-only path than to double up again. It's also another selling point for the Mac Pro over the Studio.

That's the M2 Ultra package right there. You aint getting two of them in there any time soon!

 

[m1maverick]

The M2 generation is enough of a performance improvement Apple clearly felt it represented value as a base configuration, and I do see the logic in that - you could view it as the best value $1,000 upgrade of any Mac, given the performance upgrades of both the CPU and GPU compared to the previous Xeon and Radeon. I take no issue with this, there is obviously a market there. SSD can be added inside the machine, RAM is a fraction of the previous capacity but still large enough for the overwhelming majority. (It's worth pointing out here that Apple never pursued a 1.5TB capacity - that just happened to be a compatible spec of the Intel components used)

192GB maximum RAM capacity in a pro level system is ridiculous. My lower end Z440 has a 256GB RAM limit and my Z840 has 2TB maximum capacity. I believe I read someone in this forum has 1.5TB installed in their 2019 Mac Pro.

As for 192GB being sufficient for the overwhelming majority what about those who need more? What do they do? For those overwhelming majority where 192GB is sufficient there's the Mac Studio.

I'm betting that Apple is going to release a new enclosure for 9,1 that allows for a 2 x Ultra configuration, for the simple reason that getting to where they want to be specification wise will take far longer on an Ultra-only path than to double up again. It's also another selling point for the Mac Pro over the Studio.

It would be a selling point for a future Mac Pro if such a Mac Pro ever materializes. However it's not a selling point for the 2023 Mac Pro.

 

[jmho]

I just get the feeling that Apple is doing its standard thing of thinking 5-10 years into the future and then when someone says "Ok, but what about the next 4 years where that sucks?" and they don't respond.

It seems clear to me from watching WWDC sessions that Apple's strategy is having a mono-architecture. They've realised that parallel computing is less about raw horsepower and more about tailoring the algorithm to the specific architecture / hardware to get perfect scaling and proper hardware utilisation. I think that's their strategy for weathering the future when hardware improvements start to really slow down.

Currently they're getting battered by the fact that they have the "weird" architecture that nobody is writing for, but if they keep at it and get enough AS chips out there, the tide will start to turn, and when people are writing for Apple Silicon, that's when things really start to pay off.

That does mean that we're currently in the "dark ages" (at least at the high end) and probably will be for a couple of years more, and the Mac Pro definitely feels like a "Eh, there's not much we can do, please have this disappointing computer. It'll be good in 2 more generations, we promise."

I do agree that the Studio is where it's at, even though it's an incredibly joyless and boring computer. My heart wants to buy an 8.1 just because it's beautiful, but my brain made me order an M2 Ultra Studio.

 

[avro707]

192GB maximum RAM capacity in a pro level system is ridiculous. My lower end Z440 has a 256GB RAM limit and my Z840 has 2TB maximum capacity. I believe I read someone in this forum has 1.5TB installed in their 2019 Mac Pro.

As for 192GB being sufficient for the overwhelming majority what about those who need more? What do they do? For those overwhelming majority where 192GB is sufficient there's the Mac Studio.

I believe I read in the forum that people with those levels of ram were just hobbyists with too much money. or was that just Mac Pro owners in general (to be clarified as Intel Mac Pro owners now).

Even the 5,1 could run 256GB ram with special configuration on a dual X5690 machine. The 6,1 could do 128GB maximum and the 7,1 - even my mid spec machine 768GB.

 

[mode11]

Fundamentally, Apple are not going to make a special chip for the Mac Pro. It’s either an Ultra with slots or buy a PC. There is no master plan here, other than basing the Mac range around two basic SoCs. If that doesn’t work for you, there’s nothing Apple can do, because it wouldn’t make any fiscal sense to do otherwise.

There may be an Extreme later, but others have pointed out why this is a lot less straightforward than it sounds.

 

[mode11]

Also, comparing a 2023 computer to a 2019 one is a bit meaningless in terms of value etc. Of course you get more for your money. That’s true of PCs too.

 

[m1maverick]

I believe I read in the forum that people with those levels of ram were just hobbyists with too much money. or was that just Mac Pro owners in general (to be clarified as Intel Mac Pro owners now).

I see. So this forum is now the definitive arbiter of how to classify the work people do with their system?

 

[theluggage]

As for 192GB being sufficient for the overwhelming majority what about those who need more? What do they do?

Same as xServe users when Apple "replaced" it with a dual HD Mac Mini...
Same as people who needed NVIDIA graphics after 2013

- get a Xeon or Threadripper tower or server and plug in exactly what you want.

This is Apple gradually getting out of a market that they can live without - once they can no longer offer a distinctive product. Apple Silicon has given them an edge in small-but-powerful laptops and SFF systems - all, effectively, by scaling up iPhone/iPad tech - and is also perfect for projects like the iGoggles, but it just lsn't the technology to replace something like the 2019 MP.

That limitation is fundamental to the architecture of Apple Silicon which is built around the idea of on-package Unified RAM coupled to a super-powerful (by iGPU standards) iGPU and media/neural engines. Maybe the 3nm M3 is going to have more CPU and GPU cores and maybe it will support 384GB of RAM, but that's not going to solve the Mac Pro problem - Apple aren't going to throw away the SoC architecture that works so well for their money-making consumer/prosumer Macs, nor are they going to develop a whole new architecture just for the Mac Pro - especially at a time when high-performance computing is going back to the data centre/cloud and AWS, NVIDIA et. al. are already ahead of the game in non-x86 data centre hardware.

 

[MisterAndrew]

Well, for 1k more than the 2019 Mac Pro you get:
- 24 CPU cores vs 8 (massive difference here, should be at least 3x faster. Even the 2019 28 core won't match the M2Ultra CPU)
- M2Ultra GPU is much more powerful than the base GPU in the 2019. We have yet to see if M2Ultra can match the high end AMD GPU, but if the M2Ultra is approx 2x that of M2Max it should be close.
- 64GB RAM vs 32GB RAM
So for 1k more, you are getting a whole lot more and to configure the 2019 to similar specs would more than double the price of the base 2023.

That’s not an argument for the Mac Pro. It’s an argument for the Studio, for over a year ago… The Mac Pro gives you PCIe slots. That makes it a poor value.

 

[jmho]

I see. So this forum is now the definitive arbiter of how to classify the work people do with their system?

It's kinda weird because if you go to a car forum nobody goes "Bro you're not even a race driver" every time someone wants to buy a sports car.

The Apple community needs to realize that not everything with a lot of horsepower has to be a tractor.

 

[m1maverick]

Same as xServe users when Apple "replaced" it with a dual HD Mac Mini...
Same as people who needed NVIDIA graphics after 2013

- get a Xeon or Threadripper tower or server and plug in exactly what you want.

This is Apple gradually getting out of a market that they can live without - once they can no longer offer a distinctive product. Apple Silicon has given them an edge in small-but-powerful laptops and SFF systems - all, effectively, by scaling up iPhone/iPad tech - and is also perfect for projects like the iGoggles, but it just lsn't the technology to replace something like the 2019 MP.

That limitation is fundamental to the architecture of Apple Silicon which is built around the idea of on-package Unified RAM coupled to a super-powerful (by iGPU standards) iGPU and media/neural engines. Maybe the 3nm M3 is going to have more CPU and GPU cores and maybe it will support 384GB of RAM, but that's not going to solve the Mac Pro problem - Apple aren't going to throw away the SoC architecture that works so well for their money-making consumer/prosumer Macs, nor are they going to develop a whole new architecture just for the Mac Pro - especially at a time when high-performance computing is going back to the data centre/cloud and AWS, NVIDIA et. al. are already ahead of the game in non-x86 data centre hardware.

Now you know why people are disappointed with the 2023 Mac Pro.

 

[theluggage]

Now you know why people are disappointed with the 2023 Mac Pro.

Oh, that writing has been on the wall since Apple Silicon launched.

I've been saying that about the M2 Ultra in a 2019 case rumour since it started, which is why I'm surprised it turned out to be true. Having PCIe 4 with apparently a respectable number of lanes (to be confirmed) actually exceeds expectations (there hasn't been a clue before that ASi offers more than a handful of PCIe 3 lanes) and might just find it a niche. Cranking the price up by $1000 and still starting with the binned M2 Ultra was a nasty surprise.

 

[m1maverick]

It's kinda weird because if you go to a car forum nobody goes "Bro you're not even a race driver" every time someone wants to buy a sports car.

The Apple community needs to realize that not everything with a lot of horsepower has to be a tractor.

I think too many people focus on the name as if it is a solid delineation of professionals and everyone else. When it comes to Apple's naming pro merely means more capable than our other products.

 

[m1maverick]

Oh, that writing has been on the wall since Apple Silicon launched.

I've been saying that about the M2 Ultra in a 2019 case rumour since it started, which is why I'm surprised it turned out to be true. Having PCIe 4 with apparently a respectable number of lanes (to be confirmed) actually exceeds expectations (there hasn't been a clue before that ASi offers more than a handful of PCIe 3 lanes) and might just find it a niche. Cranking the price up by $1000 and still starting with the binned M2 Ultra was a nasty surprise.

I'm having Deja Vu. Didn't we have similar discussions regarding the 2013 Mac Pro. IMO anyone who needs a workstation class system (such as the 2019 Mac Pro) and continues to use Apple products should immediately be looking to migrate away.

 

[smulji]

Now, I think, Apple are betting the farm on Vision Pro being the next halo product.

Hit the nail on the head.

 

[Longplays]

It seems clear to me from watching WWDC sessions that Apple's strategy is having a mono-architecture. They've realised that parallel computing is less about raw horsepower and more about tailoring the algorithm to the specific architecture / hardware to get perfect scaling and proper hardware utilisation. I think that's their strategy for weathering the future when hardware improvements start to really slow down.

On Apple's Mac Pro page they've identified the use case of the Mac Pro & its PCIe slots.

• Music production
• Video transcoding
• 3D rendering
• Animation

Scientific computation requiring more than 192GB unified memory... is not worth Apple's resources.

Try again in Q1 2025 when M3 Ultra gets 384GB unified memory or a possible M3 Extreme gets 768GB.

Currently they're getting battered by the fact that they have the "weird" architecture that nobody is writing for, but if they keep at it and get enough AS chips out there, the tide will start to turn, and when people are writing for Apple Silicon, that's when things really start to pay off.

Apple releasing the Mac Pro 3 years after WWDC 2020 gave all the devs enough time to update their apps to Apple Silicon.

From here on end it is fine tuning on actual hardware rather than 2022 Mac Studio.

That does mean that we're currently in the "dark ages" (at least at the high end) and probably will be for a couple of years more, and the Mac Pro definitely feels like a "Eh, there's not much we can do, please have this disappointing computer. It'll be good in 2 more generations, we promise."

I do agree that the Studio is where it's at, even though it's an incredibly joyless and boring computer. My heart wants to buy an 8.1 just because it's beautiful, but my brain made me order an M2 Ultra Studio.

Use case for a workstation desktop PCIe slots has been shrinking YoY. That's why Mac Studio sells that well two years in a row and the last decade's worth of Intel Mac Pros sold that badly.

PCIe slots are as relevant as mainframes at this point. It does not mean they're useless.

There are lots of music recording studios around the world that need insanely low latency, only provided by PCIe slots.

If there’s a Thunderbolt cable, there’s latency.

For example if you’re recording an orchestra, it’s not uncommon to be recording to 150 tracks, while playing back twice as many, at 24/96. Sometimes a Pro Tools session will have separate brass, separate strings, separate percussion and separate choir, but using all the same microphone array. It can be a playback nightmare. One soundtrack could be several terabytes in size.

If you’re using DSP or virtual instruments simultaneously, that’s a lot of bidirectional communication over one cable. Usually you’re using Avid equipment which needs a PCIe card. Recording all this to a Thunderbolt drive is begging for I/O errors. It’s just not reliable recording an orchestra, when 10 minutes of downtime is $10,000 out the window.

 

[Melbourne Park]

Also, comparing a 2023 computer to a 2019 one is a bit meaningless in terms of value etc. Of course you get more for your money. That’s true of PCs too.

I kind-ah think it's funny that Apple boasted about two HDMI ports and running 8 monitors. Meanwhile add a Vision Pro to a Studio and it'll be cheaper than an 8,1 with just one monitor. Let's ignore that a mask might not be comfortable.

As for Apple chasing profits - I would like them to have had some guts and also to make money, to take care of the shareholders, and to keep selling the old 7,1 for the Ultra Studio price.

 

[deconstruct60]

…..

I'm betting that Apple is going to release a new enclosure for 9,1 that allows for a 2 x Ultra configuration, for the simple reason that getting to where they want to be specification wise will take far longer on an Ultra-only path than to double up again. It's also another selling point for the Mac Pro over the Studio.

View attachment 2215785

That's the M2 Ultra package right there. You aint getting two of them in there any time soon!

I wouldn’t bet on a new enclosure . There is room for a second Ultra package worth of space if dump the SATA/USB block there . If Apple is pushed intoa dilemma of either keep SATA or get another Ultra I suspect they will choose the latter.

That SATA block is there because there is “ extra” space and it gives some transitional continuity for giving folks more time to get off HDDs . Plus folks can reuse their relatively ( for what it is ) J2i bracket.
Apple could move the USB socket for iLok and doo-dads to the backside.


I suspect that if had 1.5 ”Ultras“ that will be good enough to quell some of the grumbles of folks looking for some exclusivity factor on the SoC . Probably they can do that with without killing the SATA block. .

I don’t think this case is going to disappear at all. And a case just for the two package model didn’t even happen back in the Mac Pro 2009-2012 era . They liklely sold a lot more Mac Pros back then ( when Mini and iMacs were more kneecapped). If there was no volume for another case then , it is highly unlikely there is volume for that now .) .

If they adjusted the case , the more sane move to do would be to move the HDD/SSD drive bracket out of the outflow of the SoC heat sink package . A wider case where could put HDD on the same “backside”. As the Apple SSD modules are. All the storage to the other side With separates fan(s).

APFS is really extremely focused on SSDs . Over time , pretty good chance Apple is hoping SATA will just go away.However, if opened the Pandora box of a MP case redesign that would be an option. More like though they want yo stay far, far ,far away from an industrial redesign effort. Cheaper just to keep the same baseline desgn elements with simplifying adjustments to thr logic board.

 

[deconstruct60]

192GB maximum RAM capacity in a pro level system is ridiculous.

For a system completely lacking ECC it really isn’t . Apple really needs to solve whatever they are going do to cover ECC before they go charging off deep into the greater than 128GB zone.

If they stick with “poor man’s” HBM mem implemented on top of LPDDR5/6 ,then they are going to need some ‘excess’ bandwidth to ‘throw away’ on ECC overhead. Where affordable LPDDR5 is now , they aren’t there yet. If they picked up a LPDDR5 option that gave them a 30% increase they could throw 25% at ECC and still get an uplift of 5% . 5% isn’t as much uplift as 30% , but it is lots better than zero . 😀.

Right now they would be looking at going backwards . They aren’t going to choose that option. ( juggling lots of tricks to keep the GPU cores fed now. No way backwards is a viable option).


.

As for 192GB being sufficient for the overwhelming majority what about those who need more? What do they do? For those overwhelming majority where 192GB is sufficient there's the Mac Studio.

Folks who tend to have gigantic RAM working set data, also tend to have gigantic capacity problems with data at rest also . If need to store 8 TB of data the Mac Pro is a btter option than the Studio. Apples SSDs are not sensibly priced to hold very large amounts of data. At the 192GB level the two systems are far from being equal if look at the ‘data at rest’ issues thaare associated.

How many of those HP/Dell/Lenovo workstations have one, and only one, internal drive? Apple isn’t going to sell users a two drive MP from the Apple Store , but it is a supported end user option. On the Studio ( and rest of Mac line up it isn’t ).


Are there foolks with 200-900GB working set data needs .. what do they do???? If have a MP 2019 is it now broken? Nope. Folks act like Apple needs for all MP 2019 owners to throw down there systems right away and stampede into the new model . Probably not true. Apple has time To move far smaller fringe groups who probably just bought something 2-3 years ago who are going nowhere for a couple of years.

For the folks in the > 320-500GB zone should likely consider moving on. Even Nividia Grace isn’t cracking to direct attached 500GB zone . ( and yet they are not doomed to failure ) .[ 320 = 20 * 16GB ]


The key question is how many folks are in the > 320 zone? 10% of Mac Pro buyers is wildly diffent impact than 3% . Loosing 3% probably has little long term impact on MP future. and if 10% how many are left after the hypermodular folks have stormed off in a huff? ( some people are looking for control at least as much as capacity. Chasing after folks who are just going to turn around and say Nvidia card or ‘raw iron’ boot Windows is a waste of time ) .

There used to be an Omniware web page the listed the aggregate system demographics of the systems their software was running . More configurations way , way out on the fringe were extremely small. Apple has data of what system profiles are . If there was some very substantive number that thos Mac Pro could touch then they’d probably would be selling the MP 2018 side by side with the AS model ..they did that with the Mini for long time; 64GB Intel model 16GB M1.

 

[jscipione]

Here’s the real question. Is it possible to put 3TB of RAM in the 2019 Mac Pro using 12 256GB sticks? Anybody got an extra $28k to try?

For the vast majority 192gb is enough, and that’s where Apple is able to provide in the SOC right now.

Mac Pro is a dud, but the Mac Studio is the real product anyway.

 

[deconstruct60]

I kind-ah think it's funny that Apple boasted about two HDMI ports and running 8 monitors. Meanwhile add a Vision Pro to a Studio and it'll be cheaper than an 8,1 with just one monitor. Let's ignore that a mask might not be comfortable.

I'm not sure I've seen first hand reports that got covered in the demo. It is one thing to take the non 4K laptop screens onto Vision Pro , but the 6K XDR set in HDR mode all over Wifi6E (maybe ). There is likely going to be bandwidth constraints on who well this 'advanced shared screen' thing works.

And if doing HDR Reference monitor work parked on a HDR port , this headset thing really isn't going to work well. You need to be looking at an actual Reference monitor.

Editing that highly leverages custom control surfaces and keyboards. Not buy a whole lot of that either. If there is lots of stuff doing with your fingers and both hands then the GUI interface here starts sliding down a slippery slope.

Same with stuff that is pencil/stylus intensive.

And Siri improvements to do substantial accurate voice to text ... I'll believe that when I see it. There are areas where Siri is as dumb as a rock.

Those were movies of a rigged demo. I doubt Apple is going to throw their entire monitor business out the window for Vision.

As for Apple chasing profits - I would like them to have had some guts and also to make money, to take care of the shareholders, and to keep selling the old 7,1 for the Ultra Studio price.

macOS on Intel is ending. It probably isn't going to end very soon , but implying that is have 5+ more years to go is a bad deal for stockholders too. They'd get sued. It isn't worth it. The Mac Pro all by itself extremely likely cannot extended macOS on Intel going away. Just too low volume. With the huge extended transition delay... folks who really needed and Intel one should have bought one when they knew they needed it. There was no rational reason to believe another Intel model was coming.

Most of the 2018 models will get retired next year. Year after that most of 2019 gets same treatment. Year after that is 2020's ( probably about the point the MP goes 'over the side' even though sales didn't end until now. Two years of some super lame security updates and that's it. )

Apple really didn't set new price levels lower even when the MP 2013 was 4 years old. They moved components down to the established levels but it didn't get any lower than it was before. This is an even more expensive system to make and ship. Pragmatically, pushing more MP 2019's onto the used market is going to be a more effective way of eventually lowering the price. ( Temporarily the price may go up if all the retailers had super low inventories.)


And the onslaught that AMD TR 7000 is going to unleash later in the year at higher end and Intel Raptor refresh at lower end ... a 4 year old Intel model isn't going to help much. All the new stuff coming to workstation in 2023 the system isn't all that competitive anymore.

 

[avro707]

Here’s the real question. Is it possible to put 3TB of RAM in the 2019 Mac Pro using 12 256GB sticks? Anybody got an extra $28k to try?

2.0TB is supposedly possible with the W3275M. 1.5TB is not nearly as expensive to get now - I priced out Hynix (the brand the 7,1 comes with) at USD$7536 - way less than the Apple tax pricing (when purchasing the computer new).

My needs are more the 28 core CPU and probably getting the W6800X Duo, or ditching MacOS and getting a W7900 Radeon Pro.

 

[mattspace]

I just get the feeling that Apple is doing its standard thing of thinking 5-10 years into the future and then when someone says "Ok, but what about the next 4 years where that sucks?" and they don't respond.

That's always been Apple's big problem - selling folks on a future based on architectures that really rely on the next generation of the technology, and after a couple of cycles that future hasn't happened because it didn't deliver fast enough.

Thunderbolt is a classic example of this - *if* it had been the proper Light Peak version from the start - all-optical, long cable runs, all types of cards, eGPU etc, it would have been THE paradigm for connectivity and owned the future, but nickel & dime compromises, and we get a copper version that cant handle more than a couple of feet in cable length, and it just looks like another firewire, the momentum fades, and HDMI gets all the display future, NAS gets all the storage future etc.

 

[singhs.apps]

That's always been Apple's big problem - selling folks on a future based on architectures that really rely on the next generation of the technology, and after a couple of cycles that future hasn't happened because it didn't deliver fast enough.

Thunderbolt is a classic example of this - *if* it had been the proper Light Peak version from the start - all-optical, long cable runs, all types of cards, eGPU etc, it would have been THE paradigm for connectivity and owned the future, but nickel & dime compromises, and we get a copper version that cant handle more than a couple of feet in cable length, and it just looks like another firewire, the momentum fades, and HDMI gets all the display future, NAS gets all the storage future etc.

Gaslighting. Enough monkeys here in these forums to spread the mess that doesn’t age well

 

[Grilled Cheese]

I wonder how we’d be reacting to the 2023 Mac Pro if it had launched with an M2 Extreme (2 x Ultra) chip?

It would still not be upgradable in terms of CPU, GPU and RAM, but it would presumably offer performance beyond any other Mac.

I wonder how much that would have changed the conversation?