Like it or not, Apple needs Mac Pro.

[leman]

The market for Blackwell 6000 Pro or something similar is a LOT bigger. Dont forget that servers and workstations are connected each other with similar technology and yet, Apple is killing their own market.

Besides, Apple's GPU performance isn't great so what's the problem with that? Apple dont even have RTX 5090 grade GPU and workstations.

Servers don’t run on RTX cards. And Apple doesn’t sell servers. They might build some for their internal use, and that can take whatever shape as suits their business needs.

So far you seem to talk about ML workstations and servers as if they were the same thing, which is not correct. I fully agree with you that Apple would benefit from shipping faster and more capable GPUs. I don’t see however how this translates to them needing a Mac Pro or pluggable GPUs. IMO, pending some advances in GPU tech, an Mx Ultra Studio could be a competitive ML workstation, and a cluster of two such Studios would still considerably more cost-effective than a hypothetical Extreme chip. I too would like to see a nice modular Mac Pro with pluggable computer boards, but the reality increasingly looks like there simply isn’t enough market demand to absorb the tremendous R&D and manufacturing cost.

 

[maflynn]

Dont forget that servers and workstations are connected each other with similar technology and yet, Apple is killing their own market.

What market? The xserve market has long been discontinued. Apple stopped using nividia gpus in 2015 - 10 years ago.

What does a Mac Pro do that a Mac Studio does not?

Take a look at Gemini 3.0. Google trained their own AI with their own chips, TPU. Which means, Apple can also do it as long as they can make their own powerful chips. M3 Ultra?

macos 26.2 allows studios to be clustered, something that would be beneficial for AI tasks.

Apple will need to develop high-end and/or workstation grade Apple Silicon chips for their own future

They did in 2022 with the introduction of the Mac Studio.

the fact that Mac's max performance is poor

How so? Please provide facts/figures on what is poor with Mac Studio. You are literally the first person to say that the M4 Max Studio's performance is poor. Does that also mean MBPs using the Max chip is also a poor performer?

 

[iPadified]

And yet, they degraded their own Mac markets for a while and lose many markets such as 3D graphics.

Apple never entered the 3D graphics market. Always been owned by Win.

 

[jakey rolling]

Why do you justify degeneration of Mac specs for? Apple used to have a workstation for professional uses but now, Mac only offers up to middle range specs which is a joke.

Apple's workstation was always on the lower-end as far as professional workstation specs go. Apple isn't "degenerating" anything spec-wise. What they have done is painted themselves into a bit of a marketing corner with the M-Series processors such that they no longer have the ability to add the kind of workstation-ish features to the Mac Pro that differentiated it from their other offerings.

Most professional uses that would have been targeted by the Mac Pro in the past are now well served by the Mac Studio. This would be the case whether the Mac Pro continued to be Intel based (or expandable the way the Intel based ones were) or M-Series based. Those that need a workstation like the Mac Pro are generally the ones that still rely on internal PCIe expansion, which ironically are workloads where the mid-range specs are perfectly fine (ProTools HDX, Blackmagic SDI, for example).

The Scientific and Engineering professionals that Apple was trying to court with the Mac Pro never really materialized to any major degree. There are some that use Macs, but most (as others have already said) are platform agnostic. They are also largely single-purpose workstation users - their workstation hardware and software is generally procured for a specific workload in mind, is built around that one workload, and is only used for that one workload. Those aren't the types of customers Apple is really interested in spending a lot of time and money in pursuing.

 

[Ctrlos]

The only reason the Mac Pro exists is because Apple have customers that need to buy computers with the I/O stack by the pallet-load. Even despite the price its a bulk-business purchase holder like the iPhone 16e or the base iPad.

 

[Wizec]

If Apple is smart, for AI training they will start using the TPUs that Broadcom manufactures: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jim-cramer-says-broadcom-most-033102047.html

 

[1d1otic]

Servers don’t run on RTX cards. And Apple doesn’t sell servers. They might build some for their internal use, and that can take whatever shape as suits their business needs.

So far you seem to talk about ML workstations and servers as if they were the same thing, which is not correct. I fully agree with you that Apple would benefit from shipping faster and more capable GPUs. I don’t see however how this translates to them needing a Mac Pro or pluggable GPUs. IMO, pending some advances in GPU tech, an Mx Ultra Studio could be a competitive ML workstation, and a cluster of two such Studios would still considerably more cost-effective than a hypothetical Extreme chip. I too would like to see a nice modular Mac Pro with pluggable computer boards, but the reality increasingly looks like there simply isn’t enough market demand to absorb the tremendous R&D and manufacturing cost.

I only compared the performance, never said servers run on RTX cards.

 

[1d1otic]

What market? The xserve market has long been discontinued. Apple stopped using nividia gpus in 2015 - 10 years ago.

What does a Mac Pro do that a Mac Studio does not?

All workstations are server based

macos 26.2 allows studios to be clustered, something that would be beneficial for AI tasks.

They did in 2022 with the introduction of the Mac Studio.

Can doesn't mean better and faster. You are stuck with 10gb ethernet port while others can do 100gb.

How so? Please provide facts/figures on what is poor with Mac Studio. You are literally the first person to say that the M4 Max Studio's performance is poor. Does that also mean MBPs using the Max chip is also a poor performer?

M3 Ultra or M4 Max's GPU performance are poor for sure. It only as good as RTX 4070TI while Nvidia already have RTX 5090 or even Blackwell. We are talking about high-end desktop, workstation, and even servers.

 

[1d1otic]

Apple's workstation was always on the lower-end as far as professional workstation specs go. Apple isn't "degenerating" anything spec-wise. What they have done is painted themselves into a bit of a marketing corner with the M-Series processors such that they no longer have the ability to add the kind of workstation-ish features to the Mac Pro that differentiated it from their other offerings.

Most professional uses that would have been targeted by the Mac Pro in the past are now well served by the Mac Studio. This would be the case whether the Mac Pro continued to be Intel based (or expandable the way the Intel based ones were) or M-Series based. Those that need a workstation like the Mac Pro are generally the ones that still rely on internal PCIe expansion, which ironically are workloads where the mid-range specs are perfectly fine (ProTools HDX, Blackmagic SDI, for example).

The Scientific and Engineering professionals that Apple was trying to court with the Mac Pro never really materialized to any major degree. There are some that use Macs, but most (as others have already said) are platform agnostic. They are also largely single-purpose workstation users - their workstation hardware and software is generally procured for a specific workload in mind, is built around that one workload, and is only used for that one workload. Those aren't the types of customers Apple is really interested in spending a lot of time and money in pursuing.

Sorry but cant agree more. Having Mac Pro is a lot different than just Mac Studio and you are only justifying degeneration especially comparing to Intel-Mac era.

 

[maflynn]

All workstations are server based

No they're not, Please provide details on why you say worstations are server based

M3 Ultra or M4 Max's GPU performance are poor for sure. It only as good as RTX 4070TI while Nvidia already have RTX 5090 or even Blackwell. We are talking about high-end desktop, workstation, and even servers.

This has nothing to do with a mac pro as its apple failing to keep pace with nividia but I will say a RTX 4070ti or my M4 MAx studio is far from a poor performer. This really has nothing to do with you making a case that apple needs a mac pro, but rather they need to improve the GPU on apple silicon - which they have on the M5

 

[1d1otic]

No they're not, Please provide details on why you say worstations are server based

They are. ECC RAM, workstation GPU, Xeon CPU are great examples. Servers are just a bigger version of workstations with more parts.

This has nothing to do with a mac pro as its apple failing to keep pace with nividia but I will say a RTX 4070ti or my M4 MAx studio is far from a poor performer. This really has nothing to do with you making a case that apple needs a mac pro, but rather they need to improve the GPU on apple silicon - which they have on the M5

Apple Silicon chips cant provide faster GPU like RTX 5090 or workstation GPU. Are you gonna say Apple is the best even if 4070TI is what they can do at max? Dont forget how much cheaper is 4070TI compared to Mac Studio with Ultra.

 

[maflynn]

They are. ECC RAM, workstation GPU, Xeon CPU are great examples. Servers are just a bigger version of workstations with more parts

Actually you're wrong.
servers that use AMD processors use EPYC cpus, workstations use threadripper. For Intel, there's the Xenon-SP for servers, workstations use Xenon-W processors.
More often then not, workstations use DDR5 non-ecc ram. Some workstations do, but where performance is a priority those workstations forgo ECC ram.
GPUs, again, there's a whole different class of GPU for servers https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/data-center-gpus/
Power supplies - servers have redundancy built in, workstations typically only have a single PSU

To summarize, workstations use a different class processor, gpu ram, and have redundancy built in with components like the PSU

Edit: I forgot to mention enterprise servers measure their ram in terabytes, where workstations are in hundreds of gigabytes.

 

[1d1otic]

Actually you're wrong.
servers that use AMD processors use EPYC cpus, workstations use threadripper. For Intel, there's the Xenon-SP for servers, workstations use Xenon-W processors.
More often then not, workstations use DDR5 non-ecc ram. Some workstations do, but where performance is a priority those workstations forgo ECC ram.
GPUs, again, there's a whole different class of GPU for servers https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/data-center-gpus/
Power supplies - servers have redundancy built in, workstations typically only have a single PSU

To summarize, workstations use a different class processor, gpu ram, and have redundancy built in with components like the PSU

Edit: I forgot to mention enterprise servers measure their ram in terabytes, where workstations are in hundreds of gigabytes.

Nope, I'm right. I actually check them.

They are using same techs with different uses. For example, AMD's thread ripper and EPYC series are technically identical and same for Intel Xeon. Even GPU are reusing consumer grade GPU for workstations and maybe for servers.

Do you see why it's important to have both workstations and servers? They are all connected and ditching Mac Pro will only means they are hurting their own server as if M2 Ultra is their best.

 

[1d1otic]

Apple never entered the 3D graphics market. Always been owned by Win.

Tell that to Disney and it only proves that Mac is too limited to use because of GPU performance. You literally admitted that Mac's GPU performance sucks after all.

 

[maflynn]

Do you see why it's important to have both workstations and servers?

I work on servers, so I'm acutely aware of the need, configurations and the differences between servers and workstations - but its beating a dead horse, I see no more benefit in trying to convey the differences - I'm out

The bottom line is apple left the server market in 2011 when it discontinued the xserve line, apple's design decisions regarding apple silicon (ram, gpu, even ssd controllers), means that the mac pro has no purpose and the studio is the heir apparent. There's no need to develop a new mac pro when you cannot use discrete GPUs, where you cannot upgrade the ram, and have limited options for storage upgrades.

 

[leman]

All workstations are server based

They are. ECC RAM, workstation GPU, Xeon CPU are great examples. Servers are just a bigger version of workstations with more parts.

Oh boy. Now I understand the confusion in this thread.

 

[Ethosik]

The Mac Studio is essentially the replacement for the Mac Pro, there's no difference aside from upgradability/extendability.

They are not really treating the Mac Studio that well either. Even if I could get behind the idea that not all generations will have an Ultra variant, simply waiting until M4 was released was a majorly bad decision. M4 Max vs M3 Ultra is a ridiculous combination. And why didn't they make the M3 Ultra when M3 Max was out?

If Apple's chip team is not up to the task, then please just move back to x86. Intel and AMD still beat the socks off of a maxed M3 Ultra Mac Studio at a fraction of the cost. And with the economy the way it is going, MANY people will not drop $2,000+ for a system anymore let alone $6,000+.

 

[Ethosik]

Mac Studio or M3 Ultra is extremely slow compared to others.

It's not even close to high-end desktop based on its performance. Mac Pro on the other hand, it used to have 90 series grade GPU with up to 4 slots. Both specs and performance are not even close to Mac Pro or workstation. Dont forget that Apple made their own servers with Mac Pro parts before.

Fully agree. I HATE HATE HATE Windows 11 and how power hungry Windows PC are and how much HEAT they generate. But the most powerful Mac does not even come close to it. Mac Pro back in 2010/2012 was more in line and supported upgrades.

 

[Ethosik]

Why do all companies need to have the full hardware/software stack? An excessive waste of resources. A Z8 is an excellent machine and there are plenty other. Also, I suspect NVIDIA is getting rich by providing for the data centers, not the workstation market.

Anyone calling themself a "pro" would also be OS independent and choose the optimal hardware and software combination for a job. Apple has never ever been perfomance leader. Performance per watt (since a few years) but not raw perfromance.

Apple is doing what Apple is doing best: providing an appealing package (although a little on the expensive side) for the end user of technology.

Yep agree with your statement in the middle. I hate Windows 11 but continue to use it because it gets part of my job done. My Mac Studio is pretty much just doing Photoshop type work and video editing. But most of my high end workflow is BACK on the PC now which I was not happy about.

 

[1d1otic]

Yep agree with your statement in the middle. I hate Windows 11 but continue to use it because it gets part of my job done. My Mac Studio is pretty much just doing Photoshop type work and video editing. But most of my high end workflow is BACK on the PC now which I was not happy about.

Intel, AMD, Nvidia dont care about power consumption which is a huge problem but if Apple can make Mac Pro grade chips, it will be a huge deal.

 

[Ethosik]

Intel, AMD, Nvidia dont care about power consumption which is a huge problem but if Apple can make Mac Pro grade chips, it will be a huge deal.

That what the Mac Pro should be IMO. Keep the Mac Studio as power efficient, but have the Mac Pro just go wild. If Apple is doing this well at such low power consumption, imagine what 1,000+ watts they could do! That was my initial hope once Apple silicon started, but was disappointed when it only received M2 Ultra and was $3,000 more with the SAME SPECS as the Mac Studio. No motherboard, power supply, case is worth that much more. And Apple wonders why their Mac Pro is not selling well.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

That what the Mac Pro should be IMO. Keep the Mac Studio as power efficient, but have the Mac Pro just go wild. If Apple is doing this well at such low power consumption, imagine what 1,000+ watts they could do! That was my initial hope once Apple silicon started, but was disappointed when it only received M2 Ultra and was $3,000 more with the SAME SPECS as the Mac Studio. No motherboard, power supply, case is worth that much more. And Apple wonders why their Mac Pro is not selling well.

They don’t wonder, they’ve never sold many Mac Pro’s. Ever.

I don’t think SoC’s work like Intel/AMD CPU’s where they can just be clocked higher and higher or accept more power than they’re designed for. So, there likely was never the possibility of just pouring more power into it and see what would happen (or, what would likely happen is just that it’d go unstable pretty quickly).

 

[theluggage]

Fully agree. I HATE HATE HATE Windows 11 and how power hungry Windows PC are and how much HEAT they generate. But the most powerful Mac does not even come close to it.

More cores + faster speeds = more heat, largely because Physics, not simply because PC. In the sort of high-end x86 workstations with massive discrete (usually NVIDIA) GPUs that most Mac Pro mourners seem to want, most of that heat comes from those GPUs, not "because Windows" or "because PC". The 2019 Mac Pro wasn't any more power-efficient than a comparable x86 + PCIe GPUs tower because it was just a x86 + PCIe GPU tower.

Apple Silicon/ARM is somewhat more power efficient than traditional x86. Some of that it inherent in the ARM CPU architecture & dumping x86 compatibility, some of that is down to integrating GPU, media engine, neural engine etc. and CPU on the same chip for more efficient communication and RAM sharing... but it's still a compromise on power consumption vs. raw performance - it works great for "ultrabooks" and small-form-factor desktops that thrash x86 systems with "mobile" GPUs, but is never going to touch those massive, power-no-object discrete GPU cards. OK, maybe they could bolt 4 Mx Max dies together to make a Mx Extreme - but that's still going to consume 4x as much power as a Mx Max... and the Studio Ultra is already 50% copper heatsink.

Now, maybe Apple will decide to develop new chips using ARM and new GPU/NPU technology designed for AI training or AI servers - a bit like NVIDIA's Grace/Hopper... but they'd have to be pretty confident of finding a market in a sector where they currently have near-zero market share and where NVIDIA & others already have product.

Or they could (in theory) build an "Apple Silicon" processor with the support for PCIe dGPUs and the PCIe bandwidth to make a "big box 'o' slots" that folk could populate with NVIDIA and AMDs latest GPUs/NPUs/TPUs etc... which for that sort of work would be, well, exactly as fast as NVIDIA and AMDs latest GPUs/NPUs/TPUs etc. which can all be plugged into cheaper x86 workstations/servers - or server/workstation class ARM systems from Ampere, NVIDIA if you want to save power at the CPU end.

Apple found a gap in the processor market for power-efficient, ARM-based CPUs & good integrated graphics suitable for tablets, truly portable laptops and small-form-factor systems - which, fortunately, were already Apple's bread-and-butter. They had the great advantage that - unlike Windows - MacOS really doesn't 'do' 10 year legacy support so they had a fairly up-to-date, all-64-bit software base that could switch processors fairly painlessly (& had experience doing that) - and a user base who were very loyal to the MacOS UI.

It's not clear that there is a similar gap in the high-end workstation or server markets. Power efficiency isn't such a priority, and insofar as it is there are several established server/workstation-class ARM chips on the market, and the MacOS UI isn't really a great selling point for technically-competent users running complex software and dvelopment tools, which is increasingly cross-platform or Linux-based.

 

[mcnallym]

You said it to yourself. To make a specialized kit, you'll need hardware but now, Apple cant make it cause a middle range PC is all they can make. Do you see the problem now?

no what I said is you would not start with hardware like a Mac Pro.

I am struggling to find the powerhouse workstation from Google and yet they seem to have been able to develop in-house the Tensor TPU systems which are custom ASICS without bothering to develop their own “Mac Pro” first.

Clearly the ability to design and bring to market a High End Workstation was not a requirement for Google to be able to develop the ASIC for their AI modelling.

But based on your argument that Apple NEED to have a Mac Pro then as Google don’t have the ability to produce a high end workstation then they cannot possibly have been able to make their AI hardware and yet they somehow did.

 

[JouniS]

What does a Mac Pro do that a Mac Studio does not?

I think a better question is what does a Xeon/Threadripper do that an Ultra does not. And the answer is PCIe lanes and other forms of external connectivity.

As far as I know, the Max has roughly the same external bandwidth as Intel/AMD consumer chips, and the Ultra has twice as much. (But I haven't seen concrete numbers for the recent chips.) That means the Ultra has around half the bandwidth of a proper workstation chip. If you have a setup with multiple high-resolution monitors, a lot of local storage, and a fast network, a Mac Studio may run out of bandwidth before a proper workstation.