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.
Concerns About an Apple Silicon Mac Pro
- Thread starter RedTheReader
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because exploring these possibilities is intellectually stimulating and also fun?
I agree that we'll know more when the iMac Pro releases hopefully soon and hopefully in all of its configurations (dual dies if its going to have them). I think it's likely to launch around $2.3-2.6K depending on base configurations. But you're paying a lot for the screen, which a Mac Pro won't have and if they share the same processor on the high end for the iMac and the low end for the Mac Pro ... I don't see the current relationship between the devices staying the same. Remember the iMac Pro itself started at 5K. Now the 27" iMac and iMac Pro are the same device category.
R&D is fixed cost and while individual units may be highly profitable per build material, everything when measured against fixed cost is profit over time. That's simply inescapable.
Apple generally keeps chassis around a few generations before moving on. Mac Pros are obviously a little different since, at least in recent times, they've been updated so infrequently. I wasn't suggesting that Apple users will throw their current Mac Pros out if there is no upgrade path, but rather for those pros who need or want an upgrade in the next few years may not have one and if they don't see support from Apple will eventually switch to something that will provide them what they need. Mac Pros are kept for awhile so you are correct that there isn't an immediate concern here but rather Apple has been more aware cognizant of not sending signals to Pros that they are abandoning them. And again, to me Apple is signaling they want to grow back their business here as much as they can.
I'll admit that one of the rumors of an updated Intel Mac Pro was from inside Intel. So wishful thinking may apply there.
But others have mooted the same rumor. That’s true about the iMac there was a update in August though technically the transition hadn’t started then but had been announced. However, the first new Intel Mac rumors started pretty soon after in January of 2021 and have continued with further sources and lines of evidence. The combination of 3 lines of evidence (Bloomberg, Intel, and Xcode) makes it likely even if not a certainty,
If you mean a configuration that has two M1 Max SoCs linked together, then yes...
If you mean two separate M1 Max SoCs on one main logic board, then no, that would likely break the whole UMA thing...
Sure, but if it's the M1 Max then they can't stop at just two dies. The 32-core GPU on the Max is a little over 10 teraflops and the equivalent of a Vega 56 / GeForce 2080. If Apple wants to get anywhere near BTO options of the 7,1, they're going to need a lot more processing power. (For comparison, a 128-core setup would be roughly the equivalent of a Radeon Pro W6900x)
Yeah, Apple did it before, but that was an entirely different architecture, one not dependent on the UMA configuration...
Some say that two M1 Max SoCs are all that is able to be interconnected, retaining the whole UMA thing...
Might be part of the reason Apple may have one final update/refresh to the 2019 Intel Mac Pro; allowing them to put out a Dual M1 Max configured ASi Mac Pro (Cube) to "complete the transition", while still offering the current "power level" that the 2019 Mac Pro has...
A follow-up at WWDC 2023/24 with more powerful M2/M3 Max SoCs (looking at you GPU cores) should allow Apple to surpass the 2022 Intel Mac Pro (Tower)...
I eagerly await a Spring 2022 Event for a M1 Max-powered Mac mini, but I also am excited to see what is revealed come WWDC 2022...!
Absolutely agree, but if the concern they voiced was “Apple wants to make their R&D money back” my thinking is they’ve already done that.R&D is fixed cost and while individual units may be highly profitable per build material, everything when measured against fixed cost is profit over time. That's simply inescapable.
In my mind, this has two parts. One, right, any pro that needs an update is just going to wait until one is suitable for them. So, the M1 Mac Pro doesn’t have to suite everyone’s need in he same way that the first M1 MBP didn’t have to. Second, I’m strongly of the opinion that any pro STILL using a Mac now are doing so because they have an OS or App preference they can afford to indulge. Sure, a PC based Adobe Premiere system may be cheaper and still get the job done, but it’s no FCP. If they’ve stayed with Apple through the last two Mac Pro systems, they’re poised to wait as long as it takes for Apple to create the next system they want to buy.
The first clear indication of an Apple Silicon Mac for me came out of Intel, so this holds more weight for me. Working in a big company, you may not have access to all the contractual details, but you do have access to some non-privileged data that shows things like a predicted shortfall in sales that, coincidentally, just so happens to be roughly the same as the payments we get from Apple. If some lower level person is aware of them following the same release processes as they did for a chip they’d previously released first for Apple (didn’t even show up in Intel’s database until after Apple’s announcement) then there may be some merit there.I'll admit that one of the rumors of an updated Intel Mac Pro was from inside Intel. So wishful thinking may apply there.
Technically it had started . The device is literally entitled “Transition Kit” . How could it not be part of the transition ?
Developers Begin Receiving Mac Mini With A12Z Chip to Prepare Apps for Apple Silicon Macs
As part of WWDC last week, Apple announced that it will be switching to its own custom-designed processors for Macs starting later this year. As part...
www.macrumors.com
if there folks outside of Apple running macOS on a system they got from Apple ….. then the transi started . What you are talking about is random ‘Joe’ buying one. That’s a convenient move the goal post because increasing looking like Apple won’t have a fig leaf to wave at completion until Fall ( likely coinciding with macOS13 )
not entirely . The two box line up was more early outlined here in January .
Apple Working on Two New Mac Pro Desktops, One of Which Will Be Reminiscent of Power Mac G4 Cube
Apple is developing two versions of the Mac Pro to succeed the Mac Pro that was first released in December 2019, according to a new report from...
www.macrumors.com
but the notion that Apple silicon version wasn’t going to go past “half size” started pretty much after shipping of M1 Macs started .
Apple Working on Redesigned Mac Pro With Smaller Form Factor and Apple Silicon Chip
As part of the transition to Apple Silicon, Apple is designing a new Mac Pro that has a smaller form factor, reports Bloomberg. The new Mac Pro is...
www.macrumors.com
it has been clear that at best was going to reuse the name “Mac Pro” on a product and not doing a direct replacement in terms of possible utility . With a substantive gap in product coverage that implicitly opened the door for two . The other Nov leeks that hinted at just using a baseline design for laptop and scaling it up chiplet/tile style further opened door that wasn’t going to make a direct replacement SoC ( to W-3000 ) so it would be a gap where Apple wasn’t making something better. Something differrent but not directly better.
The more rumors drifted from “mainly styled like the Mac Pro “ to Cube/NexT cube retrospectives and 3 stacked Mini proportions even more opened door .
Last edited:
Price drops? Let's do some actual math....
21" and 27" iMac
2017 $1,299 $1,799
Apple Refreshes 21.5-Inch and 27-Inch iMacs With Brighter Displays, Kaby Lake Processors, and Faster Storage
Apple has announced a few new iMac models at WWDC today, which the company said include the best Mac displays ever with 500 nits of brightness and...
www.macrumors.com
[ note the non-Retain $1099 ]
2019 $1299 $1,799
Apple Updates iMac Lineup With Up to 8-Core 9th-Gen Intel Processors and Radeon Pro Vega Graphics Options
Nearly two years have passed since Apple last refreshed the iMac, but updates are finally here for both 4K and 5K models. Apple today announced...
www.macrumors.com
( non-Retina still stale at $1,099 ]
2021 M1 (two ports ) $1,299
[ note if do not backslide on ports then $1,499 ]
Overall system pricing change $0
( and + $200 if the non-retina is an option or if do not want to backslide on ports with Retina screen )
Mini
2014 $499
2018 $799
2020 M1 $699 ( backslide on ports and number of screens )
Overall historical chage + $200 ( get a -$100 if only doing last iteration ).
[ Still hasn't replacedd "upper end" Mini that starts at $1099. If that removes the backslide on
ports and screen count then also basically next increase at that non-reduced feature set. ]
Macbook 13" (regular and/or two ports )
2017 $1,299
MacBook Pro "Core i5" 2.3 13" Mid-2017 Specs (Mid-2017 13", MPXQ2LL/A*, MacBookPro14,1, A1708, 3164): EveryMac.com
Technical specifications for the MacBook Pro "Core i5" 2.3 13" Mid-2017. Dates sold, processor type, memory info, hard drive details, price and more.
2020 $1,299
MacBook Pro "Core i5" 1.4 13" 2020 2 TB 3 Specs (2020 13" (2 TB 3), MXK62LL/A*, MacBookPro16,3, A2289, 3456): EveryMac.com
Technical specifications for the MacBook Pro "Core i5" 1.4 13" 2020 2 TB 3. Dates sold, processor type, memory info, hard drive details, price and more.
2020 M1 $1,299
Overall system pricee change $0.00
MacBook 13-14" (touchbar and/or four ports )
2018 four port $1,799
Apple Launches 2018 MacBook Pros: 8th Gen Core, Up to 32GB of RAM, Third-Gen Keyboard, Quad-Core on 13-Inch and More
Apple today announced the release of 2018 MacBook Pro with Touch Bar models with a wide range of new features, including up to six-core...
www.macrumors.com
2019 four port $1,799
Apple Debuts New 8-Core MacBook Pro With Updated Keyboard
Apple today announced the surprise launch of new 13 and 15-inch MacBook Pro models, which are the fastest Mac notebooks ever at the top of the line....
www.macrumors.com
2020 four ports $1,799
New 13-Inch MacBook Pro Announced With Magic Keyboard, 10th-Gen Processors, Up to 32GB RAM and 4TB SSD, and More
Apple today announced a new 13-inch MacBook Pro with a more reliable Magic Keyboard, faster 10th-generation Intel processor options, up to 80 percent...
www.macrumors.com
2022 M1 Pro 14" $1,999
Overall system price change +$200
MacBook 15-16"
2018 15" four ports $2,399
[ see 2018 13" link above ]
2019 15" four ports $2,399
[ see 2019 13" link above ]
2019 16" four ports $2,399
16-Inch MacBook Pro Debuts With New Magic Keyboard, Physical Esc Key, Up to 64GB of RAM, and More
Apple today announced its much-rumored high-end 16-inch MacBook Pro, which is the largest MacBook Pro that's been offered for sale since the...
www.macrumors.com
2022 M1 Pro 16" $2,499
Overall system price change +$100
So have a zero , maybe -$100 , zero , +200 , +100 ... that averages out to +$40 overall system increase for M-series updates so far .
M-series has not even closely lead to substantive overall system price reductions. Prices are actually increasing.
There is also been no new historically low price for a Mini either. ( that low mark is $499 )
To weave some Mac Pro context in here. The entry model has the equivalent of a W-3223 in there.
W-3223 $749
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...eon-w3223-processor-16-5m-cache-3-50-ghz.html
Apple usually slaps at least a 25% mark up on components so $940 so the CPU. Overall entry system price $5,999 . So the CPU is roughly just 16% of the cost driving that base price. So even if went to a 20% cheaper CPU that wouldn't bend the curve much ( talking a couple of $100 change on a $6K system.) . That isn't even close to getting the system back into the mid $3K range; still basically $2K off.
There is probably a $400-700 "low volume tax" built into the price of the MP 2019. Creating a chassis that can handle the quad option when it arrives at the relatively very high price point it likely will come in at ... that also will probably incur a "Low volume tax" by Apple. Especially if it has "Mac Pro" product name.
TO get close to $3K Apple will likely be tossing out power supply capacity , slots , PLEX pci-e switches , modular RAM , module GPUs , etc. which is where that roughly $5,000 charge for was in the MP 2019. Have to through out "half" of all that stuff to get down to a base chassis price of $2,500 (so if add a $940 SoC back into that and yeah then at around $3.5K ). [ Goes back to my point. If there is a $700 gap between M1 Pro binned and full M1 Max the double Max SoC is likley going to be closer to $1,400 than to $940. Apple has already established how much they think their CPU and GPU cores are worth on a "per core" basis. It is high. ]
Chuckle. In 2017, the Mini was almost as ancient as the Mac Pro. 2014 versus 2013 ( only 3 years old versus 4 years old. Both of them were comatose in terms of upgrades. ). Apple knew they didn't have a market competitive Mini in 2017, so they didn't claim that it was.
So no Apple obviously wasn't pitching a 3 year old , out of data , non competitive desktop to the state of the art in 2017. That would have been even more ridiculous as then the "can't innovate my ass" statement in 2013.
In 2017 the "Mac Pro" and "Mini" forums on macrumors had racing megathread (more than several thousand entries ) topics moaning and groaning about why can't Apple do an upgrade to the product. ( just throw a revised board in the 2012 MP chassis and be done with it. just put a new mobile CPU in the Mini. ). Sprinkled in the mini "moan and groan" threads periodically would be the "why can't they just put a dGPU in the Mini like they do with the iMac " (i.e., folks complaining that the Mini was "GPU starved" ).
In 2018 Apple cranked up the Thermal capacity o the Mini and ta-da put a desktop ( although BGA mounted ) processor in the Mini and the marketing all of a sudden changed. "Sherman set the wayback machine to October 2018 "
Mac mini
Mac mini gets the update of a lifetime, with faster processors, upgradable memory, all-flash storage, Thunderbolt 3, HDMI 2.0, and 10Gb Ethernet.
web.archive.org
The Mini is described as
" ..... Part racehorse. All workhorse ...
....
I/O , I/O it is off to work you go ....
....
Build Render Farms ... Xcode Server ... Live Performance
..."
Minis deployed as web/network services roles in the 10's of thousands was already true in 2018 before this update arrived. This 2018 update was a better uplift in that capability and Apple directly pitched it. And those deployments have ticked substantively up. [ the notion that they were only pushing "mini pro" because the "new Mac Pro" was late is likely deeply flawed. Users were already going that way if Apple would just put some work into the system updates. ]
More expensive was likely as big a contributor than "hotter". The MBP 15" didn't have a problem with getting quad core upgrades in the 2014-2018 timeframe. Apple just put more effort into the laptops. And the other issue was that the "minimals" on the laptops were changing over the to the T-series. Apple was also likely waiting for the T2 to get cheaper to put into the mini. ( already paid for R&D and more trailing edge process node ).
That wasn't some "moon landing complexity" type problem to increase the thermal capacity of the system More so just cheaper to not put in the work (in parallel with the iMac and laptops changes they were doing. )
Mainly that is just misdirection. Doesn't matter that the laptop market is up
bigger and more than the iPhone market is bigger. The folks who actually want desktop is larger than the whole Mac market.
At a 200M per year run rate. Even if desktops and workstations are 20% of the market that is still 40M units. Bigger than the whole Mac space. If Apple gets 10% of that 4M is still a lot of systems. The real question is the "smaller" market still large enough to be worth the effort for Apple'. The Mini is if they don't artificially cripple the system.
The Mini in the past has been handicapped in part to limit iMac fratricide. (e.g. iMac goes desktop processors around 2008-2009 and mini capped to laptops. That is a choice. ) . Apple also doesn't have to put any effort into having a monitor product if iMacs are 60-80% sales. It is cheaper for them. That isn't particularly market analysis driven. That is more a side-effect of where Apple 'herded' the products. Even with the handicap it still worked out to big enough to get some market traction (e.g., bigger than Mac Pro).
Apple has opened the 'door' a bit wider with the M1 Mini being a headless MBA/low end MBP/iMac 24". If that sells more M1's and gets better economies of scale on the M1 they are probably open to that shift because reaping better overall component costs.
For an upper Mini M1 Pro/Max Mini as headless MBP 14" / MPB 16" / iMac Pro (for most of iMP volume unit range) pretty good chance similar trade-off although they likely will be more sensitive to drop in miniLED panel sales. Decent chance they will uplift the "Mini Pro" price point so that keep the fratricide levels lower than in the 'plain' M1 space. However again, if the "Mini Pro" can crank up the economies of scale for the M1 Pro/Max SoC cost recovery and profit generation it is probably a net win for Apple.
Very good chance Apple is going to attack the lower parts of the "classic" Mac Pro user base with a better Mini just as much as with a MBP 14/16" and iMac Pro. The "integrated monitor haters" will easily be able to use the Mini as an option. apple has kept that user in the Mac ecosystem. Do even have to do a general market , cost competitive monitor peripheral(s) to do it.
Mac Pro is probably going to have similar or higher "fratricide lowering" buffer away from the iMac and MBP 16" products. Simply starting with a twice/four times as expensive SoC do that all by itself but there are likely other chassis price bumps that they will add. Going to be missing on economies of scale for these bigger SoCs.
If Apple is shooting for literal desktop though , that bigger box may more so turn into a taller Mini than something with real solid Mac Pro lineage to it . One of the key factors for this top end is whether is dogma locked into "can't be bigger footprint than a classic Mini". One of the contributing factors that sent them down the MP 2013 rabbit hole. Folks was 100% dedicated workspaces probably aren't as rigidly connected to that dogma as Apple presumed back in 2011-12 when laying out the MP 2013.
Price drops? Let's do some actual math....
21" and 27" iMac
2017 $1,299 $1,799
Apple Refreshes 21.5-Inch and 27-Inch iMacs With Brighter Displays, Kaby Lake Processors, and Faster Storage
Apple has announced a few new iMac models at WWDC today, which the company said include the best Mac displays ever with 500 nits of brightness and...
[ note the non-Retain $1099 ]
2019 $1299 $1,799
Apple Updates iMac Lineup With Up to 8-Core 9th-Gen Intel Processors and Radeon Pro Vega Graphics Options
Nearly two years have passed since Apple last refreshed the iMac, but updates are finally here for both 4K and 5K models. Apple today announced...
( non-Retina still stale at $1,099 ]
2021 M1 (two ports ) $1,299
[ note if do not backslide on ports then $1,499 ]
Overall system pricing change $0
( and + $200 if the non-retina is an option or if do not want to backslide on ports with Retina screen )
Mini
2014 $499
2018 $799
2020 M1 $699 ( backslide on ports and number of screens )
Overall historical chage + $200 ( get a -$100 if only doing last iteration ).
[ Still hasn't replacedd "upper end" Mini that starts at $1099. If that removes the backslide on
ports and screen count then also basically next increase at that non-reduced feature set. ]
Macbook 13" (regular and/or two ports )
2017 $1,299
MacBook Pro "Core i5" 2.3 13" Mid-2017 Specs (Mid-2017 13", MPXQ2LL/A*, MacBookPro14,1, A1708, 3164): EveryMac.com
Technical specifications for the MacBook Pro "Core i5" 2.3 13" Mid-2017. Dates sold, processor type, memory info, hard drive details, price and more.everymac.com
2020 $1,299
MacBook Pro "Core i5" 1.4 13" 2020 2 TB 3 Specs (2020 13" (2 TB 3), MXK62LL/A*, MacBookPro16,3, A2289, 3456): EveryMac.com
Technical specifications for the MacBook Pro "Core i5" 1.4 13" 2020 2 TB 3. Dates sold, processor type, memory info, hard drive details, price and more.everymac.com
2020 M1 $1,299
Overall system pricee change $0.00
MacBook 13-14" (touchbar and/or four ports )
2018 four port $1,799
Apple Launches 2018 MacBook Pros: 8th Gen Core, Up to 32GB of RAM, Third-Gen Keyboard, Quad-Core on 13-Inch and More
Apple today announced the release of 2018 MacBook Pro with Touch Bar models with a wide range of new features, including up to six-core...
2019 four port $1,799
Apple Debuts New 8-Core MacBook Pro With Updated Keyboard
Apple today announced the surprise launch of new 13 and 15-inch MacBook Pro models, which are the fastest Mac notebooks ever at the top of the line....
2020 four ports $1,799
New 13-Inch MacBook Pro Announced With Magic Keyboard, 10th-Gen Processors, Up to 32GB RAM and 4TB SSD, and More
Apple today announced a new 13-inch MacBook Pro with a more reliable Magic Keyboard, faster 10th-generation Intel processor options, up to 80 percent...
2022 M1 Pro 14" $1,999
Overall system price change +$200
MacBook 15-16"
2018 15" four ports $2,399
[ see 2018 13" link above ]
2019 15" four ports $2,399
[ see 2019 13" link above ]
2019 16" four ports $2,399
16-Inch MacBook Pro Debuts With New Magic Keyboard, Physical Esc Key, Up to 64GB of RAM, and More
Apple today announced its much-rumored high-end 16-inch MacBook Pro, which is the largest MacBook Pro that's been offered for sale since the...
2022 M1 Pro 16" $2,499
Overall system price change +$100
So have a zero , maybe -$100 , zero , +200 , +100 ... that averages out to +$40 overall system increase for M-series updates so far .
M-series has not even closely lead to substantive overall system price reductions. Prices are actually increasing.
There is also been no new historically low price for a Mini either. ( that low mark is $499 )
To weave some Mac Pro context in here. The entry model has the equivalent of a W-3223 in there.
W-3223 $749
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...eon-w3223-processor-16-5m-cache-3-50-ghz.html
Apple usually slaps at least a 25% mark up on components so $940 so the CPU. Overall entry system price $5,999 . So the CPU is roughly just 16% of the cost driving that base price. So even if went to a 20% cheaper CPU that wouldn't bend the curve much ( talking a couple of $100 change on a $6K system.) . That isn't even close to getting the system back into the mid $3K range; still basically $2K off.
There is probably a $400-700 "low volume tax" built into the price of the MP 2019. Creating a chassis that can handle the quad option when it arrives at the relatively very high price point it likely will come in at ... that also will probably incur a "Low volume tax" by Apple. Especially if it has "Mac Pro" product name.
TO get close to $3K Apple will likely be tossing out power supply capacity , slots , PLEX pci-e switches , modular RAM , module GPUs , etc. which is where that roughly $5,000 charge for was in the MP 2019. Have to through out "half" of all that stuff to get down to a base chassis price of $2,500 (so if add a $940 SoC back into that and yeah then at around $3.5K ). [ Goes back to my point. If there is a $700 gap between M1 Pro binned and full M1 Max the double Max SoC is likley going to be closer to $1,400 than to $940. Apple has already established how much they think their CPU and GPU cores are worth on a "per core" basis. It is high. ]
There are a couple of flaws in your analyses that when addressed bring it closer in line to mine:
1) Not all of these are directly comparable machines especially the further back you go. An M1 might be the equivalent of an i3 in the product stack to Apple but in raw computational power is far more. Further much of the internals and other features change along with the device. Some of that is march of technology but some is the lower cost of the previous device and a different relationship to the rest of the product stack (more on this further below). A trivial and relevant example is that for the laptops and iMacs, the screen as much if not more than the processor determines the price. You even noted that for the non-retina vs retina Intel Macs. Still Intel, more expensive screen. The increase in price for the M1 Pro/Max is almost certainly due to mini-LED screens. Put those screens on the Intel models, price goes up by at least as much and probably *more*. Almost every reviewer gave the M1 devices for being far better price to value than the previous models while noting that trade offs do exist with ports/multi screen setups for some of them (and are better for others!).
2) This is a more minor point but: inflation exists.
For example: the 2014 revision was the last Mac mini base model at that price point. Even today with no other changes that's $600 from inflation alone and then see 1). And while yes some of these stayed the same price during their run, continuing on with our example if you bought it in 2017 before the launch of the 2018 revision which increased the base price along with the base specs of the internals, you bought it with outdated tech at the same price as the three years previous. That's a worse deal, not a better one. Both of these are why you have to compare to immediate predecessors not what the device cost 7+ years ago.From this, let's reanalyze the changes: It's true I missed the right price for the 13" MBP. So that's a 0. However, the reason I missed it is because I was looking at the wrong model and that's because the M1 version is a drop in replacement for both the i5 and i7 versions of that machine (unlike the M1 Mac Mini which is why Apple still sells it) which gets back to point 1). Similarly I did the same for the Air which again starts at the same base $999 point but for an incredibly different power class of base chip. In each case it's being incredibly generous to the old Intel models to say that the computer the M1 version replaces is the base chip.
So its 0 (Air), 0 (13" MBP), 0 (24" iMac), -100 (Mini), +200 (14" MBP), +100 (16" MBP)
So $33 increase where the biggest change is in screen prices due to mini-led and ignores that the base processor now replaces the whole or at least the majority of the processor stack. This is where the comparison really favor the M-series chips in terms of price to value.
It also trickles up. The new "iMac Pros" are essentially going to be iMacs and the new smaller Mac Pros will be a new category they haven't sold in a long, long time. The best comparison therefore to determine what it's price will be is relative to the machines currently being sold.
So let's look at it:
1) Modular/ECC DDR5 RAM - yeah probably gone IMO. That will make RAM upgrades more expensive (for those who didn't BTO with Apple). So this is sort of a less but also more expensive part if the machine is how I envision it - lower starting price for RAM, but maybe expensive to go up the stack. However, we'll see how RAM upgrades are priced as I have to admit the price from 32 to 64GB of RAM is shockingly reasonable at $400 - though the price increases for 8->16->32 transitions are less so.
2) PCIe/MPX slots - reduced as GPUs won't be on offer (but still present! internal expansion will not going away). This is where the biggest savings in (physical) volume will come from,
3) Power Supply/Thermals - a quad die M1 Max pulls ~400W. The old Mac Pro could have a 200W CPU + 4 GPUs. Even the BTO could have 2 400W GPUs. The new one won't be built with the same power or thermals in mind. Again, this where some of the reduction in (physical) volume comes from.
Basically I'm suggesting that the new smaller Mac Pro will be closer in price and (sales) volume to a standard (high-end) desktop solution rather than the old Mac Pro. So when we look at the prices of the current M1 chips, my earlier analysis holds. $4000 is an upper bound estimate but possible, $3500 is a lower bound for 64GB, but possible. $3600 or $3700 is more likely. If they offer a 32GB option, $3600 becomes an upper bound estimate for the base price.
I took so long to post that you made a similar point to I did ... but basically this where I'm at, I'm just leaning a little harder on it and reducing the "low volume" tax because I don't think Apple is going to design such a low volume system.
It's going to be more of a hybrid - there will still be (non-GPU) Mac Pro internal PCIe expandability since they won't make that mistake again, but this smaller Mac Pro will also be a taller Mac mini in some ways. And a Mac Mini that is attacking from the other will make it difficult to raise the price *too* high on the smaller Mac Pro. We'll see what the new Mac minis and iMacs look like, what they're priced at, and then we'll have better estimates. I guessing we'll know ~March give or take?
Last edited:
Please, just stop.
Mac Pros are positioned for REAL pros. If you don't want the choice to swap parts as needed for your job or is concerned with power consumption or thermals just buy a Mac Mini, please and leave the people editing blockbusters alone.
Please just stop with the "REAL Pros" nonsensical term. Everybody uses computers in different ways. If we're going to be gatekeepers, then I could just as easily argue that "Real" pros use dumb terminals to powerful clusters next to which workstations are underpowered and it’s not even close.
Further you are misunderstanding @sirio76 's point: the point of the Apple processors is that you can have the power and the power efficiency and that has knock-on effects that even for a desktop/workstation system are nice to have even if not as important as for laptops, mobile, and server. That said, to be fair to Nvidia's GPU designers, Samsung 8nm is ... not a great node relative to TSMC N5 - worse than Intel 7 and TSMC 7 (AMD CPUs). So relative to Apple's N5-produced GPU I'd agree that it has a big efficiency deficit from manufacturing.
However, the modularity of the system is a different question and for those that need ... or at least want it ... unfortunately the new, smaller Mac Pros will likely be less modular in terms of CPU/GPU/RAM just by the nature of being an SOC. Maybe Apple has a solution here, I've seen several posited, but honestly none of them seem ... right. Other PCIe type add-ins and modularity will likely be okay. My guess is that the new machines will be closer in many respects to an HEDT system than a workstation - or a hybrid of the two. Apple is rumored to be updating the Intel Mac Pro with Ice Lake Xeons, so we'll see if that happens soon.
Last edited:
The "RAM roof" with LPDDR5 seems to be a big issue for some; 64GB with a single M1 Max SoC, 128GB with a dual M1 Max SoC, and 256GB with a quad M1 Max SoC...
LPDDR5X RAM is "on the way", offering 64GB chips to replace the 16GB chips on the M1 Max SoCs; along with a 33% speed increase & a 20% reduction in power consumption; these chips would allow up to 512GB RAM for a dual SoC configuration & up to 1TB of RAM for a quad SoC configuration...!
But will it "arrive" in time for Apple to use with the freshman ASi Mac Pro (Cube)...?!?
It does seem that introducing the first ASi Mac Pro (Cube) with LPDDR5X RAM would be a defining feature, but the upgrade (at time of purchase) cost for maximum RAM capacity could also be a (negative) defining feature...!
I estimate a single full-die (no reduced GPU cores) M1 Max SoC with 64GB LPDDR5 RAM to be about US$2k, this is JUST for the SoC & RAM; upgrading to maximum amount of LPDDR5X RAM would increase this by US$3k, for a total cost of a single M1 Max SoC & 256GB of LPDDR5X RAM at US$5k...
So a maxed out ASi Mac Pro (Cube); quad M1 Max SoCs, 40-core CPU (32P/8E), 128-core GPU, 1TB LPDDR5X RAM, & 8TB SSD would run around US$25k; which really is not too bad...?!?
Let's remove the quad M1 Max SoC configuration from the mix, as it has been noted that the M1 Max SoC die appears to be set-up to only do duals, not quads; one would assume quads (and maybe even an 8-way configuration...?) will be available with M2/M3 Max SoC offerings...?
If limited to a dual M1 Max SoC configuration, the top-of-the-line ASi Dual M1 Max-powered Mac Pro (Cube) would run about US$15k; still not a bad deal for 20-core CPU (16P/4E), 64-core GPU, 512GB LPDDR5X RAM, & 8TB SSD...?
Yeah with new lpDDR5x and HBM3e Apple might be able to solve the RAM roof issue down the line without resorting to some of the more complex solutions - of course still BTO only, no (easy) aftermarket changes. But you’re also right that it’s unclear when those will actually be available. You’re also right that we don’t know when the 40 core CPU, 128 core GPU machines will be available. Some may say M1 at the end of the year, others say no.
The other issue with the full M1 Mac Pro is the GPU: no hardware acceleration for ray tracing, no hardware acceleration for FP64, no GPU matrix (Tensor cores). Their competition will have all that so those markets that rely on those will be poorly served. So waiting until they do have some of that (RAM, GPU feature parity) themselves makes sense, but would leave a gap.
This is one of the reasons why Apple might be keeping an Intel Mac Pro around for another generation if they actually do it.
It’s going to be interesting …
Apple simply doesn’t ship matrix units as part of the GPU, they are a separate accelerator instead. So it’s not like they are not available. It’s a shame they can’t be programmed directly though…
Your post is so pointless that I don’t know where to start from... you have totally miss the point..
I do know several people working on Hollywood blockbuster right now and they just use the computer they have in the studio (and it’s not always a super powerful modular system..), they don’t swap components or upgrade anything especially by their self, most of the time the machine they work with are simply changed after a couple years, is not very common to upgrade components unless it’s really needed.
I have a 4 years old son and I‘m trying to do my small part to save resources and leave him the planet in the best possible conditions, so yes I do care about power consumption (no matter if comes from my desktop or my fridge or my car) and if you are not concerned about planet resources then you are short-sighted (or perhaps you enjoy to live in a world full of crap).
For the record I own a 7.1 MacPro and my next machine will still be a MacPro, and for what it worth my colleagues around the world consider me a pro (the most pointless term ever existed.. mostly abused by non pro users..)
Last edited:
My Google-Fu is failing - what’s the throughput on it? My impression is that it’s more general purpose matrix multiplication, more flexible than Tensor cores, but much less throughput on the FP16, mixed precision workloads ML targets on GPU tensor cores.
Yeah it is a pity about direct programmability of them, hopefully ARM v9/A16 will see a convergence and Apple (or more correctly ARM and Apple) will allow it. I know Dougall RE’d it and the ARMv 9 spec is out right, do you know how close they are?
Last edited:
So apparently the latest rumor is that the next chip up from the Max will have 12 cores … huh …
Extremely cut down down duo … cut down duo but it’s 12 *performance* cores not 12 cores total … or totally new die? The last option seems expensive …
I don’t see any links to the code snippet he is talking about.
Extremely cut down down duo … cut down duo but it’s 12 *performance* cores not 12 cores total … or totally new die? The last option seems expensive …
I don’t see any links to the code snippet he is talking about.
Last edited:
When we talk about the cost of these chips, all that matters is die area. The upfront fixed cost of generating the masks (chip design, etc.) is limited by the SoC design methodology, and dwarfed by the volume of these things they will end up selling (Apple is very good about taking today’s high end design and leveraging it for future lower end products).
If the above is real, it would still fit with rumors/reports of a 20-core & 40-core CPU (dual & quad M1 Max SoCs), it would just be that the CPU core counts were for the Performance cores alone, not counting the Efficiency cores in the reported core count numbers...?
M1 Max - 10-core CPU (8P/2E)
Dual M1 Max - 20-core CPU (16P/4E)
Quad M1 Max - 40-core CPU (32P/8E)
M1 Max Plus - 12-core CPU (10P/2E)
Dual M1 Max Plus - 24-core CPU (20P/4E)
Quad M1 Max Plus - 48-core CPU (40P/8E)
Makes one wonder if Apple might intend to push the limit of how big a SoC they can produce, adding more GPU cores as well; maybe the added cores are Ray Tracing specific...? ;^p
Does anyone know how the base Pro chip is binned? 6+2. Is it one P core from each cluster? We know the fully enabled CPU on the current dies is two P clusters of 4 and one E cluster of 2 so a twelve core CPU could also be two dies with a full P cluster disabled for an 8+4 configuration. Of course it could be a brand new die and @cmaier suggests that still practical. If it’s a new die then I’d definitely go with a 10+2 arrangement (2 P cluster of 5), but if it’s dual die I could see 10+2 or 8+4. I’d lean towards 10+2 though. That makes more sense to me product stack wise.