M1 Max Quadro Mac Pro Leaks - The Alder Lake KILLER! 🤯

[pshufd]

The gaming revenue is more than 4 times larger than the movie industry. They are not a small group of people.

Really, the power of the M1 Max can easily be exceeded by many people.

Apple doesn't care.

 

[UBS28]

Apple doesn't care.

Your original statement is still wrong. It’s many people that can exceed the power of the M1 Max.

 

[pshufd]

Your original statement is still wrong. It’s many people that can exceed the power of the M1 Max.

It's right. The context should have been obvious.

 

[Bodhitree]

For a moment I thought these had come again…

Macintosh Quadra - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[leman]

The gaming revenue is more than 4 times larger than the revenue of the movie industry. They are not a small group of people.

Weird thing to say even the fact that mobile games take the lion's share of the gaming revenue and Apple takes the lion's share of mobile gaming...

Really, the power of the M1 Max can easily be exceeded by many people.

What does this even mean? The power of the RTX 3090 can also easily be exceeded by many people.

 

[cmaier]

Weird thing to say even the fact that mobile games take the lion's share of the gaming revenue and Apple takes the lion's share of mobile gaming...



What does this even mean? The power of the RTX 3090 can also easily be exceeded by many people.

What about the power of grayskull? Of love? Is there no power that cannot be exceeded by many people? I need to know.

 

[thenewperson]

The gaming revenue is more than 4 times larger than the revenue of the movie industry. They are not a small group of people.

Yeah, with mobile games carrying that heavily, and Apple being a big part of that. Let's not pretend mobile gaming was the context of my comment or the discussion leading to it.

Really, the power of the M1 Max can easily be exceeded by many people

Duh. "Many people" and 5% of users isn't exactly in conflict.

 

[Appletoni]

The gaming revenue is more than 4 times larger than the revenue of the movie industry. They are not a small group of people.

Really, the power of the M1 Max can easily be exceeded by many people.

The gaming industry will be much bigger in the next years than the movie industry.
The movie industry is much smaller than gaming industry now.

Yes the power of the M1 Max can easily be exceeded.
People can buy the M1 Max and wonder why it is strong. It’s like buying a house for one person and figure out that it has to much space.
Other people can buy the M1 Max and wonder why it is weak. For them it’s like buying a one room apartment for a big family and figure out that it has not enough room.

The people I mentioned first are always telling the other people:
You don’t need a stronger machine. That makes as much sense as telling a big family that a one room apartment is big enough for them.

The true is that when someone says: For my … task it’s not strong enough. Then that’s not a discussion. That’s a fact.

 

[Appletoni]

I saw a video with a Threadripper and the size of that chip was monstrous. I was wondering if they had to use more than one tube of thermal paste on it. I image the Jade 4C could be really huge too.

I was talking to my son about these chips and was saying that there aren't a lot of people that need the power of the M1 MAX MacBook Pro, maybe 5% of users at most. The percentage of people that need a Jade 4C has to be tiny.

I know a lot of people which could use the power of a Threadripper inside the MacBook Pro, because in the same time they need only between 0 and 1% of the GPU power.

 

[Appletoni]

It's far from certain that the future Mac Pro will be a workstation. The 4x M1 Max rumor sounds like the CPU performance will be in the workstation territory, while GPU performance and memory capacity will be closer to high-end consumer desktops. Either Apple has decided that workstations are rarely necessary anymore, or they will introduce some new hardware instead of simply scaling the M1 Max.

A MacBook Pro 16-inch with:
32 M1 GPU cores = ~ mobile RTX 3080
64 M1 GPU cores = ~ mobile RTX 3090
Mobile means for the most people it’s weaker.
= We need 96 and 128 M1 GPU cores.

I hope that the M2 GPU cores will be twice as fast, because the RTX 4000 will be twice as fast as the RTX 3000.
= We need 96 and 128 M2 GPU cores.

 

[Appletoni]

The statement was that only 5% need the power of the M1 Max. And this is not true since gamers have needs that exceed the power of the M1 Max.

I know thousands of people (no joke) that can destroy the M1 Max CPU with integer math.
It’s so slow that a lot of people wondered that Apple has done such a thing.

My opinion is that the M1 Max chip is missing a math engine!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Appletoni]

Who is certain? The MP is a challenge and therefor the most interesting one to follow. Does current MPX module support infinite fabric? Yet people put two GPU into it so the PCI bus must be sufficient for something.

I was more thinking of 120 CPU/384 GPU based on Jade 4C rumours.

Sounds good.
But the MacBook Pro 16-inch has only 64 GB RAM and only 8 TB SSD and both should have at least 256 GB RAM and 32 TB SSD.
18-inch display would be mich better too.
See how many people bought 16-inch compared to 14-inch. Obviously the most people hate tiny displays.

 

[throAU]

Ok. They certainly have an lead for the next several years. Intel is about 3 years behind if you scale by power budget. And nothing from the x86 camp will compete unless Apple stumbles, because Arm is an inherent advantage. It’s possible that some other Arm vendor competes (or some other RISC design), but nobody is in the ballpark right now.

Also, just as importantly, Apple have full control of the software stack to utilise their hardware.

If Intel or AMD come out with a new platform feature, they need to wait for Microsoft (realistically, desktop linux just isn't a thing) to adopt said feature and push out an OS and libraries for it.

Apple's hardware and software teams are in the same building. They can discuss future plans across the entire product suite and design hardware to do exactly what they plan to do in software and vice versa.

 

[throAU]

Apple doesn't care.

More to the point, apple has a huge share of "gaming revenue" with the mobile game market.

 

[bearcatrp]

Good luck digging in your wallet for a 40 core arm Mac Pro. After the 2008 Mac Pro, Apple went nuts on costs for a Mac Pro. Reason why I built a dual processor windows machine for more than half the cost. Knock yourself out paying the Apple tax. Not worth it to me.

 

[cmaier]

Yes the power of the M1 Max can easily be exceeded.

By whom? And why haven’t they done so?

 

[throAU]

Interesting comparison with rendering on an M1 max versus.... well, just RTFA:

Rendering on the Apple M1 Max Chip

The home of Code & Visuals

blog.yiningkarlli.com

Never mind what Apple bring next year...

 

[Yebubbleman]

No. Apple support policies has very little to nothing to do with the price of the components or the overall system.

Price isn't the issue. Xeons are big rig trucks, designed to haul tons of ass over tons of miles and be in use for multiple decades. Core i3/i5/i7/i9 CPUs (especially the ones that use the lower-end consumer-focused sockets) are the compact sedans; maybe running 15 years at best, and, at most, used for one cross-country road trip and a bunch of short interstate travel. To be clear, I'm not talking about Apple's support policies. I'm talking about Intel's.

" ... Products are considered vintage when Apple stopped distributing them for sale more than 5 and less than 7 years ago. .. "

Obtaining service for your Apple product after an expired warranty - Apple Support

Learn about your options for getting service and parts for Apple devices that are past their warranty period.

support.apple.com

Once Apple withdraws a Mac system from sale then the "countdown clock" on support runs the prescribed time (
it is the inaction on Mac Pro upgrades from Apple that extended the 2010-2012 and 2013 models to longer support coverage. It isn't some magical property of the Intel chip used.

I understand the nuances of Vintage and Obsolete statuses as far as Apple support is concerned. We've been extremely well acquainted.

There are subsets of the Core ix line that have either embedded or special long term use designations that extend as long as mainstream Xeon E5/W SKUs.

I'm gonna stop you right there and state that Apple isn't employing such Core iX processors in use, which is the entire point. Not that there aren't some long-supported Core iX processors; just that when you compare the ones that Apple is using to the Xeons that Apple is using, there's usually a decent differential in terms of support from Intel.

Similarly the Xeon W 2100 ( iMac Pro ) got dropped relatively early by Intel for that class of processor ( largely because the W 2200 is substantively cheaper and socket compatible). Its window won't run as long even from Intel.

The iMac Pro and its Xeon W2100 is a bit of a rare case. (That CPU won't even get Windows 11 support.) But the iMac Pro, itself is a bit of a rare case.

The notion that more expensive Mac Pro as supported longer by Apple because users paid more is a notion largely made up on various internet forums by just repeating it as a "truth" over and over again. There is no solid contractual language from Apple that states that.

Incidentally, my thesis isn't at all that "it costs more therefore it should be supported for more". My thesis is that HIGHER GRADE HARDWARE is being used, therefore it will have longer support. Not always the case; but historically it has been the case for every Mac Pro, and the 2019 Mac Pro doesn't look like it will be an exception to this rule.

There can be a "broken analog clock is right twice a day" factor in that if the Intel Mac Pro is the last to be turned off with an Intel processor base then its support will likely last the longest. But that is not "system cost" but Apple inaction that is the real primary driver there.

Again, not my thesis here. Incidentally, Apple is statistically likely to NOT leave support for ONLY ONE model of Intel Mac while eschewing support for all others, be it Mac Pro or otherwise. But the notion that one buying a 2019 Mac Pro now will regret it later only serves to highlight one's own lack of understanding of the point to buying one to begin with.

No. Technically Obsolete hardware doesn't get OS updates. There is no huge decoupling of the hardware from the software. The window that Apple gives themselves by not explicitly tightly coupling them is that they have freedom to cut off the software early from the hardware; not that they are extending it (e.g., can get dropped on Vintage also ).

There are some mild corner cases where Apple throws something onto the Obselete list and it still might get some "last gasp" macOS update but that is largely driven by OS upgrade being in different part of the calendar year from when a product might go onto the Vintage/Obsolete list. If just add 6-10months onto the obsolete date to smooth out the sync you'll find nothing there getting a substantive upgrade.

Apple has always had a reason for dropping support for Macs and iOS/iPadOS devices. Sometimes, it's due to lack of a hardware feature that's critical (e.g. Metal support for Mojave). Sometimes, it's because you can no longer update the firmware for a given component on that Mac (WiFi Drivers for Big Sur) or because continuing to support that Mac was already becoming a pain in the ass (2010 and 2012 Mac Pros and Catalina). Hell, the only viable argument around the campfire for the Macs they dropped support for with Monterey is that they wanted to align with their vintage/obsolete status Macs. Not sure if that's the actual reason, but hell, I'll buy that for a dollar! Either way, Apple drops support for things for reasons and not arbitrarily. They know that if they drop support arbitrarily, they'll lose customers. Plain and simple.

If Apple continues to refuse to sign or enable 3rd party GPU drivers on macOS M-series branch then there will be blow back into the Mac Pro 2019. If Apple shrinks the pool of add-in cards that will have increasing impact on the that (or any W-3300 powered) system.

The Apple Silicon macOS drivers and the Intel macOS drivers are independent. Apple not supporting new video cards in the Intel macOS will be a bit of a problem, but that won't have anything to do with the Apple Silicon version of macOS as much as it will with Apple not maintaining the Intel macOS driver pool (which, given how the Mac has been during the end of the Intel Mac era, especially with non-Intel GPUs, is already kind of crappy).

However, it is unlikey that 2016,2017 T-series systems are going to get a "free pass" on support as they age out past their 7 year countdown clock window if they had replacements arrive in 2017-2018.

They did support 2010 Mac Pros with Westmere until Fall of 2019, despite technically releasing a model replacement in 2012 and a full redesign in 2013. Support from Intel and other component manufacturers definitely plays a hand here. Especially given that the last bit of support you could get on a 2010/12 Mac Pro REQUIRED the use of a non-stock GPU.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that if Apple shifts a substantive amount of the remaining Mac Pro user base onto other Mac Products with Mn Pre/Max SoCs in them. There very likely is a threshold were the remaining population is "too small" to continue building those systems. Folks said the same thing about XServe ( "XServe may be small , but if Apple has no server then overall Mac market will surely suffer." ... didn't happen. In fact, overall Mac sales went up; not down. )

The Mac Pro is a product that doesn't care about how many users buy it, but rather focuses on the specific needs of those that do buy it. If there are Mac Pro customers who have to still be on Intel, Apple will make another Intel model. If most workflows and accessories can make the jump to Apple Silicon, then Apple will ditch Intel for the next Mac Pro without a moment's hesitation. The 2019 versions of both the 16" MacBook Pro and Mac Pro, as well as the new design of 14" and 16" MacBook Pros showcase Apple realizing that they need to cave to the demands of some of these users.

Apple has said they will do something in-house when they think they can do a substatinally better job at it than the outside vendor.

This is not universally true of Apple. Though, it will eventually get there.

But if Apple increased their MBP , Mini , and iMac sales 20% and the Mac Pro's 1-2$ disappeared the Mac overall product ecosystem would survive just fine as a multiple billion dollar a year unit. the Mac Pro is a 'nice to have' , but it is not necessary.

The "Apple doesn't need the Mac Pro to survive" argument is moot and also irrelevant. Apple is not producing the Mac Pro because its business depends on it. It's doing it because it's the backbone of a customer segment they deem to be important to them. Whether that segment is actually necessary for their survival or not is neither here nor there.

Remains to be seen whether this "Apple Silicon Mac Pro" is really a 'Mac Pro' in a substantive general I/O capability overlap with the classic Mac Pro sense. Or Apple probably should use another name but using 'Mac Pro' far more so the proclaim closure on the Apple Silicon transition. ( when not fully done. ) .

Surely there will always be those saying that it isn't enough. Certainly, the way Apple is currently handling RAM and graphics on Apple Silicon Macs is fundamentally different in ways that naturally clash with (non-cylindrical) Mac Pro and Power Mac towers of the Intel and PowerPC eras. I don't think I/O will be the issue. Nor PCIe for slots. But GPUs and RAM will be inherently different regardless and it will have those saying "no, it's not a true Mac Pro", neverminding that this is Apple Silicon.

 

[Boil]

The Mac Pro is a product that doesn't care about how many users buy it, but rather focuses on the specific needs of those that do buy it. If there are Mac Pro customers who have to still be on Intel, Apple will make another Intel model. If most workflows and accessories can make the jump to Apple Silicon, then Apple will ditch Intel for the next Mac Pro without a moment's hesitation. The 2019 versions of both the 16" MacBook Pro and Mac Pro, as well as the new design of 14" and 16" MacBook Pros showcase Apple realizing that they need to cave to the demands of some of these users.

I believe there might be a final upgrade to the internals of the 2019 Mac Pro chassis:

• New main logic board - because Ice Lake Xeons need a new socket
• New CPU - Xeon W3300 series (Ice Lake)
• New GPU(s) - AMD RDNA3 MPX modules (7000-series)