MP All Models 40 core ASI with PCI-E slot is around the corner!!

[ZombiePhysicist]

What are you using it for?

Right now, it's a glorified Mac mini being used for secretarial work. I was hoping to use it for some 8k video work and 3d work, but neither panned out to be a good use case for it. Dont get me wrong. It's a great machine for most other tasks, although it sucks you basically have to max everything out the day you get it.

 

[Romain_H]

Right now, it's a glorified Mac mini being used for secretarial work. I was hoping to use it for some 8k video work and 3d work, but neither panned out to be a good use case for it. Dont get me wrong. It's a great machine for most other tasks, although it sucks you basically have to max everything out the day you get it.

I am aware. ASi is brilliant in notebooks - fast and efficient. Would not buy one for desktop use though, for the very reasons you stated

 

[AndreeOnline]

Plus regardless how the trashcan looks you can still upgrade parts, which is what you would expect from a Mac Pro.

If we could get our hands on the final list of 20 bullet points—from inside Apple, that describes a Mac Pro according to them—I don't think "upgradable parts" would be one of the points.

Apple builds computers. More than that, they develop the proprietary software it takes to run them and take special pride in the synergy effects it has when you control both software and hardware.
They want to offer suitable computers to as many users as possible while hitting the sweet spot between the number of SKUs and operational efficiencies.

Contrary to popular belief, they are acutely aware of every single tradeoff they make in all aspects of computing. But being tradeoffs, sometimes they will make bad wagers on what will work at a certain time with the technology available at hand.

I'm sure Apple has zero interest in offering a box only half filled with stuff that customers then can continue to design on their own and fill with parts from.... wherever.

But, Apple realizes that a digital sculptor, a VFX or 3D artist, an audio producer, a video colorist, and a science researcher all have different needs and tries to offer some wiggle room when it comes to configuring the computer.

As we all know, due to the large amounts of shared technology for the last 20 years, it has in fact been possible to do simple DIY upgrades with off-the-shelves components. But I don't think that was ever Apple's goal per se. Not that they had to fight it, but it wasn't necessarily their goal either.

Many seem to think, or at least want, the Mac Pro to be Apple's little 'build your own PC shop'. I don't think it ever was, at least not per design.

 

[Mago]

If you look at the Mac mini and MacBook transition that is the trend...

Do you drive an truck by looking the road behind from the mirrors? look back deeper, you'll see Apple apologizing by the TrashCan failure and intreoducing the iMac Pro and then the Mac Pro 7,1; Apple is not an animal that acts by instinct and inevitable repeat its errors, its an mega corporation driven by most of the best engineers and hardware architechts, I rely on that, not on looking back becuese a crash may happens to me.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Apple will double-down on the 6,1/Studio approach and revisit pushing their vision for what a high-end workstation should be.

As other said, it moreless its the M1/M2 Mac Studio Role.

Do we know if the Studio is a success? I have a maxed out one and for me it's a failure. I know a few others that bought it day one and then were hugely disappointed in how apple lied about it's graphics prowess by using misrepresentative benchmarks.

I mean its an success among FanBoys and Coders, not for engineers, data scientist, ML work, simple dont achieves the basic performance required, the GPU is OK for most 3-D works, and most analytics, but not enoug memory for big models as a.e. an entire blockchain graph to trace run taint analysis or track stolen funds, as for GPU its berely better than a MP 7,1 with Vega64.

 

[Mago]

I thought it was already confirmed the new MacPro will use the same case. Why speculating on the case again? Am I missing something?

Actually no body serious had said a word on it, original ASi leak pointed out for an Smaller CheeseGrater and another Machine similar the mac mini but stacked, that later become the Mac Studio.

Nothing is confirmed of course, but if you believe the leaks then yes the new Apple Silicon will use the same case design. And with that case design it will have lots of big fans and PCIe slots. However, it seems extremely unlikely those PCIe slots will have firmware and OS support for third party GPUs.

I dont buy the MP ASi 8,1 to ship actually with the same case, as the new ASi cpu/ram complex shall be much smaller and both ram and CPU at the same side as the current MP7,1, so aprox 10-20 cm smaller logic board is required to accommodate exactly the same PCIe expansion as the 7,1. buit nothing is confirmed, ppl here takes any rumor by people even not actual legit journalist (gurman) as facts, that's insane.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

I mean its an success among FanBoys and Coders, not for engineers, data scientist, ML work, simple dont achieves the basic performance required, the GPU is OK for most 3-D works, and most analytics, but not enoug memory for big models as a.e. an entire blockchain graph to trace run taint analysis or track stolen funds, as for GPU its berely better than a MP 7,1 with Vega64.

Yea, fanboy feedback is not necessarily an indicator of actual performance in the market. Lot of cube lovers out there, but in the market, dud.

 

[mattspace]

Do we know if the Studio is a success? I have a maxed out one and for me it's a failure. I know a few others that bought it day one and then were hugely disappointed in how apple lied about it's graphics prowess by using misrepresentative benchmarks.

I'd say it's probably doing as well as the higher spec 27" iMacs were doing. There's always been a to and fro about whether the iMac was "faster" than the Mac Pro etc. The Studio is just an iMac where you don't have to throw away the screen with the computer upgrade "it's better for the environment".

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

I'd say it's probably doing as well as the higher spec 27" iMacs were doing. There's always been a to and fro about whether the iMac was "faster" than the Mac Pro etc. The Studio is just an iMac where you don't have to throw away the screen with the computer upgrade "it's better for the environment".

That's a good and logical guess, but the market is often not logical. Also, It's not clear how successful that model was either!

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

I think the Studio will be retired. The most telling sign for me is actually the M2 Pro mini which, if you consider how much performance the 12/19 version can output, it’s on par with or in the ballpark of the M1 Max.

That isn’t to say that an M2 Max Studio wouldn’t smoke it, but I think the point is that ‘performance’ is always relative to the user and task at hand. And when 3nm comes along, we could indeed be seeing true M1 Max performance in a Mini enclosure.

From a marketing standpoint, there would also be less crossover and cannabistion. And consider also that although not all professionals require PCIe, those that do will surely get on fine with future variants of the Pro chip, and those who do need more performance will have the income to purchase a Mac Pro with Max/Ultra chips.

 

[mattspace]

I think the Studio will be retired.

But why? It's the large iMac's replacement. The biggest complaint about the iMac, especially as we get into an era where conspicuous ewasting of functional gear is problematic, is that it wastes an entire screen when the computer is retired. That's addressed by the Studio and it increases the average selling price of an Apple computer and display (Studio Display).

That matrix of Mac Mini / Mac Studio, LG5k / Studio Display is a beautifully efficient combo for everyone who needs a bigger screen machine than a 24" iMac.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

I think the Studio will be retired. The most telling sign for me is actually the M2 Pro mini which, if you consider how much performance the 12/19 version can output, it’s on par with or in the ballpark of the M1 Max.

That isn’t to say that an M2 Max Studio wouldn’t smoke it, but I think the point is that ‘performance’ is always relative to the user and task at hand. And when 3nm comes along, we could indeed be seeing true M1 Max performance in a Mini enclosure.

From a marketing standpoint, there would also be less crossover and cannabistion. And consider also that although not all professionals require PCIe, those that do will surely get on fine with future variants of the Pro chip, and those who do need more performance will have the income to purchase a Mac Pro with Max/Ultra chips.

Perhaps it's a stopgap machine, and perhaps the iMac Pro was too?

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

But why? It's the large iMac's replacement. The biggest complaint about the iMac, especially as we get into an era where conspicuous ewasting of functional gear, is that it wastes an entire screen when the computer is retired, is addressed by the Studio and it increases the average selling price of an Apple computer and display (Studio Display).

That matrix of Mac Mini / Mac Studio, LG5k / Studio Display is a beautifully efficient combo for everyone who needs a bigger screen machine than a 24" iMac.

If you get a Mac mini loaded, and get the studio display, is that not also an iMac 27" replacement?

 

[Rickroller]

If you get a Mac mini loaded, and get the studio display, is that not also an iMac 27" replacement?

I think there might be room for a new 27 or larger iMac if they want to add Pro Motion to put it up to par with what the 14 and 16 MacBook Pros can currently deliver.

They should be able to make it possible with by using the new hdmi 2.1 spec, but I tend to think Apple would like to have single cable deliver power and connectivity.

 

[mattspace]

If you get a Mac mini loaded, and get the studio display, is that not also an iMac 27" replacement?

The Studio reaches up to where the iMac Pro was in terms of product segment, as well. That's the thing, the Mini and Studio effectively covers every 27" iMac variant. Now you can get an iMac equivalent with the big screen that is less powerful than the previous floor, and more powerful than the previous ceiling.

...and the iMac is just a single thing - a 24" (non-touch) iPad running macOS.

 

[mattspace]

I think there might be room for a new 27 or larger iMac if they want to add Pro Motion to put it up to par with what the 14 and 16 MacBook Pros can currently deliver.

Why wouldn't they just add Pro Motion to the refresh of the Studio Display?

 

[Rickroller]

Why wouldn't they just add Pro Motion to the refresh of the Studio Display?

As I said, I’m not sure there is enough bandwidth for a higher refresh rate through a single cable.

 

[startergo]

If you get a Mac mini loaded, and get the studio display, is that not also an iMac 27" replacement?

You can use the display with another machine, but you can't use the iMac as a display anymore.

 

[mattspace]

As I said, I’m not sure there is enough bandwidth for a higher refresh rate through a single cable.

As a product design idea, I could see Apple doing a 27" Pro Motion Studio Display as a higher end model, dropping the old Studio Display to a lower price tier, and achieving the bandwidth by making it a dual input display. Not by tiling left and right, but by interlacing the signal. Gotta use that AS processor in the display for something now they're claiming their CSAM programme is halted. So attach two TB cables to the same machine, get 120hz, or attach 1 cable, get 60hz with a downstream TB port.

Apple are happy doing port and bus diagrams on Mac Pros for how to achieve specified numbers of displays etc, I imagine it wouldn't be too big an ask to say "if you want 120hz on your studio display, make sure it is pluggd into TB ports 1 & 3". They could even do a dual cable in a single jacket etc. Who knows we might someday get back to the halcyon days of Macs where you pugged your display's power cable into your Mac's power output port (anyone else remember that?).

 

[deconstruct60]

As a product design idea, I could see Apple doing a 27" Pro Motion Studio Display as a higher end model, dropping the old Studio Display to a lower price tier, and achieving the bandwidth by making it a dual input display. Not by tiling left and right, but by interlacing the signal. Gotta use that AS processor in the display for something now they're claiming their CSAM programme is halted. So attach two TB cables to the same machine, get 120hz, or attach 1 cable, get 60hz with a downstream TB port.

There is no video input on an A-series iPhone SoC. The likelihood that Apple is using an A-series as some awkward , Rube Goldberg contraption for video processing that a decent TCON ASIC could do better is dubious. The video output stream from the computer is not what the A-series is tasked with. Besides, throwing 'tiled' out the window when have a deeply tile based GPU architecture makes sense how? It does not.


Audio out and Video downstreaming (from Camera) to the computer is the targets for the A-series. Audio in coverage is also mixed in here because have to do noise cancelation. Need both sides of the Audio steam to scrub some stuff out of both. [ Eventually Apple may do some wireless KMV switching with A-series coupled to some radios . But that won't be "ProRes" level of video. ]

Apple is 'handling' the Pro Motion by holding the resolution at 5K and using compression. ProMotion on a XDR junior more so than a 'replacement' for Studio Display. ProMotion isn't always active. Enhanced, micro-LED lit, scrolling through photo/video catalog or a large pane of text is more likely the primary target than being a some 3D gaming workloads/users. 2D rather than 3D. And if Apple is also sticking with their PWM brightness control can weave that into the refresh also that could be less annoying to some folks.

It is a more affordable, closer to OLED , XDR type of monitor for what XDR was primarily targeting.

The Studio Display would not go anywhere at all on price. There is a huge gap between $1,500 and $5,100 ( XDR + VESA . Never mind the $999 Apple stand tacked on). There is plenty of space for Apple to put a $2,500-3,500 monitor into.

Third parties are going to handle the "lower than $1,400" price point with Apple having to do very little to support that. As long as there is a A-series with xGB RAM and 16-30GB of storage Apple isn't going to drive these displays into the 'lowest cost , highest volume' zone. Still basically buying a bundled AppleTV infrastructure.

Apple are happy doing port and bus diagrams on Mac Pros for how to achieve specified numbers of displays etc, I imagine it wouldn't be too big an ask to say "if you want 120hz on your studio display, make sure it is pluggd into TB ports 1 & 3".

DisplayPort 2.1 and all of that is necessary. I'm very doubtful that Apple is going to roll out some Rube Goldberg kluge right on the verge it isn't really necessary at all on newer systems..

VESA Showcases Product Demos Supporting DisplayPort 2.1 and Other High-Performance Video Standards at CES 2023 - VESA - Interface Standards for The Display Industry

VESA standards on display at CES enable unprecedented levels of video performance for gaming, media playback and content creation BEAVERTON, Ore. – January 4, 2023 – The Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA®) today announced it will showcase product demonstrations of its latest video...

vesa.org

It would be one thing if the technology didn't already exist, but it is actively being rolled out in the market now. Similarly, USB4v2 with asymmetric upload/download bandwidth to a peripheral basically removes the issue. The bandwidth is already on the current TBv4 class wire. It is dogma on strictly systemic allocation that is the blocking issue here to relatively high refresh displays. ( the pre-digested A/V coming back from the augmented Apple Display can be compressed also. )

More likely. "You have an older Mac system ??... you only get 60Hz ; No Promotion at all. But you are future proofed when you eventually do get a DP 2.1 Mac system". And " Buy our new 2023-2024+ product line up (and replace your sytsem) and get ProMotion" . If it is a much higher priced monitor than the Studio , then they are not trying to sell the monitor to the vast masses of Mac users.

The one key ingredient that is missing at the moment is a Mac that can do DP 2.1. It may miss the M2 generation , but missing at the M3 iteration , I would be surprised ( minimally as Alt DP 2.1 pass-through).


Apple leaving the "one, and only one" video input paradigm is doubtful. During the relatively brief "4K takes two inputs" Apple just avoided the issue with their own Monitors. Apple instead put lots of effort into making TBv2-3 a solution that covered that an more. "Target input for 5K iMac " kludged with a two input work around ... did not happen.

They could even do a dual cable in a single jacket etc. Who knows we might someday get back to the halcyon days of Macs where you pugged your display's power cable into your Mac's power output port (anyone else remember that?).

Back when Apple sold 60% desktops and 40% (or less) laptops. Not going back there. What will likely get is the same thing have gotten for over a decade; a docking station monitor. Monitor provides power to the Mac; not vice versa. Powering most of what Apple sells ( 70+%) laptops takes priority.

 

[Rickroller]

There is no video input on an A-series iPhone SoC. The likelihood that Apple is using an A-series as some awkward , Rube Goldberg contraption for video processing that a decent TCON ASIC could do better is dubious. The video output stream from the computer is not what the A-series is tasked with. Besides, throwing 'tiled' out the window when have a deeply tile based GPU architecture makes sense how? It does not.


Audio out and Video downstreaming (from Camera) to the computer is the targets for the A-series. Audio in coverage is also mixed in here because have to do noise cancelation. Need both sides of the Audio steam to scrub some stuff out of both. [ Eventually Apple may do some wireless KMV switching with A-series coupled to some radios . But that won't be "ProRes" level of video. ]

Apple is 'handling' the Pro Motion by holding the resolution at 5K and using compression. ProMotion on a XDR junior more so than a 'replacement' for Studio Display. ProMotion isn't always active. Enhanced, micro-LED lit, scrolling through photo/video catalog or a large pane of text is more likely the primary target than being a some 3D gaming workloads/users. 2D rather than 3D. And if Apple is also sticking with their PWM brightness control can weave that into the refresh also that could be less annoying to some folks.

It is a more affordable, closer to OLED , XDR type of monitor for what XDR was primarily targeting.

The Studio Display would not go anywhere at all on price. There is a huge gap between $1,500 and $5,100 ( XDR + VESA . Never mind the $999 Apple stand tacked on). There is plenty of space for Apple to put a $2,500-3,500 monitor into.

Third parties are going to handle the "lower than $1,400" price point with Apple having to do very little to support that. As long as there is a A-series with xGB RAM and 16-30GB of storage Apple isn't going to drive these displays into the 'lowest cost , highest volume' zone. Still basically buying a bundled AppleTV infrastructure.




DisplayPort 2.1 and all of that is necessary. I'm very doubtful that Apple is going to roll out some Rube Goldberg kluge right on the verge it isn't really necessary at all on newer systems..

VESA Showcases Product Demos Supporting DisplayPort 2.1 and Other High-Performance Video Standards at CES 2023 - VESA - Interface Standards for The Display Industry

VESA standards on display at CES enable unprecedented levels of video performance for gaming, media playback and content creation BEAVERTON, Ore. – January 4, 2023 – The Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA®) today announced it will showcase product demonstrations of its latest video...

vesa.org

It would be one thing if the technology didn't already exist, but it is actively being rolled out in the market now. Similarly, USB4v2 with asymmetric upload/download bandwidth to a peripheral basically removes the issue. The bandwidth is already on the current TBv4 class wire. It is dogma on strictly systemic allocation that is the blocking issue here to relatively high refresh displays. ( the pre-digested A/V coming back from the augmented Apple Display can be compressed also. )

More likely. "You have an older Mac system ??... you only get 60Hz ; No Promotion at all. But you are future proofed when you eventually do get a DP 2.1 Mac system". And " Buy our new 2023-2024+ product line up (and replace your sytsem) and get ProMotion" . If it is a much higher priced monitor than the Studio , then they are not trying to sell the monitor to the vast masses of Mac users.

The one key ingredient that is missing at the moment is a Mac that can do DP 2.1. It may miss the M2 generation , but missing at the M3 iteration , I would be surprised ( minimally as Alt DP 2.1 pass-through).


Apple leaving the "one, and only one" video input paradigm is doubtful. During the relatively brief "4K takes two inputs" Apple just avoided the issue with their own Monitors. Apple instead put lots of effort into making TBv2-3 a solution that covered that an more. "Target input for 5K iMac " kludged with a two input work around ... did not happen.




Back when Apple sold 60% desktops and 40% (or less) laptops. Not going back there. What will likely get is the same thing have gotten for over a decade; a docking station monitor. Monitor provides power to the Mac; not vice versa. Powering most of what Apple sells ( 70+%) laptops takes priority.

Is that bandwidth enough for 10 bit color as well…?
I was wondering why they don’t mention the capability of running 5K displays at any higher refresh rates. I was assuming they couldn’t do it with even the latest thunderbolt cables or usb 4.

 

[mattspace]

The one key ingredient that is missing at the moment is a Mac that can do DP 2.1.

Is DP 2.1 even on the horizon for a DP alternate mode in TB?

 

[basehead617]

Even if the rumors are correct it doesn’t mean there won’t be an M3 Extreme in a year or two.

It’s just as well- a lot of software especially on the pro audio side are having major growing pains transitioning to native apple silicon. I won’t be upgrading from a 7,1 this year even if it is released.

 

[deconstruct60]

Is that bandwidth enough for 10 bit color as well…?

See the Limits including compressoin and chroma subsampling here and HBR3 column (DPv1.4a ) and scroll the 5K section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Refresh_frequency_limits_for_HDR_video


120Hz DSC is absolutely required. It has to be highly compressed, but still need 57Gb/s . 1.5 * 40Gb/ = 60Gb/s. Just need another 20Gb/s. So if chop 20Gb/s off the return path to the computer and point it outbound, then would have 60Gb/s.
[edit: the 'still need 57Gb/s is on the data paths were the data has been decompressed out of DSC. So before the DSC stage on GPU display controller side and on feed data to the pixels side on the monitor side. Or over the whole TB transport if wanted to offload DSC uncompress on the monitor. Not sure why if no visual changes, but there are "princess and the pea" workloads out there. ]


DisplayPort 2.1 is pragmatically all the Thuderbolt 3/4 data going outbound and no high speed inbound at all ( 2 * 40Gb/s = 80Gb/s outbound). Exact same cables, it is the controllers in both systems on either side that have to be adjusted.


The other workaround is to just upscale at the monitor. More expensive parts in monitor but reduces the traffic (e.g., 4K 120Hz is about 33Gb/s). If the ProMotion is only working in certain workload subcontexts, the upscalers can be tweaked to work well just in that one subset. (similar compression technique as chroma subsampling; which compresses the color data. )

I was wondering why they don’t mention the capability of running 5K displays at any higher refresh rates. I was assuming they couldn’t do it with even the latest thunderbolt cables or usb 4.

It is not really the Thunderbolt transport that is the bottleneck here. It the symmetry between in/outbound data flow that is the bottleneck. Need support on both end point sides far more so than changing the cables. DisplayPort 2.1 cables are the same TBv4 cables. It is like some highways in dense cities/bridges where some of the lanes are reverse to handle in/outbound commute traffic where travel in/out in the morning/afternoon is not symmetrical. Don't need more lanes, just need adjustable directionality.

For HDR , very high refresh 5K-8K displays there is just nothing on those monitors that warrants inbound (from peripheral ) traffic at the same rate as the outbound traffic. That is the core problem issue. Even with DSC there is gobs of interframe redundant data being sent out on the outbound video stream. It is just a huge data 'pig' at HDR levels.

The basic key elements to the solution to the problem are there in the current TBv4 infrastructure. The legacy systems can't do HDR+high refresh at 5K , but some incremental adjustments to the standard and implementations will. ( take one or two 'receive from peripheral' data channels and optionally allow that 'receiver' to also 'transmit'. And vice versa on the peripheral side. )

 

[deconstruct60]

Is DP 2.1 even on the horizon for a DP alternate mode in TB?

Back in April 2020 Alt mode DPv2 was released.

DisplayPort Alt Mode 2.0 Spec Released: Defining Alt Mode for USB4

www.anandtech.com

DPv2.1 is mostly just tightening up the standards of DisplayPort v2 to be more in lock step compliance with the Type-C port. That really is only going to make Alt mode even easier not harder. There is no disconnect on the 0.1 update.
It is now closing in on 3 years later and nobody has implemented it or had time to get ready?

Thunderbolt 4 is just layered on top USB4. ( less optional and loopholes but the same baseline port stuff. )


Historically. The 2013 ( Falcon Ridge ) TB controllers added legacy mode DP mode at DisplayPort 1.2 while still only transporting DPv1.1 over Thunderbolt protocol.

New Thunderbolt Controllers (DSL4510/4410) and Future 20Gbps Falcon Ridge TB Controller Announced

www.anandtech.com

Is Intel going to do a TB4v2 (or TBv5) to match the USB4v2 versus some interium update like TB 4.1 with the alt DP 2.1 as a mandatory? Not sure if Intel will put out a new spec with a small change that is only going to last about a year before another update. It does look like what I'll call TBv5 (instead of goofy USB naming scheme) is sliding at least a year out further into the future. However, the current dGPU released by Intel has all sorts of driver problems, but does support DP v2.0

" ...
Graphics Output‡eDP* 1.4, DP 2.0 up to UHBR 10**, HDMI* 2.1, HDMI* 2.0b
..."

Intel® Arc™ A770 Graphics (16GB) Product Specifications

Intel® Arc™ A770 Graphics (16GB) quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.

ark.intel.com

Intel doesn't support the highest tier 2.1 speed (UHBR20 ) , but they are much further along adopting the leading edge DPv2.1 standards than Apple is at this point. If the Gen 14 (Meteor Lake) iGPU display output subsystem borrows from the display controller Intel has already shipped ( for example a refactored and tiled A350M as the baseline.

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/228338/intel-arc-a350m-graphics.html
)

TBv4 with a small adjustment (DPv2.1 alt mode) because not going to get TBv5 in Gen14 would be something that Intel probably would try to do. Their baseline iGPU can do 4 screens while Apple's only does 2 so following different paths.

If you already have integrated TB data protocol transmitters and receivers , then the fact that DPv2.0+ uses the same physical data transport mechanism with slightly different management layered on top means you have pretty much got a foundational start of doing DPv2.0+ anyway. Not sure why would not want to leverage the synergy if already commited to an integrated TB controller in most SoC units shipped.







then it wouldn't be surprising if there TBv4 controllers were doing DPv2.1 Alt Mode at the end of the year also.

AMD isn't dragging their feet on adopting DPv2.1 either.

 

[Mago]

ComputeModule13,1 and ComputeModule13,3

Ladies and gentleman those are likely the Mac Pro solutions over PCIe5 to address that GPU/Compute power issue: M2-pro and m2-max based compute module add on peripherals running an striped down iOS.

IMHO the Mac Pro 8,1 to arrive as an bit smaller cheesegrater 7,1 with M2-Ultra and M2 extreme options as CPU upto 4 tb ram on DDR5 ECC DIMM, and instead options for traditional GPUs besides ones part of the M2 complex, compute accelerators cards running likely overclocked m2-pro and m2-max as slave peripherals, or m2-max and M2-Ultra.

It absolutely makes sense with all the information I've been gathering and posting here.