In 3 years, 50% of all computers capable of playing AAA games will be Macs

[dmccloud]

This either refers to the large-screen professional iMac (which I believe will come very soon and be awesome) or the Mac Pro with slots for third-party graphics cards (which is even confirmed to be in the making by official keynote statement). We don't need Apple to put an RTX 4090 into a nicer box. There is little room for Apple to innovate and contribute to Nvidia's technology. Run CUDA on a PC, if you can't wait for the Mac Pro. What can be done by Apple themselves is to push for 3nm and add ray tracing support to Apple Silicon, both is heavily rumoured on this site.

Apple confirmed they were working on a new Mac Pro/Mac Pro replacement, but they have not confirmed any details as far as specifications. At this point in time, nVidia is out of the conversation anyways as far as graphics solutions for the Mac are concerned, especially after nVidia attempted to purchase ARM Ltd. from SoftBank.

 

[Gudi]

Apple confirmed they were working on a new Mac Pro/Mac Pro replacement, but they have not confirmed any details as far as specifications. At this point in time, nVidia is out of the conversation anyways as far as graphics solutions for the Mac are concerned, especially after nVidia attempted to purchase ARM Ltd. from SoftBank.

Apple has secured its own special ARM licence long before people knew the value of that company. Cupertino doesn't need to fear whoever buys that contract and is bound to its letters. The only point in building something more "pro" than the Mac Studio is to be able to add third-party extension cards. And these slots are standardised, nVidia always fits in.

 

[Irishman]

Linux is the second best alternative to Windows for gaming. Linux can play new titles, recent titles and old titles. In comparison, MacOS is a funeral home since it can't play majority of new titles, recent titles and old titles but usually only bottom tier titles. Just look at how empty the MacOS list is even including Crossover and Parallels paid subscriptions compared to Linux that doesn't require paid subscriptions. So, if Linux sucks relative to Windows then MacOS sucks a lot more relative to Linux.

Linux
https://www.protondb.com/explore?selectedFilters=whitelisted

MacOS
https://www.applegamingwiki.com/wiki/Home

Second place is the first loser, man.

 

[Irishman]

You better tell Apple, especially considering the next Mac Pro won't have a monitor either.

Huh?

Mac Pros have never had monitors. You’ve always had to bring your own monitor.

Most times, I can work out what you’re getting at, but not this time.

It sounds like you’ve never bought a Mac Pro, but I’m hoping it was just a typo.

 

[Irishman]

Apple has secured its own special ARM licence long before people knew the value of that company. Cupertino doesn't need to fear whoever buys that contract and is bound to its letters. The only point in building something more "pro" than the Mac Studio is to be able to add third-party extension cards. And these slots are standardised, nVidia always fits in.

But, since Apple and nVidia had their very public falling out, MacOS hasn’t supported nVidia, at all, to the point where plugging in your top-of-the-line RTX card will result in it being a very expensive paper weight.

I could be wrong, but it seems that they may have done so in order to secure internal control of their own product stacks, both hardware and software.

M1 was the first iteration of this philosophy, but it won’t be the last, if the public response to it keeps on being gangbusters. I wouldn’t be surprised if, given that, Apple ditched all support for AMD GPUs and CPUs, and showed Intel the door as well.

If the transition to Apple Silicon continues to go well enough.

 

[Irishman]

I'm sure they don't mind that the computer looks a lot cheaper than the whole package actually is. At least you can perfectly use an iPad Pro without Apple Pencil and Magic Keyboard. They are actual accessories. But a Mac mini without display, keyboard and mouse? It's just a lump of metal and not cheap at all. This is also a reason why most people prefer laptops over desktops. The All-in-One Macintosh and later iMac are something else indeed. And cheaper than what some people pay for a graphics card. To deliver a computer with all the things you need to use it, what a revolutionary idea! Just like some anno 1995 Multimedia-PC.

But the all-in-one Macintosh was a one off to celebrate a certain anniversary of the Mac. I forget if it was the 20th or the 25th.

I have never preferred a laptop over a desktop, precisely because of the performance per dollar sacrifice it forces you to make. These days, I would rather spend more money on an M2 or M3 Mac Mini or Mac Studio, and pair it with my own choice of monitor, keyboard and mouse, because I have access to many YouTube channels that can help me select the best ones for me.

Make sense?

 

[Irishman]

This either refers to the large-screen professional iMac (which I believe will come very soon and be awesome) or the Mac Pro with slots for third-party graphics cards (which is even confirmed to be in the making by official keynote statement). We don't need Apple to put an RTX 4090 into a nicer box. There is little room for Apple to innovate and contribute to Nvidia's technology. Run CUDA on a PC, if you can't wait for the Mac Pro. What can be done by Apple themselves is to push for 3nm and add ray tracing support to Apple Silicon, both is heavily rumoured on this site.

The latest news that I’ve heard is that Apple has bought 90% of TSMC’s 3nm production capability.

I do wonder how they let 10% of that go to someone else.

 

[mi7chy]

Second place is the first loser, man.

Last place MacOS is the big L. At least Linux can run the majority of the recent titles Hogwarts Legacy, Last of US, Elden Ring, Spider-Man, God of War, etc. 3nm won't change lack of software.

 

[Irishman]

Last place MacOS is the big L. At least Linux can run the majority of the recent titles Hogwarts Legacy, Last of US, Elden Ring, Spider-Man, God of War, etc. 3nm won't change lack of software.

But you know what will change it? 3nm plus more and more Mac gamers like you and I successfully clamoring for more and more Mac games.

Why wouldn’t it? That’s why I often bring up my love for modern idTech games (Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal). It ain’t because you love to hear me going on and on about them, right?

We want the same thing here.

 

[dmccloud]

Apple has secured its own special ARM licence long before people knew the value of that company. Cupertino doesn't need to fear whoever buys that contract and is bound to its letters. The only point in building something more "pro" than the Mac Studio is to be able to add third-party extension cards. And these slots are standardised, nVidia always fits in.

nVidia doesn't fit into the current Mac Pro, or the "trashcan" Mac Pro before it. So I have no clue what you're even referring to there...

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Huh?

Mac Pros have never had monitors. You’ve always had to bring your own monitor.

Most times, I can work out what you’re getting at, but not this time.

It sounds like you’ve never bought a Mac Pro, but I’m hoping it was just a typo.

I was making fun of the whole nonsense that was posted about the Mini and scaling and how the only good Macs are the ones with Apple displays. macOS scaling sucks, that's no secret. There are ways around it with on-board and off-board methods. The Mac mini is a great machine for its intended purpose and so is the Mac Pro, which also doesn't come with a display. If we'd go by "any type of scaling sucks", we could put this whole gaming debate to rest as I wrote before (MetalFX).

The Apple displays (Studio and XDR) work for their intended purpose and the XDR is relatively cheap for what it is. Yet, the Sony 310 wipes the floor with it, but that's over $30k. So, do we jump to the conclusion that the XDR is absolute garbage and useless? Let's take another step up, I really like the Sony µLEDs (they actually call it Crystal LED), those are amazing displays. Not for browsing the web, but anything video related. But they're at least $500k. Anything else garbage?

Again, the Mini is a fine machine for the intended purpose and if someone picks a matching display (even non-Apple/non-Retina) they're fine.

 

[Gudi]

But, since Apple and nVidia had their very public falling out, MacOS hasn’t supported nVidia, at all, to the point where plugging in your top-of-the-line RTX card will result in it being a very expensive paper weight.

Why would macOS supply drivers for a hardware configuration Apple doesn't even sell? I don't see that as an all bridges are burnt situation.

I could be wrong, but it seems that they may have done so in order to secure internal control of their own product stacks, both hardware and software. M1 was the first iteration of this philosophy, but it won’t be the last, if the public response to it keeps on being gangbusters. I wouldn’t be surprised if, given that, Apple ditched all support for AMD GPUs and CPUs, and showed Intel the door as well.

Yes, and 98% of Apple's products will continue to run on their own GPU and Metal API. But what about the Mac Pro? It is like what the Ferrari is for FIAT. A super sportster with technology way beyond any normal car. The Mac Pro is not indicative of the direction the entire Mac platform is moving in. It just needs to be fast.

If the transition to Apple Silicon continues to go well enough.

It is going well, but even if it doesn't go well, control over your own fate as a company is more important than being faster than Intel. Normal Macs will rely on no technology from Intel and nVidia. But the Mac Pro isn't a normal Mac.

 

[Gudi]

nVidia doesn't fit into the current Mac Pro, or the "trashcan" Mac Pro before it. So I have no clue what you're even referring to there...

And the Trashcan Mac Pro was widely regarded as a failure because of that. The only thing a future Mac Pro could offer above the capabilities of the Mac Studio with M1 Ultra are standardized expansion slots.

 

[Gudi]

I have never preferred a laptop over a desktop, precisely because of the performance per dollar sacrifice it forces you to make.

It forced you to make, past tense! This is the difference Apple Silicon makes. It allows Apple to build laptops as powerful and persistent as desktops and desktops as thin, cool and quiet as laptops. The form factor no longer divides computer into performance classes. Only the fastest M1 Ultra doesn't exist in a laptop variant.

These days, I would rather spend more money on an M2 or M3 Mac Mini or Mac Studio, and pair it with my own choice of monitor, keyboard and mouse, because I have access to many YouTube channels that can help me select the best ones for me. Make sense?

No, because hardware and software need to work well together and macOS (other than Windows) requires a 218 ppi display for native Retina resolution. So you don't have free choice, there are only a few rather expensive options. That's why it is best to buy your display from Apple. Same with all the Multitouch gestures. You want an Apple Trackpad not one from Logitech. If you decided for the Mac platform, you've decided against mixing and matching peripherals from all kinds of PC suppliers.

 

[Romain_H]

Why would macOS supply drivers for a hardware configuration Apple doesn't even sell? I don't see that as an all bridges are burnt situation.

IIRC the drivers have been supplied by Nvidia in times prior.

 

[Gudi]

IIRC the drivers have been supplied by Nvidia in times prior.

Sure, but macOS would know where to find and how to install the right drivers, if there was any Mac sold with the option to upgrade to this card. There is a whole spectrum between, officially supported by Apple, made possible by nVidia, possible with hacks and impossible because there isn't even a slot on the motherboard.

The important question to answer is: What would make the Mac Pro so "pro", if it doesn't offer any capabilities above what the Mac Studio already can do? If you don't offer third-party GPU slots, just upgrade the Mac Studio to M2 Ultra.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

IIRC the drivers have been supplied by Nvidia in times prior.

Once upon a time Nvidia drivers were supplied by Apple. Then they were supplied by Nvidia, then they were supplied by Nvidia but had to be signed by Apple. Then Apple refused to sign drivers from Nvidia and that was the end of Nvidia on Apple systems. The only way would be Linux on Apple hardware, but why bother when much cheaper hardware is available. There's no reason to go with Apple hardware for GPGPU computing when a rusty old 1080Ti runs circles around anything Apple has including the Ultra SoC (https://sebastianraschka.com/blog/2022/pytorch-m1-gpu.html). And for doing what Apple is good at (small- and mid-sized video, photo and music work), there's no need to go with Nvidia GPUs. And the whole Cuda ecosystem with Ominverse and all the applications is Linux first and Windows second without options for macOS.

This describes the whole Nvidia with Apple hardware situation:

 

[Colstan]

Yes, and 98% of Apple's products will continue to run on their own GPU and Metal API. But what about the Mac Pro? It is like what the Ferrari is for FIAT. A super sportster with technology way beyond any normal car. The Mac Pro is not indicative of the direction the entire Mac platform is moving in. It just needs to be fast.

The uncomfortable consideration is that driver development for the AMD GPUs inside of the Mac Pro was subsidized by the much higher volume graphics chips inside of the iMac and MacBook Pros. Most of the folks who want GPUs to fit in slots for an Apple Silicon Mac Pro want to use affordable third-party cards, which makes Apple zero profit. All of those cards require UEFI to boot, while Apple Silicon uses iBoot in its stead.

Then who is going to write the drivers? That's a lot of software development for a miniscule market. Drivers aren't easy, just ask Intel. AMD isn't desperate enough for table scraps, because they aren't hurting financially. Who is going to test the drivers? Software developers need to know well ahead of time, not in a sudden drop. We've had three WWDCs without a test kit, which would likely be in the form of an eGPU, yet nothing but silence. If a fourth year passes, then it becomes even less likely.

It's been obvious that Apple's plan was to replace both the CPU and the GPU inside its entire line of Macs, which includes the Mac Pro. Remember, AMD has only been a reliable source for GPUs in recent times. During the initial planning of Apple Silicon, AMD's offering were as lackluster as Intel's on the CPU side of the equation. Apple has been pushing a unified model for Apple Silicon, and shown no interest in diverging.

If the Mac Pro is a Ferrari, then it's been one that's been neglected for the past decade, as it sits and rots; something that's happened repeatedly. I also think Apple is culturally adverse to handing that control over to another GPU supplier ever again. They've never competed in the bleeding-edge, if they needed to, then they would have made nice with Nvidia already. Apple is going to compare the Apple Silicon Mac Pro to its "best selling model" from 2019, which John Ternus stated was the 16-core Xeon with a W5700X GPU. That's hardly a high barrier to climb.

@GrumpyCoder beat me to the Nvidia solution as I was writing this post. Nvidia and Apple had a nasty divorce, and they ain't getting back together. The Apple Silicon Mac Pro will likely have slots, there are plenty of cards that already work with Apple Silicon, just look at Sonnet's xMac. However, the notion of display GPUs is dubious.

I realize the riddle of the Mac Pro has been a curiosity for a long time on MacRumors. However, I think when the actual product is released we're all going to collectively say "that's it?". Until then, speculation runs rampant as Apple stays silent, which I think gets them into trouble with professionals. I've heard every theory combined into a homunculus of absurdity, which shall continue until Apple makes an official release. For those folks expecting something different than the other Apple Silicon Macs, I wish them luck dealing with their disappointment. The Mac Pro isn't special just because it costs more. Besides, given the history of neglect, I think Apple is one bad meal away from canceling it.

 

[Gudi]

Intel Explores Transition to 64-Bit-Only x86S Architecture

So there you have it. An x86 variant that drops 16-bit and 32-bit backwards compatibility and won't run any old Windows games (at least natively). This is the way! − which Apple showed them. But knowing the PC platform, they won't stop making chips with 16 and 32 bits support. So there will be no incentive for developers to upgrade their old software. Just buy a regular x86-64 computer! And OEMs who want to build more energy-efficient computers based on x86S architecture will suffer from a software ecosystem with limited choice. Once more a late, incomplete and botched transition.

 

[Gudi]

Then who is going to write the drivers? That's a lot of software development for a miniscule market.

That's why I compared the Mac Pro to super sports cars, who are subsidized by volume car makers for strengthening their brand. The Mac Pro as a product does not exist for the units itself can sell, but for the image transfer over to all Macs.

 

[diamond.g]

Intel Explores Transition to 64-Bit-Only x86S Architecture

So there you have it. An x86 variant that drops 16-bit and 32-bit backwards compatibility and won't run any old Windows games (at least natively). This is the way! − which Apple showed them. But knowing the PC platform, they won't stop making chips with 16 and 32 bits support. So there will be no incentive for developers to upgrade their old software. Just buy a regular x86-64 computer! And OEMs who want to build more energy-efficient computers based on x86S architecture will suffer from a software ecosystem with limited choice. Once more a late, incomplete and botched transition.

Windows doesn’t run 16-bit code anyways. You would still be able to run 32-bit software as long as MS includes the shims for it.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Intel Explores Transition to 64-Bit-Only x86S Architecture

So there you have it. An x86 variant that drops 16-bit and 32-bit backwards compatibility and won't run any old Windows games (at least natively). This is the way! − which Apple showed them. But knowing the PC platform, they won't stop making chips with 16 and 32 bits support. So there will be no incentive for developers to upgrade their old software. Just buy a regular x86-64 computer! And OEMs who want to build more energy-efficient computers based on x86S architecture will suffer from a software ecosystem with limited choice. Once more a late, incomplete and botched transition.

Please don't, really. Don't. Please. You really shouldn't. What you should do is read the white paper and much more important, actually understand it.

I do wonder how Apple showed Intel anything, when Intel already dropped legacy support on their Itanium platform back in 2001, when Apple wasn't even using Intel.

Also, in no way does the white paper say they drop backwards compatibility for applications. They remove ring 1 and 2 as well as 32-bit ring 0. They remove 16-/32-bit protected mode, while retaining 32-bit submode.

There is no 8-bit mode, but 8-bit computations still remain. They remove 16-bit address mode (0x67) and keep 16-bit computation (0x66). They specifically still allow User32 in restricted ring 3 compatibility mode (CPL3, LMA1, CSL0).

NTVDM for 16-bit applications still works on 64-bit systems.

Their intention with this is a straight boot into 64-bit mode with a new boot process and removal of all pre-64-bits operations that are not used anymore, while keeping pre-64-bits operations that are still used.

 

[Irishman]

It forced you to make, past tense! This is the difference Apple Silicon makes. It allows Apple to build laptops as powerful and persistent as desktops and desktops as thin, cool and quiet as laptops. The form factor no longer divides computer into performance classes. Only the fastest M1 Ultra doesn't exist in a laptop variant.

No, because hardware and software need to work well together and macOS (other than Windows) requires a 218 ppi display for native Retina resolution. So you don't have free choice, there are only a few rather expensive options. That's why it is best to buy your display from Apple. Same with all the Multitouch gestures. You want an Apple Trackpad not one from Logitech. If you decided for the Mac platform, you've decided against mixing and matching peripherals from all kinds of PC suppliers.

You can pick only Apple laptops, that’s perfectly fine, but don’t try to delegitimize the choices of those who will never pick an Apple laptop.

Apple desktop fans are just as much Apple fans as you are, and trying to say that mixing and matching aren’t “the Apple way”, says more about your own personal purity test than anything else.

Would you be just as rigid and dismissive of the need for a printer, just because Apple doesn’t make one? How about a router? A Time Machine backup drive?

Sometimes, I’ll need a mouse that’s more fit for purpose than what Apple has to offer, like offering more than one mouse button.

 

[Gudi]

Apple desktop fans are just as much Apple fans as you are, and trying to say that mixing and matching aren’t “the Apple way”, says more about your own personal purity test than anything else.

It’s more like a fact of life that as a Mac user, you don’t get to design Apple’s golden cage, you only get to live in it.

Would you be just as rigid and dismissive of the need for a printer, just because Apple doesn’t make one? How about a router? A Time Machine backup drive?

Apple decided to not upgrade to Blu-ray and rather abandon built-in optical drives altogether and never added drivers for Blu-ray to macOS. If you don’t like this decision, you can leave and live in another (less golden) cage.

Sometimes, I’ll need a mouse that’s more fit for purpose than what Apple has to offer, like offering more than one mouse button.

The Magic Mouse supports secondary clicks and even supports left-handed operation. A third-party mouse might work or might not, there’s no guarantee either way. Your third mouse button could be just like Blu-ray.

 

[mi7chy]

Intel Explores Transition to 64-Bit-Only x86S Architecture

That's likely for server rather than client computing because Microsoft dropped 32-bit option with Windows Server 2008 so it's been a long 15 years. Microsoft dropped 32-bit option for Windows 10 in 2020 but Windows 10 64-bit still supports running 32-bit apps so it's a gradual phase out vs Apple's shove it down your throat style.