MP All Models 2023 Mac Pro! [MERGED]

[impulse462]

Apple might be taken off guard with the current explosion of ML interest.

They have worked slow and steady with the user side of ML, but not the developer side. Not having a possibility to add dedicated crunching power might be the most important omission in the MacPro. It can of course be rectified, I am curious if they will do that.

Couldn't agree more with this although since i do develop ML algorithms I might be biased. its a sad state of affairs that nvidia has basically a monopoly on CUDA and we are all forced to use it. Not saying that its bad to develop with, but whenever we are stuck with 1 platform essentially it's never good to be beholden to it.

It's a shame ROCm and Apple/coreML haven't gotten more upswing on the ML developer side, but my thinking is that nvidia had such a tremendous headstart with developers, engineers, and scientists, they are the ones reaping the reward now.

Someone please correct me if this is wrong, but as far as i know, to port any pytorch/tensorflow model to coreML you have to go through onnx, which while a useful tool, isn't has frequently updated as pytorch and thus won't support the latest and greatest pytorch functions in your model and thus its hard to port it to an apple device. The only work around I have found is implementing the version of that specialized function using onnxscript mansually. I might have to do this later so I'll see how that is but it seems like a pain in the neck.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

Nvidia's GPU drivers would need to be digitally signed by Apple to work in macOS, and Apple won't sign them.


Your DisplayLink adapter isn't a GPU - all the work is done on the host machine, in software, and just sent over USB to be converted to DP etc. There is no hardware acceleration / VRAM on the dongle and performance is consequently poor.

Unified memory means the same memory is available to both the CPU and GPU. Data therefore never has to be transferred from one to the other, as in traditional architectures. This is very efficient in some ways, but has a number of downsides. Apple could implement a solution with Metal to allow the use of a dGPU. Unfortunately, Mac Pros probably account for 0.5% of Mac sales, and Apple aren't keen to complicate the Metal API for one computer.



There are various possible reasons this wasn't done sooner. One is that the Mac Pro is a low priority, and they concentrated on the other machines first (and the 2019 MP was fast, very expandable and reasonably new). Another is that the M1 Ultra used a cutting edge manufacturing technique and they wanted to use the chip in one model initially. Another is that they had intended to sell a 4-way-Max 'Extreme' alongside the 'entry level' Ultra, but hit problems making it and rather than have further delays, just released the one model this time.

I always thought nVidia could write a Mac Driver if they wanted to. I also think you can install unsigned drivers if you like. It might be unwise for an amateur but I think nVidia would sell a few cards to Mac users if they wrote a driver and offered a guide to disable SIP and let you install it. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe theres another layer of protection. I guess they would have done this if they could have. Unless they figured Apple would really never forgive them if they did.

There was definitely some active logic in that USB display adaptor. It was doing some work itself.
If a machine without shared main/video memory can send and receive data over PCIE, it seems likely a machine with shared memory could do the same trick. But maybe the OS just doesn't have enough in it to help facilitate this? So its actually much harder to write such a driver.
I wonder if the Apple Silicon versions of Mac OS are that fundamentally different to the Intel editions. Always thought it was just a straight recompile.

I think Apple still has some tricks up its sleeve for Apple Silicon. They can build specialist chips now so maybe the M3 or M4 Mac Pro will have options for some new versions of an Afterburner car, one for video, one for audio, one for extra RAM? Who knows.

 

[goMac]

I always thought nVidia could write a Mac Driver if they wanted to. I also think you can install unsigned drivers if you like. It might be unwise for an amateur but I think nVidia would sell a few cards to Mac users if they wrote a driver and offered a guide to disable SIP and let you install it. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe theres another layer of protection. I guess they would have done this if they could have. Unless they figured Apple would really never forgive them if they did.

You need an SDK from Apple to write GPU drivers that they don't give out. My guess is Nvidia no longer has access to the newer SDK versions they would need.

 

[mattspace]

I think Apple still has some tricks up its sleeve for Apple Silicon. They can build specialist chips now so maybe the M3 or M4 Mac Pro will have options for some new versions of an Afterburner car, one for video, one for audio, one for extra RAM? Who knows.

Why would they do that, when they could just not, and have more "advantages" of next year's model over last year's?

 

[Melbourne Park]

A difference with a lack of upgradability, is one needs to tailor usage to dollars spent, and factor in likely changes in hardware available.

With an upgradable Mac Pro (4,1/5,1/7,1) the CPUs could be upgraded, also the RAM and drives, plus the GPUs. Now its just drive capacity.

So it's really like buying a notebook now (ignoring users who have PCI card specific needs such as music etc).

It comes down really to trying to spend as little as one can to get the job done, with the expectation that the savings can be used later on new and more capable hardware.

It's quite possible that someone considering an 8.1, could therefor even buy a mac Mini, or a low spec Studio, and replace that in a few years. Its usage pays now ... buy what is needed for the shorter term, whereas before, one could plan on upgrades in a costly Mac Pro to keep one up to pace. It's also user pays - even for a keyboard and mouse etc.

One area where Apple has made it easy, is where it's very easy to install a new Mac compared to Windows.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

A difference with a lack of upgradability, is one needs to tailor usage to dollars spent, and factor in likely changes in hardware available.

With an upgradable Mac Pro (4,1/5,1/7,1) the CPUs could be upgraded, also the RAM and drives, plus the GPUs. Now its just drive capacity.

So it's really like buying a notebook now (ignoring users who have PCI card specific needs such as music etc).

It comes down really to trying to spend as little as one can to get the job done, with the expectation that the savings can be used later on new and more capable hardware.

It's quite possible that someone considering an 8.1, could therefor even buy a mac Mini, or a low spec Studio, and replace that in a few years. Its usage pays now ... buy what is needed for the shorter term, whereas before, one could plan on upgrades in a costly Mac Pro to keep one up to pace. It's also user pays - even for a keyboard and mouse etc.

One area where Apple has made it easy, is where it's very easy to install a new Mac compared to Windows.

Considering an i7 beats out the M2ultra, leaving the Mac has become a very real and sadly viable option.

 

[jscipione]

Considering an i7 beats out the M2ultra, leaving the Mac has become a very real and sadly viable option.

Considering that a Pentium III beats out the G5, leaving the Mac has become a very real and sadly viable option.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Considering that a Pentium III beats out the G5, leaving the Mac has become a very real and sadly viable option.

Yea, so much of an option, apple took it.

 

[goMac]

Yea, so much of an option, apple took it.

Hahahahaha - yeah, that comment stepped in it.

It was a big deal at the time. Adobe actually put out an advisory that their customers should stop buying Macs because the PowerPC was so bad.

Also something to remember - by that time Intel CPUs were more efficient than PowerPC. Apple repeatedly cited efficiency during the switch.

It's not wise to ever count Intel or x86 out. x86 has not always been a hot architecture. It's in the same cycle as the rest of the industry. Everyone went through this back in the PowerPC days and while there were some early victories - Intel still won.

 

[avro707]

I think Apple still has some tricks up its sleeve for Apple Silicon. They can build specialist chips now so maybe the M3 or M4 Mac Pro will have options for some new versions of an Afterburner car, one for video, one for audio, one for extra RAM? Who knows

Hope they don’t go with M3, M4, M5, M6 or M8.

A certain famous Bavarian manufacturer might get very annoyed. I’m surprised it hasn’t stepped in over M1 and M2.

 

[mattspace]

It's not wise to ever count Intel or x86 out. x86 has not always been a hot architecture. It's in the same cycle as the rest of the industry. Everyone went through this back in the PowerPC days and while there were some early victories - Intel still won.

Count Intel “out” the same way you count Boeing out - it doesn’t matter how many more airliners Airbus sells, it doesn’t matter if Boeing’s headline product falls out of the sky, Boeing is a National security & Defence asset for America, and it has a bottomless well of money behind it.

Intel is America’s “blue chip” national asset chip company, and there is a bottomless well of funding for them to stay competitive.

 

[prefuse07]

Count Intel “out” the same way you count Boeing out - it doesn’t matter how many more airliners Airbus sells, it doesn’t matter if Boeing’s headline product falls out of the sky, Boeing is a National security & Defence asset for America, and it has a bottomless well of money behind it.

Intel is America’s “blue chip” national asset chip company, and there is a bottomless well of funding for them to stay competitive.

This is a very good point that a lot of people are not seeing as they sip that kool-aid

 

[avkills]

I think it may still be up in the air whether or not the multitasking aspects of the M* series of chips is on par with Intel designs. (I don't mean multi-core, but the ability to have lots of apps running, and/or having a CPU hog like 3d rendering going, and still being able to do basic other stuff also)

And yes, never count Intel out.

 

[mattspace]

There will never be an AS iMac Pro, or a 27" (or any large) iMac. They have that product - the Studio and Studio Display.

Called it.

Apple has no plans to make a 27-inch iMac with Apple Silicon

No big screen all-in-one for you.

www.theverge.com

 

[-BigMac-]

Called it.

Apple has no plans to make a 27-inch iMac with Apple Silicon

No big screen all-in-one for you.

www.theverge.com

Someone forgot to read the rest of that article....

"Apple has only ruled out a new 27-inch iMac, so a larger-screened iMac is still possible."

Apple has always played around with wording.
And it could mean they make a 28-inch iMac, or the long rumored 32".

So your prediction of "a 27" (or any large) iMac" never being made again, is just that.. a prediction, which hasn't been confirmed by anyone at Apple.

 

[mattspace]

Someone forgot to read the rest of that article....

"Apple has only ruled out a new 27-inch iMac, so a larger-screened iMac is still possible."

Apple has always played around with wording.
And it could mean they make a 28-inch iMac, or the long rumored 32".

So your prediction of "a 27" (or any large) iMac" never being made again, is just that.. a prediction, which hasn't been confirmed by anyone at Apple.

Nope, still keeping it as called. It aint going to happen.

The cost of big panels is not compatible with an iPad-disposable appliance strategy, and the environmental impacts of pulling those panels from service while they still work will never be matched by efficiency in newer generations of hardware. Also, Apple has a new "big screen computing" solution, and it's a headset.

Big iMac is dead.

 

[-BigMac-]

Nope, still keeping it as called. It aint going to happen.

The cost of big panels is not compatible with an iPad-disposable appliance strategy, and the environmental impacts of pulling those panels from service while they still work will never be matched by efficiency in newer generations of hardware. Also, Apple has a new "big screen computing" solution, and it's a headset.

Big iMac is dead.

Since you are stating it as fact, under Macrumors ToS you are required to provide a source for your claim.

1. Sources. If you claim that something's a fact, back it up with a source. When evidence of your claim is requested, you can either provide evidence or retract your claim. If you can't produce evidence when someone asks you to cite your sources, we may remove your posts. If you started the thread, then we may remove or close the thread.

Forum members whose posts are removed for violating these rules may be subject to temporary or permanent account suspension (bans)

 

[mattspace]

Since you are stating it as fact, under Macrumors ToS you are required to provide a source for your claim.

1. Sources. If you claim that something's a fact, back it up with a source. When evidence of your claim is requested, you can either provide evidence or retract your claim. If you can't produce evidence when someone asks you to cite your sources, we may remove your posts. If you started the thread, then we may remove or close the thread.

Forum members whose posts are removed for violating these rules may be subject to temporary or permanent account suspension (bans)

Mate, get your hand off it (you really want to try using TOS bullying as forum technique?). The ambiguity of the statement is just as applicable to "no big iMacs of any sort" as it is to "only specifically no 27" iMacs". That's the point of ambiguity.

Clearly from your sig you have an emotional attachment to 27" iMacs, but you're in the Mac Pro forum, and we wrote the book on emotional attachment to our preferred Mac paradigm.

I'm calling the Big iMac dead, and the linked Verge article as evidence for that. Feel free to disagree on that opinion.

 

[mode11]

I think Apple had already made it pretty obvious the 27” iMac was gone by:

- Not releasing a new one since the transition three years ago.

- Releasing a single AS iMac, with a screen size exactly half way between the previous 21.5” and 27” models.

- Releasing a new 27” 5K monitor with a very similar panel to the old iMac, whilst costing the same as a base 27” iMac. Where would a new 27” iMac fit in the range?

- New Studio and mini Pro lines, as well as a capable standard mini, now spanning the complete iMac / iMac Pro hardware spec.

- People had been complaining for years about the iMac’s 5K screen being tied to computer hardware that dates faster than the screen. That’s now split into two non-upgradeable boxes, so erm, a clear improvement.

 

[mode11]

but you're in the Mac Pro forum, and we wrote the book on emotional attachment to our preferred Mac paradigm

It’s easy to dismiss other people’s preferences as illogical, telling them to ‘get with the program’, until it happens to you! Now it’s the turn of big screen iMac users, some of whom no doubt considered the MP a relic that should be put down.

 

[-BigMac-]

It’s easy to dismiss other people’s preferences as illogical, telling them to ‘get with the program’, until it happens to you! Now it’s the turn of big screen iMac users, some of whom no doubt considered the MP a relic that should be put down.

I have unfortunately felt both of the hits, being an ex-Mac Pro owner, and current iMac owner. For sure, it’s frustrating when Apple seemingly forgets about your current go-to product😔

 

[mode11]

Apple’s on a constant mission to eliminate any product that risks offering excessive value for money.

 

[mattspace]

It’s easy to dismiss other people’s preferences as illogical, telling them to ‘get with the program’, until it happens to you! Now it’s the turn of big screen iMac users, some of whom no doubt considered the MP a relic that should be put down.

Why I will happily enjoy a tall frosty glass of schadenfreude when Manton Reece's micro.blog company eventually shutters, because back in the "what's going on with the 2013 still being on sale?" days, he was very full of big talk about how Apple didn't need the Mac Pro, and how Mac Pro users didn't really need anything better than an iMac.

 

[Tyler O'Bannon]

Called it.

Apple has no plans to make a 27-inch iMac with Apple Silicon

No big screen all-in-one for you.

www.theverge.com

Doesn’t mean there won’t be an iMac Pro. Likely at 6k 32”. Doesn’t mean there will, but doesn’t mean there won’t. Just confirms there won’t be multiple sizes of iMac. There could still be iMac and iMac Pro.

 

[mattspace]

Doesn’t mean there won’t be an iMac Pro. Likely at 6k 32”. Doesn’t mean there will, but doesn’t mean there won’t. Just confirms there won’t be multiple sizes of iMac. There could still be iMac and iMac Pro.

They have that product already - it’s a Mac Studio, and XDR display. No extra SKU, no extra manufacturing or development cost, and not a single lost sale for failing to offer it as an AIO.

The iMac is back to what it was in the G3 days - the budget appliance Mac.