MP All Models Everyone's complaining about the Mac Pro's 192 GB RAM limit and no video card support. Do older MPs with 1.5 TB RAM outperform it?

[mcnallym]

Um bitching an moaning (justified as you've just admitted to so not sure why youre trying to taint it by questioning it again) did work.

See: trashcan Mac-->bitching moaning-->apple multi year multi region apology tour-->2019 Mac.

Also, it just seems an awful lot like you telling us to shut up and not complain despite, admittedly, having valid cause to complain.

What apple actually said was apologies for the lack of updates to the max pro 2013 In 2017.
they believed movement to multiple GPU rather then large monolithic GPU but industry didn’t go that way and subsequently no products to put into the design as thermally constrained by the case as designed for 2 smaller GPUs.
this would be the same apple that also subtly stated that the problem with the macbook 12” with the Core M series chips was that Intel told them power/heat would be reduced and so case designed around that which why was thermally constrained when Intel didn’t get those down.
sounds kind of familiar that.

this Mac Pro 2019 took 2 years for Apple to get out, received one set of updates with new MPX modules for 6000 series AMD cards in 2021.
not seeing those 7000 series cards out yet either. Nor any sign of those NVIDIA cards or support either that Pro’s also bitched about.
hardly shown a lot of love.

podcast supposedly have an unnamed AS engineer saying M7 before Apple looking at Extreme SoC again so anyone expecting an M3 to ride to the rescue is taking soemthing a lot stronger then koolaid.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

What apple actually said was apologies for the lack of updates to the max pro 2013 In 2017.
they believed movement to multiple GPU rather then large monolithic GPU but industry didn’t go that way and subsequently no products to put into the design as thermally constrained by the case as designed for 2 smaller GPUs.
this would be the same apple that also subtly stated that the problem with the macbook 12” with the Core M series chips was that Intel told them power/heat would be reduced and so case designed around that which why was thermally constrained when Intel didn’t get those down.
sounds kind of familiar that.

this Mac Pro 2019 took 2 years for Apple to get out, received one set of updates with new MPX modules for 6000 series AMD cards in 2021.
not seeing those 7000 series cards out yet either. Nor any sign of those NVIDIA cards or support either that Pro’s also bitched about.
hardly shown a lot of love.

podcast supposedly have an unnamed AS engineer saying M7 before Apple looking at Extreme SoC again so anyone expecting an M3 to ride to the rescue is taking soemthing a lot stronger then koolaid.

Wrong, they apologized for more than lack of updates. Also for a horrible "thermal corner" and non-modular design . Promising, during their apology tour, to make the 2019 Mac a modular Mac. It was a full apology tour on all those issues and others, and addressed the bitching and moaning.

 

[kvic]

podcast supposedly have an unnamed AS engineer saying M7 before Apple looking at Extreme SoC again so anyone expecting an M3 to ride to the rescue is taking soemthing a lot stronger then koolaid.

M7 - M3 + 1....(fiddling my fingers)

that's 5yrs+ from now. In other words, about the time Intel Mac is going to lose MacOS support. In other other words, Apple Silicon will be at a 'breaking point' - either very successful or Apple need an alternative strategy for its laptop/desktop/MacPro

Talking about alternative strategy, the obvious one as people said is to abandon Mac Pro. Easiest for Apple. Harshest for its loyal users. Or as your leak source said do something great on the SoC. But I meant even the head of SoC is probably not exactly sure what he'll be doing around M7..

Talking about alternative universe, I just think it'll be so much better if laptop/desktop stay on x86_64. Apple continues to develop its iPhone SoC. Simply put the iPhone chip inside laptop/desktop as accelerators.

My current view btw is Apple is fun to be flirting around but not a lifelong partner. So take my words with a grain of salt. lol

 

[Yebubbleman]

Um bitching an moaning (justified as you've just admitted to so not sure why youre trying to taint it by questioning it again) did work.

See: trashcan Mac-->bitching moaning-->apple multi year multi region apology tour-->2019 Mac.

If you think a minority subset of Mac Pro customers (which is already a small minority of Mac customers as a whole) for whom this 2023 model does not fit the needs of is going to moan and groan loudly enough for Apple to completely change their development model and system architecture for Apple Silicon to allow for user-upgradeable GPUs and RAM, then I suspect you will be sorely disappointed.

Also, it just seems an awful lot like you telling us to shut up and not complain despite, admittedly, having valid cause to complain.

No, I'm telling you that this style of toxic "complaining" doesn't accomplish anything for you or anyone else except to alienate other forum posters and that the list of productive things you can do to react to Apple's unfortunate design decisions does not include it.

 

[mcnallym]

Wrong, they apologized for more than lack of updates. Also for a horrible "thermal corner" and non-modular design . Promising, during their apology tour, to make the 2019 Mac a modular Mac. It was a full apology tour on all those issues and others, and addressed the bitching and moaning.

Daring Fireball: The Mac Pro Lives

daringfireball.net

Who was actually there and Macrumors quoted from.

The word “mistake” was not uttered, but this is about as close as we’re going to get to Apple admitting they miscalculated with the current Mac Pro’s concept. One word that was uttered, however, was “sorry”. Here’s Schiller, after being asked whether they already had an external design in mind for the next-gen Mac Pros:

We’re not going to get into exactly what stage we’re in, just that we told the team to take the time to do something really great. To do something that can be supported for a long time with customers with updates and upgrades throughout the years. We’ll take the time it takes to do that. The current Mac Pro, as we’ve said a few times, was constrained thermally and it restricted our ability to upgrade it. And for that, we’re sorry to disappoint customers who wanted that, and we’ve asked the team to go and re-architect and design something great for the future that those Mac Pro customers who want more expandability, more upgradability in the future. It’ll meet more of those needs.

Was the apology that they gave.

Federighi:

I think we designed ourselves into a bit of a thermal corner, if you will. We designed a system with the kind of GPUs that at the time we thought we needed, and that we thought we could well serve with a two GPU architecture. That that was the thermal limit we needed, or the thermal capacity we needed. But workloads didn’t materialize to fit that as broadly as we hoped.
Being able to put larger single GPUs required a different system architecture and more thermal capacity than that system was designed to accommodate. So it became fairly difficult to adjust. At the same time, so many of our customers were moving to iMac that we saw a path to address many, many more of those that were finding themselves limited by a Mac Pro through next generation iMac. And really put a lot of our energy behind that.

Is your thermal constraint. Hardly an apology that and led onto where the iMac Pro came from.

And nowhere did they PROMISE anything. They said there were going to do something but didn't promise it which just as well. That Mac Pro came out 2 years later in 2019 and received one set of MPX modules with the 6000 series and then nothing for the 7000 and did NOTHING to peoples bitching and moaning about lack of Nvidia. Hardly "To do something that can be supported for a long time with customers with updates and upgrades throughout the years."
Somehow don't see those 7000 MPX modules coming out now, or 8000 series when AMD launch those.

 

[Romain_H]

Hardly "To do something that can be supported for a long time with customers with updates and upgrades throughout the years."

I figure that there must have been some interesting discussions within Apple

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

If you think a minority subset of Mac Pro customers (which is already a small minority of Mac customers as a whole) for whom this 2023 model does not fit the needs of is going to moan and groan loudly enough for Apple to completely change their development model and system architecture for Apple Silicon to allow for user-upgradeable GPUs and RAM, then I suspect you will be sorely disappointed.


No, I'm telling you that this style of toxic "complaining" doesn't accomplish anything for you or anyone else except to alienate other forum posters and that the list of productive things you can do to react to Apple's unfortunate design decisions does not include it.

It did for the trashcan so proof your assertion is wrong.

Of course your complaining about our complaining is totally non-toxic and effervescent. 🙄

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Daring Fireball: The Mac Pro Lives

daringfireball.net

Who was actually there and Macrumors quoted from.

The word “mistake” was not uttered, but this is about as close as we’re going to get to Apple admitting they miscalculated with the current Mac Pro’s concept. One word that was uttered, however, was “sorry”. Here’s Schiller, after being asked whether they already had an external design in mind for the next-gen Mac Pros:


Was the apology that they gave.

Federighi:


Is your thermal constraint. Hardly an apology that and led onto where the iMac Pro came from.

And nowhere did they PROMISE anything. They said there were going to do something but didn't promise it which just as well. That Mac Pro came out 2 years later in 2019 and received one set of MPX modules with the 6000 series and then nothing for the 7000 and did NOTHING to peoples bitching and moaning about lack of Nvidia. Hardly "To do something that can be supported for a long time with customers with updates and upgrades throughout the years."
Somehow don't see those 7000 MPX modules coming out now, or 8000 series when AMD launch those.

I don’t need daring fireball. There are videos of more than one instance. It included discussions of workflows and “modularity” and what that word means. Some apologists here said modularity were not slots, I said it was, they were wrong about that too. You’re wrong.

 

[Boil]

Here’s Schiller, after being asked whether they already had an external design in mind for the next-gen Mac Pros:

He should have said:

"Jony's working on something, but it's full of holes..."

;^p

 

[splifingate]

I figure that there must have been some interesting discussions within Apple

Understatement noted

 

[blackquartz]

I don’t think it’s relevant to complain about the Mac Pro anymore since the product turned out dead on arrival for any reasonable person. This is fact.

Apple is now a mobile processor only company and that’s that. Professionals looking for a competent computer just should look elsewhere. The faster we come to terms with that I think the better.

Personally I’m going to keep my 7,1 and keep upgrading till It’s the end of the line. Some moron arguing over the internet why 192 gb of shared memory is better than 1.5TB ECC Memory while funny got me tired sooner than expected.

 

[hovscorpion12]

I don’t think it’s relevant to complain about the Mac Pro anymore since the product turned out dead on arrival for any reasonable person. This is fact.

Apple is now a mobile processor only company and that’s that. Professionals looking for a competent computer just should look elsewhere. The faster we come to terms with that I think the better.

Personally I’m going to keep my 7,1 and keep upgrading till It’s the end of the line. Some moron arguing over the internet why 192 gb of shared memory is better than 1.5TB ECC Memory while funny got me tired sooner than expected.

Granted, the only advantage of the 192GB RAM over the 1.5TB is the memory speed. The 1.5TB runs at 2933 MHz whereas the 192GB RAM runs at 6,400 MT/s LPDDR5 SDRAM.

Obviously, 100% of users will choose speed over size all day, every day.

 

[ChrisA]

Granted, the only advantage of the 192GB RAM over the 1.5TB is the memory speed. The 1.5TB runs at 2933 MHz whereas the 192GB RAM runs at 6,400 MT/s LPDDR5 SDRAM.

Obviously, 100% of users will choose speed over size all day, every day.

Yes, losing that (inches-long) memory bus and the expansion sockets about doubles the speed.

The way you compute average access speed is to multiply the access time by the probability the data you need is in that memory. So with a multi-level cache, the speed is...

cache speed, tie cache probability plus RAM speed times RAM probability plus swap file speed times the probability is swapped out.

All the probabilities must always add to 100% but you can make RAM larger so there is zero chance the data is swapped or you can make the swap so darn fast that it does not matter if it is swapped. Then we have a few L1 and L2 caches of different speeds and sizes.

But our blogger-experts never know any of this, they NEVER run the numbers and only talk about RAM size. Size is only an issue because it can affect some of the probability numbers in the above equation.


That said, I agree. Apple is a cell phone company and they are putting processors derived from cell phone chips in their computers. If you need some heavy lifting computation, that means processing that takes hours or days then go with Amazon, Google, or Azure cloud servers. Their servers cost more than most new cars and you can get time on them for just a few bucks. Or for free if you need less than 100 hours per month.