To be what? To be incompatible with arm64 macOS software, because it would be the only Mac without unified memory.
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.
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?
- Thread starter izzy0242mr
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That’s not their problem, it’s Apple’s.
Why would a composer like Neil Parfitt (the guy in the video) need extensive graphics or cpu performance? It's obvious that he needs massive amounts of RAM to hold orchestral sample libraries, but having better/expandable graphics offers no benefit here.
OP...are you aware the 2019 Mac Pro can be configured with other memory amounts between 192GB and 1.5TB?
That's what minority of Mac Pro users are bringing up... "no i9", "no 4090" = sucks/no buy
Like... it isn't even in the use case of Mac Pro target users.
If Apple did not fail with the M2 Extreme they'd have 384GB by now... and people will still complain about that.
I just watched Tyler Stalman's review of the Mac Studio and the first thing he showed was the internal SSD performance. If the SSD performance is similar for the Mac Pro, then you would get about 7600-7800 MB per second read/write speeds. The memory bandwidth of the M2 Ultra is 800 GB/second. If I make the units equivalent that gives us 7.6 GB/second disk speed as opposed to 800 GB/second RAM speed.
TLDR: RAM is roughly 100x faster than disk swap.
It is likely the failed to launch M2 Extreme would have a memory bandwidth of 1,600GB/s.
Making it a tad more than 200x faster.
And they would be right to do so if they had memory requirements that exceeded 384GB. You see, in workstation class systems these days, the ability to add 1TB of memory isn't unusual. It was even possible with the Mac Pro until last Tuesday. Since Tuesday Mac Pro users will have to do with 1/8th of that amount.
I agree that there is demand for RAM surpassing 384GB or even 1.5TB but the use case for ever higher RAM becomes fewer and fewer as you go up the ladder.
So long as Apple is able to serve 80% or more of the RAM requirements with the M2 Ultra then it is OK from a business stand point.
Until a time where in a future Ultra/Extreme is able to deliver 1.5TB or more then the Mac Pro user either holds out with the 2019 or just move AMD/Intel.
I'm using a fully maxed out M1 Max MBP 16". I definitely know the speed, it's incredible! Loving it, just when scoring music its still a no go for me.
Which is completely irrelevant to those who need / desire those larger memory capacities.
The problem is that until last Tuesday they did serve those other 20%.
As long as Apple makes what you want / need it's OK? No one else has the right to be upset about it?
Would have to do what the Apple employee demoing the 2019 Mac Pro said you don't need to do anymore with that one... "composers would need to use 2-3 computers to achieve these sample library track counts". Run the main daw template on the M3 and then have 2-3 computers with massive ram counts (PCs usually) on the network handling the library. You can't replace RAM with cpu/gpu and like others mentioned here, using the SSD as a sort of RAM isn't really the best solution.
Buy/keep the 2019 until RAM aligns or move to AMD/Intel.
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”. ― John Lydgate
It boggles the mind that the apple aplogists cant seem to understand with the mac pro 2019 you could customize your computer based on your needs...what is so difficult to understand about that?
if you're like the composer previously mentioned, you dont buy an expensive GPU and spend money on RAM. If you want to do AI/ML or 3D work you spend money on a GPU and can install a different operating system.
With the 2023 mac pro you literaly cannot to do either of those. its 0/2 for these common workloads for the type of person buying this computer. the new computer has LESS functionality than the old version with 2 real world examples. how is that hard to understand?? how is it hard to understand people being upset that a new more expensive computer does LESS than the old model?
how is "go buy another vendors computer" an acceptable answer if previous versions of the computer could do more? take off your apple fanboy hat for once and try to answer that question.
if you're like the composer previously mentioned, you dont buy an expensive GPU and spend money on RAM. If you want to do AI/ML or 3D work you spend money on a GPU and can install a different operating system.
With the 2023 mac pro you literaly cannot to do either of those. its 0/2 for these common workloads for the type of person buying this computer. the new computer has LESS functionality than the old version with 2 real world examples. how is that hard to understand?? how is it hard to understand people being upset that a new more expensive computer does LESS than the old model?
how is "go buy another vendors computer" an acceptable answer if previous versions of the computer could do more? take off your apple fanboy hat for once and try to answer that question.
It's the unified approach, they don't want you inside their machines. Wanna upgrade ? buy a new machine just like iPhones and iPads. The hypocrite environmentalists don't mind these machines ending up in landfills.
Yeah but how does it compare to the previous Mac Pro, maybe the current storage is fast enough to pull it off, for the use cases mentioned in this thread, as they seem to entail audio layers. What I’m trying to get at is real world performance compared to the Intel offering.
Exactly. My virtualization system needs CPU and memory but not GPU. That's why it has a low end GPU.
Paging is no substitute for RAM. The only ones who feel this way are people who make apologies for low RAM capacities. I've seen it over and over and over again in the 8GB versus 16GB RAM "discussions".
I am disappointed that a iMac 27" 5K M2 Pro is not available for sale. I am hopeful one will appear 2-4 months from now.
For a product line that likely ships approx 75,000 units annually I am unsurprised that Apple lengthens refresh cycle by by 3.5-7 years.
So a M2 Ultra of it signals that Apple may sync the refresh the Studio with the Pro. Which is a good thing for any Mac Pro user.
For a product line that likely ships approx 75,000 units annually I am unsurprised that Apple lengthens refresh cycle by by 3.5-7 years.
So a M2 Ultra of it signals that Apple may sync the refresh the Studio with the Pro. Which is a good thing for any Mac Pro user.
Last edited by a moderator:
LMAO yes agree completely. Theyll make so many excuses for low RAM just because apple did and because "80% of people won't notice". for macbook air users maybe...but not someone spending this much on a computer
You think studios could do Mac Studio server setups in the future? Since they're smaller they're easily rack mountable with some BlackMagic boxes.
This is 2013 all over again. Different people, same apologetic arguments.
I get it, no RAM expansion is awful, and is gonna be the killing blow to the Mac Pro going forward. No GPU expansion also sucks. Is it the end of the world? Not really since you still have the 2019 Mac Pro, and by the time it'll be time to upgrade hopefully M3 will have the RAM configs you need
But unfortunately it's time to swallow a hard pill: Apple doesn't care about the high end pro market anymore. It's not profitable like it used to be. Graphics professionals have moved on to Nvidia workstations. Hell the only reason this Mac Pro exists is so there's something to put BlackMagic cards in for their Apple Fellows in Disney. The Mac Pro is a niche compared to the much more cheaper and profitable Mac Studio.
I know that's not what you wanna hear, you love your Mac Pro, but unfortunately that's the direction Apple's going in.
But unfortunately it's time to swallow a hard pill: Apple doesn't care about the high end pro market anymore. It's not profitable like it used to be. Graphics professionals have moved on to Nvidia workstations. Hell the only reason this Mac Pro exists is so there's something to put BlackMagic cards in for their Apple Fellows in Disney. The Mac Pro is a niche compared to the much more cheaper and profitable Mac Studio.
I know that's not what you wanna hear, you love your Mac Pro, but unfortunately that's the direction Apple's going in.