Hard Truths About The Apple Silicon Replacement to the Mac Pro (2019)

[deconstruct60]

Alder Lake i7-12700H has PL2 of 115watts while the 14" Pro is designed for 40-50 watts. Anyway, I thought we are taking about the old chassis?

The last intel Mac was a desktop. Just like the primary title of this thread.

 

[leman]

The last intel Mac was a desktop. Just like the primary title of this thread.

The poster I was replying to seemed to be talking about laptops. I think similar argument can be made about desktop as well. Desktop-class Alder Lake in 27" iMac? Not sure how realistic, at least not at the power people expect them to run. And sure, the iMac Pro could have handled it. But the iMac Pro was discontinued a while ago. Probably not too much business sense for Apple to keep it around. Too niche...

 

[Jack Burton]

I feel like the Mac Pro will become significantly more niche and less valuable to many without upgradeable components, and the darn good Mac Studio could make it a hard sell.

I currently have a Ryzen 3950x 16 core and 3080Ti for 3d work. Considering a switch to an updated Mac Studio just because of the sheer heat this PC generates.

And if I want to upgrade my PC, my choices are video cards and CPUs that have more performance but generate significantly more heat, running comfortable at ~100ºC. I think I might have hit the PC ceiling.

I'm so sensitive to heat now because of health related issues that I may take a fairly big hit in performance just to make 3d work more bearable.

The fabled xMac/Mac Studio came to the rescue. It's not outrageously priced... not big, not loud, not hot. Apple might have enticed me back. Of course, the software took time to support it (Redshift, Octane, Blender all native on M1/metal). Things look better on Apple hardware than they have in some time for people who do certain types of 3d work.

 

[sunny5]

I don't know who needs to hear this. Based on the hubbub on multiple Mac news sites, I'm guessing many. Here are some truths based on knowns and unknowns regarding whatever machine Apple is going to replace the Mac Pro (2019) aka MacPro7,1 with:


1. The RAM will not be separately user-upgradeable; it will be tied to the SoC.

2. There will be no PCIe GPU nor eGPU upgradability or expansion; the only GPU will be the one on the SoC.

Before anyone challenges me with that, make sure you have watched this video from WWDC 2020 (where the Intel to Apple Silicon transition was first announced): https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10686/ (at about the 1-minute mark)

3. This doesn't mean that there's no point to a Mac tower with PCIe expansion; there are plenty of professionals that need broadcast cards or special video tuners or audio interface boards in their Mac Pro; these things are not the kinds of things you can solve with Thunderbolt 4 or a Thunderbolt 3/4 breakout box. It's just not practical.

4. There's nothing in the referenced video above that negates the notion that Apple could socket the SoC and/or make it user-upgradeable/replaceable. Those of you that have used or operated a 2009-2012 Mac Pro (aka MacPro4,1 or MacPro5,1) have seen a similar concept in the form of the processor tray and backplane. There's nothing stopping Apple from doing something similar here. That's not to say that SoC upgrades likely won't cost an arm and a leg. They probably will be very expensive (assuming Apple goes this route). But it will still be possible to upgrade RAM and graphics this way.

5. The internal SSD on a 2019 Mac Pro is already proprietary, requires a DFU restore of the T2 chip in order to replace the storage; modules become useless when removed from the Mac Pro they came from; this won't be different on an Apple Silicon Mac Pro replacement either. Furthermore, if the SoC is to be user-replaceable due to being socketed or on a processor tray, the internal storage will need to be wiped when performing an SoC replacement/upgrade. This is how Apple Silicon and T2 Mac Storage works. This has no bearing on SATA or PCIe SSDs; just storage controlled by the SoC.

6. The base model SoC offered for this new Mac Pro will most likely run rings around the least expensive Mac Pro (2019) MPX AMD video card option. This is a safe bet. Less safe of a bet, but still perfectly plausible, is that it also runs rings around the MOST expensive Mac Pro (2019) MPX AMD video card option. This won't fully soften the blow of having the GPU be tied to the SoC and not upgradeable separately from it, but it will soften it for a decent amount of Mac Pro customers.

7. Apple likely won't introduce a dual-socket Apple Silicon Mac, let alone Mac Pro. This isn't a guarantee, but given everything that they said about using two discrete SoCs when first unveiling the M1 Ultra shows that they'd rather take two SoCs and bridge them internally into one mega SoC than go the dual-socket route. They could introduce a totally different technology that makes this feasible for the Mac Pro, but this seems unlikely.

8. "M2 Extreme" may have been cancelled, but it is extremely unlikely that an M2 Ultra, born out of two M2 Max SoCs with "Ultra-Fusion" will be the only SoC going into the next Mac Pro. You can customize a Mac Pro (2019) with 1.5TB of RAM. I'm sure that very few Mac Pro customers do this, but I'm also sure that there are some that do. Apple may not replace the current Mac Pro with a Mac Pro that goes all the way to 1.5TB of RAM, but it's safe to assume that they'd at least try to get halfway there. At best, an M2 Ultra, born out of the highest end M2 Max SoC times 2 would only yield 192GB of RAM. I'm not saying that isn't a ton of RAM even still. But a far cry from even half of the current Mac Pro's maximum. Let's assume that M3 Max is able to offer 128GB of RAM (by virtue of M3 being able to go to 32GB of RAM from M2's maximum of 24GB - up from M1's 16GB). That still only gives M3 Ultra a maximum of 256GB. Apple is going to continue the Intel Mac Pro's tradition of offering an entirely different class of SoC unique to Mac Pro. That's not to say that a "Max" or "Ultra" SoC won't still be on offer. That's totally possible too. There are probably many folks that would be fine with a "Max" chip's performance, but needing PCIe slots for specialized cards. But, you'd probably also have folks that would need to go to Ultra before eventually building a Mac Pro with that next level tier.

9. No, Apple hasn't forgotten about the Pros. In 2019, they released two products that all but outright admitted that they messed up. One was the current Mac Pro. The other was the first and last Intel 16-inch MacBook Pro (the first Mac since the butterfly keyboard to not have a butterfly keyboard and to be thicker than its predecessor for the sake of better performance). They did these moves for Pros. We're not getting another trash can. The "Ultra" configuration of Mac Studio is not going to be the best high-end desktop Mac that Apple is going to offer. You won't see regular upgrades to the Mac Pro. And, per that video linked above (which is to say "per how Apple Silicon is fundamentally designed as a Macintosh hardware platform"), you will not have the level of easy aftermarket upgradeability you had with the 2019 (let alone 2009-2012) Mac Pro. But it ought to still be a decent upgrade and not a trash can upgrade.

And Apple Silicon Mac Pro will fail if they stick with SoC design just like Mac Pro 2013 with no or less upgradability and expandability.

 

[bobcomer]

Wouldn't make much sense for Apple to put these Intel chips in once their own silicon was out. At least not from the performance perspective.

I would buy a Mac with a modern intel processor...

For old chassis it would be easier, but there's certainly little changes to a current chassis for it to support a modern intel processor. It has a 67W power supply for the MBP Pro, and my Lenovo has a 65W.

 

[leman]

I would buy a Mac with a modern intel processor...

Sure, you would, but that's because you care about Windows compatibility. Apple doesn't.

P.S. I mean, let's look at this from the performance and value proposition perspective. There is zero sense for Apple to use x86 on mobile, where Apple has similar or better performance and dramatically higher energy efficiency. For performance-oriented desktop, it's less clear-cut. Apple currently doesn't really have anything to complete agains enthusiast-class x86 desktop performance wise. M1 Ultra CPU is ok, but it competes with $700 Intel and AMD processors, so it's not a good value if you are looking for performance. So Apple is pushing towards ultra-compact desktops, a niche market area where x86 can't really do anything. This strategy won't work for the Mac Pro, so we'll have to see what Apple comes up with.

 

[startergo]

"Enthusiast" wants a modular Mac to buy cheap third party parts. No point to support that for Apple.

I do not agree with this statement. People want modular macs, because they need various PCIE cards for professional work. If Apple do not provide all, they have to come from somewhere, aren't they?

 

[bobcomer]

Sure, you would, but that's because you care about Windows compatibility.

Yep.

Apple doesn't.

Oh well, I might have already bought my last Mac then. (Unless I buy used -- I wouldn't mind an iMac Pro...) It's been a long run.

 

[leman]

I do not agree with this statement. People want modular macs, because they need various PCIE cards for professional work. If Apple do not provide all, they have to come from somewhere, aren't they?

What exactly does "modularity" mean for you? I have seen at least three different definitions: a) the ability to use specialised PCIe add-on cards, b) the ability to upgrade RAM and storage to higher capacities, and c) the ability to upgrade central components like the CPU and the GPU.

If your primary concern is PCIe expansion (a), well, it would be really stupid if a Mac Pro wouldn't allow that. Given that Apple has invested a lot of work in rewriting their PCI driver stack recently, I don't have any doubt that the new Mac Pro will have plenty of PCIe slots as well as rich frameworks for writing drivers for them. Upgradeable storage (b) is also pretty much a given, either via slotted system storage or via PCIe expansion (like the Promise R4i). Upgradeable RAM might be tricky, but could still be possible with some caveats. Upgradeable central components (c) or third-party GPUs are fundamentally incompatible with the Apple Silicon design philosophy, although I can imagine that the entire SoC could be swappable via a custom socket.

 

[Joe Dohn]

I feel like the Mac Pro will become significantly more niche and less valuable to many without upgradeable components, and the darn good Mac Studio could make it a hard sell.

I currently have a Ryzen 3950x 16 core and 3080Ti for 3d work. Considering a switch to an updated Mac Studio just because of the sheer heat this PC generates.

And if I want to upgrade my PC, my choices are video cards and CPUs that have more performance but generate significantly more heat, running comfortable at ~100ºC. I think I might have hit the PC ceiling.

I don't think a Mac Studio will match the performance of a 3980 Ti for 3D editing though. The best case is actually video / image editing. It should be ever-so-slightly close, but inferior.

Also, you might want to consider an air conditioner, depending on what your budget is.

 

[leman]

I don't think a Mac Studio will match the performance of a 3980 Ti for 3D editing though. The best case is actually video / image editing. It should be ever-so-slightly close, but inferior.

For editing? It could, if the software is optimised. For rendering? Probably not, too much difference in horsepower.

 

[Jack Burton]

I don't think a Mac Studio will match the performance of a 3980 Ti for 3D editing though. The best case is actually video / image editing. It should be ever-so-slightly close, but inferior.

Also, you might want to consider an air conditioner, depending on what your budget is.

You're right, not even close on power! With 64 GB of shared memory the Mac studio can do more sims, etc, just slower in many ways. Rendering is less of a problem with render farms.

I have air conditioning! These PCs are hot (and getting hotter) and my neuro issues make my body SUPER sensitive to heat. It sucks.

Apple to the rescue, perhaps!

 

[xraydoc]

I was a Pro Mac buyer/user back in the day (PowerMac G3, PowerMac G4, PowerMac G5, Xeon Intel Mac Pro 1,1) but these days the power of the rest of the line is more than sufficient for me. And the price of the Mac Pro has also left me behind. Regardless of price, the power would be wasted on me.

I don't have a good feeling about the upcoming Apple Silicon Mac Pro if rumors are to be believed. Targets of a machine this expensive are going to want expansion slots for more than just storage space. They're going to want to add more RAM when they need it. They're going to want to replace GPUs when they need an upgrade but need to keep the rest of their multi-thousand dollar investment.

A taller Mac Studio priced like a 24-core Xeon with multiple discrete GPUs is not going to cut it -- not for the Mac Pro's typical target user.

That said, if it comes in priced similarly to a Mac Studio but just in a nice tower case and doesn't start at $7000 in base configuration (and doesn't require $400 wheels), however, I could be tempted when it's time to upgrade again (instead of an Mx Pro Mac mini or something). Of course, that will never happen.

 

[Joe Dohn]

I have air conditioning! These PCs are hot (and getting hotter) and my neuro issues make my body SUPER sensitive to heat. It sucks.

If your setup is THAT hot, your next option is using liquid cooling. It's more expensive, but worth it.

 

[Joe Dohn]

I don't have a good feeling about the upcoming Apple Silicon Mac Pro if rumors are to be believed. Targets of a machine this expensive are going to want expansion slots for more than just storage space. They're going to want to add more RAM when they need it. They're going to want to replace GPUs when they need an upgrade but need to keep the rest of their multi-thousand dollar investment.

Let's get real: using a PCI slot just for storage expansion would be a waste in almost all scenarios (not all, but almost all). Chances are that USB 3.0 / Thunderbolt 3 / Thunderbolt 4 would satisfy the needs for storage upgrades with external disks, and you can mitigate speed issues to a degree with an Ethernet cable / RAID setup.

 

[xraydoc]

Let's get real: using a PCI slot just for storage expansion would be a waste in almost all scenarios (not all, but almost all). Chances are that USB 3.0 / Thunderbolt 3 / Thunderbolt 4 would satisfy the needs for storage upgrades with external disks, and you can mitigate speed issues to a degree with an Ethernet cable / RAID setup.

Oh, 100%.

So let's figure out what a Mac Pro could bring to the table, presuming rumors of absence of external GPUs and other PCI cards is true.
.
.
.
Um... bigger case than the Mac Studio M1 Ultra? For, um, an M2 Ultra?

Can't see how this is going to be anything but a Mac Studio with a hollow center.

Unless, of course, expandable/replaceable GPUs, PCI card support and other slots (RAM?) are available.

 

[diamond.g]

If your setup is THAT hot, your next option is using liquid cooling. It's more expensive, but worth it.

That doesn't reduce temps (per se), it just makes it easier to get the heat from one location to another.

 

[JouniS]

Let's get real: using a PCI slot just for storage expansion would be a waste in almost all scenarios (not all, but almost all). Chances are that USB 3.0 / Thunderbolt 3 / Thunderbolt 4 would satisfy the needs for storage upgrades with external disks, and you can mitigate speed issues to a degree with an Ethernet cable / RAID setup.

Those "almost all scenarios" are mostly ones where the Mac Pro itself is unnecessary. Thunderbolt is slow, and it's going to remain slow, because it's designed to use cheap lightweight copper cables. Any half-decent SSD requires more bandwidth than what Thunderbolt can provide. Even for network drives, Thunderbolt will likely remain a bottleneck if you are using anything better than 10 Gb Ethernet.

 

[Joe Dohn]

Even for network drives, Thunderbolt will likely remain a bottleneck if you are using anything better than 10 Gb Ethernet.

But if you are using the network connection for writing, the data is being received through the Internet, not through the Thunderbolt I/O.

 

[aytan]

You're right, not even close on power! With 64 GB of shared memory the Mac studio can do more sims, etc, just slower in many ways. Rendering is less of a problem with render farms.

I have air conditioning! These PCs are hot (and getting hotter) and my neuro issues make my body SUPER sensitive to heat. It sucks.

Apple to the rescue, perhaps!

I used 64/48 Ultra for 3D, mostly Zbrush/C4D/Redshift workflow, rare but use Blender time to time, Maya is not a good option even there is native M1 Arnold, I do not like Octane but it works fast. C4D/V-Ray works well on Ultra if you prefer.
I can work with it smoothly, I have no complaint about Ultra. There is a + for simulation scenes as you told, also really fast with ZBrush. I can work for lookdev or with shader nodes slightly slower than 3070, again it is fine for me.
Yes it is slow for final renders but acceptable, even during long render sessions there is no sound from Ultra, it is going slightly warmer on top and sides of chassis, warm/hot Airflow from the backside is noticeable only if you put yor hand on the backside of Ultra. Otherwise as I experienced heat is not a problem at all.
I am using a PC side by side with Ultra ( most of the times only remember it for rendering). 3070 could render standart scenes 2 times faster or if yor scene is not heavy + optix denoiser it could be 3 times faster results, which I have right now is EVGA 3070 FTW3 Ultra.
On the other hand if your workflow demands very/high polycounts and heavily subdivided meshes this rendering time difference start to close down if 8/12 GB GPU Vram could process your scene. Sometimes this rendering time difference come down X0.75 times but sometimes go up X3 times.
64 BG Vram is huge, but total usage could be different by render engines, in fact I push Ultra more then 300 GB RAM usage under memory pressure, in some point it quits over 320 Gb RAM usage.
M1 Ultra will never be same with a 3070/3080 series GPU on single frame render times, it is a fact. Anyway it works for me, maybe this could provide you some insights.

 

[Jack Burton]

I used 64/48 Ultra for 3D, mostly Zbrush/C4D/Redshift workflow, rare but use Blender time to time, Maya is not a good option even there is native M1 Arnold, I do not like Octane but it works fast. C4D/V-Ray works well on Ultra if you prefer.
I can work with it smoothly, I have no complaint about Ultra. There is a + for simulation scenes as you told, also really fast with ZBrush. I can work for lookdev or with shader nodes slightly slower than 3070, again it is fine for me.
Yes it is slow for final renders but acceptable, even during long render sessions there is no sound from Ultra, it is going slightly warmer on top and sides of chassis, warm/hot Airflow from the backside is noticeable only if you put yor hand on the backside of Ultra. Otherwise as I experienced heat is not a problem at all.
I am using a PC side by side with Ultra ( most of the times only remember it for rendering). 3070 could render standart scenes 2 times faster or if yor scene is not heavy + optix denoiser it could be 3 times faster results, which I have right now is EVGA 3070 FTW3 Ultra.
On the other hand if your workflow demands very/high polycounts and heavily subdivided meshes this rendering time difference start to close down if 8/12 GB GPU Vram could process your scene. Sometimes this rendering time difference come down X0.75 times but sometimes go up X3 times.
64 BG Vram is huge, but total usage could be different by render engines, in fact I push Ultra more then 300 GB RAM usage under memory pressure, in some point it quits over 320 Gb RAM usage.
M1 Ultra will never be same with a 3070/3080 series GPU on single frame render times, it is a fact. Anyway it works for me, maybe this could provide you some insights.

This was great information, thank you!

I wonder what the Mac Pro will bring if it’s just an ultra chip with some other bits bolted on. I’m interested but I anticipate that it will be out of my price range. ;-)

 

[Jack Burton]

If your setup is THAT hot, your next option is using liquid cooling. It's more expensive, but worth it.

it’s not even that my setup is terrible, it’s my nerve endings.

Currently my air cooled ryzen 3950x hovers in the mid 70c range At load. The latest Ryzen and intel processors are designed to run at 95! That feels like too much. And thats not even getting into the nvidia 4000 temps. There’s a lot more power to be had on windows, but man, it does come with some big downsides (The biggest being windows, can’t stand it lately, and of course the thorn in the side of many: a persistent nvidia driver memory leak).

 

[aytan]

it’s not even that my setup is terrible, it’s my nerve endings.

Currently my air cooled ryzen 3950x hovers in the mid 70c range At load. The latest Ryzen and intel processors are designed to run at 95! That feels like too much. And thats not even getting into the nvidia 4000 temps. There’s a lot more power to be had on windows, but man, it does come with some big downsides (The biggest being windows, can’t stand it lately, and of course the thorn in the side of many: a persistent nvidia driver memory leak).

If you use Redshift you can find a lot of info in the Redshift forums about Drivers, memory leak issues and possible solutions. I do not know anything about Nvidia drivers but most of the Redshift users downgrade their driver versions something like 4xx.xx after last driver releases.

 

[zakarhino]

Except only Apple thinks it's over.
The top of the market WANTS flexibility and upgradability over a portable computer.
Xeons will deliver speed and stability for servers if they are willing to shed the money.
Apple is not delivering on that, while charging much more.

Remember, this is the most rational part of the market, in theory. They're very sensitive on "bang for the buck", while end consumers are instead more loyal to the brand.

Top of the market wants to optimize for time and productivity, productivity that increases as a result of saving time (theoretically). Apple are banking on Apple Silicon to be so fast and efficient for core industry workflows (video editing, coding, audio production, design work, etc.) that most professionals will consider nothing but Apple Silicon Macs for their workflows. That already happened in the startup world even before Apple Silicon came along despite being held back by space heater Intel chips. Find me a hot new piece of software for professional productivity that doesn't release on Mac first (well, Mac second. Most are web first these days I guess). What matters more: having the ability to upgrade chips and RAM for a few years (remember, the CPU socket goes obsolete at some point too) or saving massive amounts of time during the workflow which lets you iterate/work faster? I literally don't know anyone that picks the former for professional work.

I think the secret second reason is a bit more subtle. Apple probably don't mind alienating the 0.1% of people that really REALLY need the specific benefits of Mac Pro's modular design because they care more about capturing the younger creator market instead. They want kids to grow up using iPhones and Macs to create content and their first apps so that when they get older and make their own companies they're already embedded into the Apple workflow. Kids don't care about modularity, they just care about saving time (AirDrop saves time. ProRes encoders for video editing saves time. iMessage on Mac saves times. The list goes on). Same goes for working professionals too in most scenarios. I'm in both categories.

Modular/upgradable Macs are fully done. OP got it right, the most we'll see are PCIe slots for esoteric coprocessing units or domain specific I/O. I wouldn't be surprised at all if most Mac Pro buyers from the current generation didn't upgrade their Macs at all beyond adding something to a PCIe slot like an Afterburner card.

I'll go a step further in saying I think the Mac Pro line is dead, unless they decide to make that special 4x Max chip but that got cancelled. The next gen Mac Pro will only be useful for I/O upgrades. Once advancements in USB reach the point of no longer needing PCIe I/O cards, what next? Need more computer power? You'll be offloading those tasks to the cloud sooner than later, that's infinite upgrade power that never goes obsolete. Only a matter of time before people don't even bother buying top of the line chips anymore because the benefits of cloud first workflows outweigh the benefits of getting a super impressive local chip.

GitHub Codespaces are a premonition.

 

[quarkysg]

I'll go a step further in saying I think the Mac Pro line is dead, unless they decide to make that special 4x Max chip but that got cancelled. The next gen Mac Pro will only be useful for I/O upgrades. Once advancements in USB reach the point of no longer needing PCIe I/O cards, what next? Need more computer power? You'll be offloading those tasks to the cloud sooner than later, that's infinite upgrade power that never goes obsolete. Only a matter of time before people don't even bother buying top of the line chips anymore because the benefits of cloud first workflows outweigh the benefits of getting a super impressive local chip.

I wouldn't call the Mac Pro line dead at the moment yet, nor for the foreseeable future, but the world is moving to an increasingly mobile computing trend.

As for I/O, maybe soon we can aggregate bandwidth of the TB ports, much like the x1-x32 PCIe lanes of PCIe slots. Technology is moving fast nowadays.