MP 7,1 Mac Pro 2019 installed AMD RX 6900 XT with Vega II Duo exists

[Liber]

Updated some testing screenshots on 22nd Jan.

Even not official supported on bootcamp, the RX 6900 XT still outcome very good performance.

Please take a look the pictures.
-

I have installed RX 6900 XT.

It is really powerful, almost equal the Pro Vega II Duo.

But as not official supported by bootcamp, so I have to removed my MPX first.

Hope this can be the reference who is considering RX 6000 series for Mac Pro.

 

[casperes1996]

Wait but surely it's not supported by macOS either?

 

[Liber]

Wait but surely it's not supported by macOS either?

I don’t think so, as I could not see it in Mac OS system information.

I will try again under MPX removed conditions.

 

[h9826790]

For GPU supportability, you may join this thread.

AMD Polaris, Vega, & Navi GPU macOS Support

This thread is about compatibility of Polaris, Vega, & Navi GPUs with the Mac Pro. This information is mostly reference for Mac Pro 4,1 (2009), 5,1 (2010, 2012), and 7,1 (2019). Mac Pro 6,1 (2013) users may also find this information useful since it is possible to connect an eGPU via the...

forums.macrumors.com

According to the info at there.

11.1's GPU driver contains the 6900XT's device ID. However, the driver is incomplete, and no full acceleration.

If you want to test this card, better try the latest 11.2 beta (if there is a spare drive for you to try).

 

[AndreeOnline]

I think we have pretty credible rumours now that Apple will in fact update the 2019 Intel Mac Pro in addition to bringing out a smaller  Silicon one.

The reason for this might be as simple as Apple not wanting to leave new Mac Pro owners with another one-stop dud like the 2013 Mac Pro, after having launched the 2019 version with some fanfare. Considering the price point, it would be pretty heart breaking to once again leave those customers with a computer that—this time around—is built for upgrading, but where no one is making components for it.
So, this alone, I think, is enough for Apple to throw a few bones (like up-to-date MPX gfx modules) for those of us going forward with the 2019 Mac Pro for a wee bit longer. This could be regardless of a new  Silicon Mac Pro that might be stronger in all areas, and maybe even have a better price.

But there is definitely also a scenario where a new  Silicon Mac Pro might be strong in CPU and price, but might not be fully baked on the GPU side. Because it's not only a question about what Apple can make on the hardware side, but also if all the software players are skating to where the puck will be. There are at least two sides to the transition.

I'm also definitely seeing a scenario where a  Silicon Mac Pro might turn out to be that almost unicorn like Mac Pro that was always missing: a headless Mac Pro with some expandability at a much more affordable price for enthusiasts wanting more than an iMac but can't reach for a tower Mac Pro. But in this scenario the Intel Mac Pro would keep getting upgrades and actually remain the most powerful and expandable (and expensive) Mac Pro.

It could easily be 4-6 years before the  Silicon Mac Pro fully replaces the Intel version and becomes king of the hill.

 

[mode11]

Apple said the transition will be complete within 2 years, which means there would have to be an AS MP out by that point. It's possible the Intel MP will be kept on for certain use cases, but it seems unlikely Apple would to commit to replacing it unless they were sure it would be an upgrade in almost every area.

There's no doubt a big AS chip would outperform an equivalent Xeon, but open questions are RAM and GPU support. Part of the speed / efficiency of AS is that it's a fully integrated SoC - would this be diminished if it used socketed RAM and GPUs? There's no way Apple could include hundreds of GB of RAM on an SoC, so RAM would have to be socketed / soldered. Equally, integrated GPUs, however efficient, can't compete with 250W add-in cards. So unless Apple goes back to a 2013 MP style machine (unlikely), it will have to offer a modular AS MP with PCIe slots.

It's pretty tragic for MP owners to have swallowed hard and justified the exorbitant price of the 2019 MP on the basis that it will be a '10 year machine', and will pay off in the long run. Then to have the architecture declared obsolete barely six months later, and to now be reduced to bargaining that they'll be happy if Apple release an updated MPX module, to keep going 'a wee bit longer'. That's not a knock on MP buyers (it's still a powerful machine that will pay for itself over the next few years) - it's a testament to how much Apple jerk around this part of the market.

Apple knew that 'Big AS' likely wouldn't be available until 2022, and the 2019 MP was already very overdue in terms of getting a pro tower to market. But it's a bit like selling fully-loaded G5 Quads as their only pro desktop, whilst forgetting to mention the Intel transition was about to happen.

 

[h9826790]

Apple said the transition will be complete within 2 years, which means there would have to be an AS MP out by that point. It's possible the Intel MP will be kept on for certain use cases, but it seems unlikely Apple would to commit to replacing it unless they were sure it would be an upgrade in almost every area.

There's no doubt a big AS chip would outperform an equivalent Xeon, but open questions are RAM and GPU support. Part of the speed / efficiency of AS is that it's a fully integrated SoC - would this be diminished if it used socketed RAM and GPUs? There's no way Apple could include hundreds of GB of RAM on an SoC, so RAM would have to be socketed / soldered. Equally, integrated GPUs, however efficient, can't compete with 250W add-in cards. So unless Apple goes back to a 2013 MP style machine (unlikely), it will have to offer a modular AS MP with PCIe slots.

It's pretty tragic for MP owners to have swallowed hard and justified the exorbitant price of the 2019 MP on the basis that it will be a '10 year machine', and will pay off in the long run. Then to have the architecture declared obsolete barely six months later, and to now be reduced to bargaining that they'll be happy if Apple release an updated MPX module, to keep going 'a wee bit longer'. That's not a knock on MP buyers (it's still a powerful machine that will pay for itself over the next few years) - it's a testament to how much Apple jerk around this part of the market.

Apple knew that 'Big AS' likely wouldn't be available until 2022, and the 2019 MP was already very overdue in terms of getting a pro tower to market. But it's a bit like selling fully-loaded G5 Quads as their only pro desktop, whilst forgetting to mention the Intel transition was about to happen.

I really don't know, quite hard to predict what Apple will do on this kind of big change.

But I tends to believe that they will keep supporting the 7,1 until 2016. In the mean time, may release some MPX cards for the 7,1.

Even Apple release the 8,1 (ARM) within two years. There is nothing to stop them to support both 7,1 and 8,1 together.

Of course, it very depends on how much pro users switch to the 8,1.

From the 5,1 / 6,1 case, we learnt that if most 5,1 users stay away from the 6,1. Apple can actually go back to the 5,1 style, and release an upgradable 7,1.

Also, from other Macs cases, we know that if people accept "form over function", and "no self upgrade path makes people more willing to buy the top model", then Apple will make the Mac even more lock down, and less upgradable.

So, very likely the outcome will be based on "if the 7,1 users prefer to stay with the 7,1".

 

[mode11]

Apple won't be able to make an SoC powerful enough to compete with a big CPU + powerful GPU, so unless it abandons the high end, it will need to make a machine with discrete parts. Those parts could be soldered to the logicboard, rather than upgradeable, I however. This would allow the currently rumoured Cube-style machine.

The Intel MP will certainly be supported by OS updates for many years (unless there is a very rapid transition to AS, as there was from PPC > Intel). GPU support likely depends on whether the 8,1 uses MPX slots. If it does, GPUs for that system will almost certainly work on the 2019 MP. If it doesn't, or they change the slots in some way, then I doubt the 2019 will see many MPX cards. Of course, you will still be able to use PC AMD PCIe cards.

As you say, the other thing is how enthusiastically people buy the 8,1. If it's a huge success and massively outsells the 7,1, Apple may not put a lot of effort into supporting the 7,1 long term.

 

[mode11]

Apple not wanting to leave new Mac Pro owners with another one-stop dud like the 2013 Mac Pro, after having launched the 2019 version with some fanfare

I'd like to think so, but Apple don't seem the sentimental types.

a new  Silicon Mac Pro might be strong in CPU and price, but might not be fully baked on the GPU side

So are you saying they would release an AS MP with an SoC that has decent graphics (e.g. RX5700 standard), but much weaker than a Vega II Duo / RX6900XT? And that this machine won't have PCIe slots for better GPUs?

a headless Mac Pro with some expandability at a much more affordable price for enthusiasts wanting more than an iMac but can't reach for a tower Mac Pro

Apple could have done this at any point in the last 15 years, but for whatever reason (though easy to guess), has declined to do so.

It could easily be 4-6 years before the  Silicon Mac Pro fully replaces the Intel version

There is no way Apple could be selling the 2019 Mac Pro as their top machine in 2024-6. It gets beaten by Ryzen systems today, and the initial low-end AS laptops are faster than most Apple Intel machines. Unless Apple refuses to use discreet GPUs in the 8,1, it's going to be a lot quicker.

 

[h9826790]

There is no way Apple could be selling the 2019 Mac Pro as their top machine in 2024-6. It gets destroyed by Ryzen systems today, and the initial low-end AS laptops are faster than most Apple Intel machines. Unless Apple refuses to use discreet GPUs in the 8,1, it's going to be a lot quicker.

Apple actually keep selling the 6,1 in 2019, which can be destroyed by base 2019 iMac in pretty much every single aspect.

So, they can do this on the 7,1. And I won't be too surprised.

 

[mode11]

Apple actually keep selling the 6,1 in 2019

Sure, but they stopped selling it as soon as the 2019 MP came out.

They should have stopped selling it years before of course, and would have if the iMac Pro had been accepted by high end customers as suitable for all their needs. When it wasn't, they needed to start from scratch on a new tower, and because Apple, it had to be a work of art so that took two years...

 

[AndreeOnline]

So are you saying they would release an AS MP with an SoC that has decent graphics (e.g. RX5700 standard), but much weaker than a Vega II Duo / RX6900XT? And that this machine won't have PCIe slots for better GPUs?

Sort of, but not quite. AS MP will not use "traditional" GPUs. It won't ship with them and it won't offer expansion for GPUs via PCIe.

They will need to increase their AS GPU cores until they reach the level they are after. Currently the Mac Mini M1 uses 8 GPU cores and scores 22000-23000 in GB5. The Vega II (single) scores almost 4.5x that—98000. Apple would need to increase the core count from 8 to 36 or more to reach "2019 level performance".

Going by loose rumours, that is what they are doing right? We've seen numbers like "up to" 128 cores being thrown around. Let's look at it. I'm casually using GB5 numbers as that is what I've got.

Mac Mini M1: 22'500
Mac Pro Vega II: 98'000

Mac Pro 6000-series: 175'000
Mac Pro 6000-series, Dual Duos: 700'000


AS MP 32 core: 90'000
AS MP 64 core: 180'000
AS MP 128 core: 360'000

I trust you understand that these numbers are a gross over simplification based on anecdotal data. Still, it's something we can reason about.

My guess is we'll see M2 products in the MacBook Pro and iMac lineup with maybe 32 GPU cores. That would rival today's mid to semi high end GPUs. Great!
I also think we'll see a first gen AS MP based on this M2 chip. I think it will be significantly cheaper than the 2019 Mac Pro, but it will have fewer PCIe slots and ports. Along with this, the 2019 will get new MPX modules based on 6000-series chips from AMD.

The AS MP will be the best computer for "almost everyone". But the Intel MP with dedicated GPUs will still be stronger in a few scenarios.

Once the 64/128 GPU chips get here, the AS MP will be unrivalled. And you're right: 4-6 years was a stretch. But I don't think Apple will have the stronger GPU chips ready for the small AS MP later this year. I'm guessing 2022 at the earliest. And they won't be 'upgradable', whereas the 6000-series can be doubled up, like today. Maybe even quadrupled with 2x Duos.

Apple could have done this at any point in the last 15 years, but for whatever reason (though easy to guess), has declined to do so.

Up until now, Apple's Mac Pro efforts have basically been them selling integrations of other vendor's parts as a glorified case maker. With their own chip and system design, the AS MPs will be brought neatly into the fold together with other popular Macs.

There is no way Apple could be selling the 2019 Mac Pro as their top machine in 2024-6. It gets beaten by Ryzen systems today.

But it doesn't. There are no Ryzen Mac Pros. It can't get beaten by a product that doesn't exist. But as I corrected myself above: I agree that the AS MP will take the absolute crown around the 2024 mark. That is, when the second gen AS MP gets here.

 

[equals]

BTW, a few days ago AMD CEO said, "Apple continues to work with us as their graphics partner, and we work with them".

 

[mode11]

@AndreeOnline You make some interesting points. This does seem like an awfully big piece of silicon, though, which can't be great for yields (and cost). Perhaps they will use chiplets (like AMD) to avoid huge monolithic dies. There is also the possibility of using multiple 'sockets' e.g. 2x M2 chips with 64 GPU cores each.

Making a computer using giant SoC(s) does put all their eggs in one basket. It means no GPU upgrades for the life of the machine, and relies on Apple continuously being at the forefront of GPU development, versus companies like AMD and Nvidia that specialise in it within a much bigger market. Sure, we likely won't ever see Nvidia GPUs in a Mac again, but this is already a negative of the Mac platform for those who want them for CUDA, RTX etc.

I understand that if you are a Logic or Final Cut user, then PC hardware like Ryzens are irrelevant. But someone speccing a workstation for After Effects, Premiere, Maya or other cross-platform applications will certainly be taking a look at PCs, if there are tremendous cost savings and / or faster hardware. I certainly prefer macOS to Windows 10, but it's not like the latter is constantly blue-screening these days.

I also mentioned Ryzen as a point of comparison. AS is already competitive with the best AMD chips for single core performance; by 2024, a midrange AS iMac would likely be steamrolling the 2019 MP (certainly for CPU).

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Sort of, but not quite. AS MP will not use "traditional" GPUs. It won't ship with them and it won't offer expansion for GPUs via PCIe.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If it ships with PCIe slots, it better accept traditional GPUs!

 

[AndreeOnline]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If it ships with PCIe slots, it better accept traditional GPUs!

I mean that it will still be expandable with various audio cards, video out cards for color correction, general I/O cards... or any number of PCIe cards that I don't even knew existed (I'm sure there are many). And this in turn will be one of the main reason someone would choose the Mac Pro: flexibility and customisation.

I'm surprised so many expect normal GPUs to mesh with AS. I don't think Apple has explicitly said that newer Macs can't use GPUs, but that is most likely due to them wanting to spin it the right way—and have alternative hardware ready. But from watching various WWDC sessions and tech talks, and just thinking about the new unified architecture, I don't see it as being in the cards.

Todays M1 Macs won't work with eGPUs and it's for the same reason.

No, if you're thinking about Apple Silicon Macs, you need to let go of GPU-support in the traditional meaning. But as I mentioned above: they are designing GPU solutions that are "several times faster" (which is a lot) than today's cards. Apple may very well brand it as 'Apple GPU', but it will be really just be additional cores on a Mx chip. Or, as also suggested above, dual or more M-chip designs in one computer.

The closest to actual GPU support I'd consider remotely likely, is an actual Apple GPU that is based on some custom interface that makes it fast enough to work well with AS and where it's essentially seen by the Mac as fully integrated.

 

[mode11]

I'm surprised so many expect normal GPUs to mesh with AS

Because not being able to is just unthinkably stupid. It's essentially a return to the MP 2013, which I thought we'd all (including Apple) agreed was a poor solution.

they are designing GPU solutions that are "several times faster" (which is a lot) than today's cards

This is one hell of an assertion. Several times faster than an RX68/900XT? Than an RTX 3080/90? Than an RTX 4090 in a couple of years? These are enormous add-in cards that require a lot of power. Putting everything on one chip clearly has benefits in terms of memory access speed and so on, but offset against that is the limitation of how much you can currently fit on one chip. It may well be more efficient, but outright horsepower is not going to be there.

I'm also not convinced of the economics for Apple to build a massive chip for one very low-volume model of computer. Apple have spent most of the last decade flip-flopping on whether to even make a Mac Pro. And if they did decide to make such a chip, they would want to keep selling it for years without change, to recoup the investment. Mac Pro customers would probably buy them regardless I suppose, but it would result in the familiar frustration of waiting eons for updates, with no clue if / when they'll come, which is not great for the platform. Using 2x top end iMac SoCs would be a way round this, though, leveraging economies of scale. Inter-chip latency would impact some of the AS magic, depending on workload, but it still would make for a powerful box.

Either way, there would be no way of upgrading either the CPU or GPU. The former is not something many people purchasing MPs brand new are likely to do, but they are certainly interested in GPU upgrades. GPUs are still on a fairly steep upward trajectory in terms of performance year-on-year; half the point of a tower is to be able to take advantage of stuff like this. In an earlier post you were hoping for new MPX modules yourself. Freelance creatives also don't all have unlimited budgets for equipment - being able to upgrade later as prices fall helps spread the cost of a new machine.

 

[MisterAndrew]

Have you tried it in macOS with 11.2 beta?

Based on the current rumors about the new Mac Pro models coming this year, it may be that Apple doesn't have plans to fully discontinue the top-end Intel Mac Pro. The full 2-year transition may only apply to the Macs they intend to transition, and not all of them. The Intel Mac Pro isn't exactly a consumer product and they may keep it around for the professional sector.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Because not being able to is just unthinkably stupid. It's essentially a return to the MP 2013, which I thought we'd all (including Apple) agreed was a poor solution.

Well. Apple Silicon is an integrated solution for CPU+GPU. It's not "just" a CPU.

Maybe you're thinking of AS is a replacement for Intel CPU+Intel integrated graphics—that can stand alone but also work with a GPU? That's not how I see it at all, and it isn't where the rumours (and WWDC sessions) are pointing. An AS Mac running Rosetta apps should be able to work with a normal GPU, but Rosetta is just a phase. I don't think you can run a traditional GPU on native AS code due to the unified memory and other things in the apis that were build from the ground up to be optimised for the M-series chips.

This is one hell of an assertion. Several times faster than an RX68/900XT? Than an RTX 3080/90? Than an RTX 4090 in a couple of years?

The 64 and 128 GPUs are Bloomberg level rumours. They don't always pan out, but it's also not just forum speculation. As you can see in my numbers above, a 128 core GPU would be more than 3.5x faster than a Vega II. It would be twice as fast as a 6900XT. I'll fend off the 4090 for now, as Apple would have new gen chips at that time as well.

I'm also not convinced of the economics for Apple to build a massive chip for one very low-volume model of computer. Apple have spent most of the last decade flip-flopping on whether to even make a Mac Pro.

But isn't that the beauty of it? They'll be using the same chips across the line. No more limited, niche series computers. Just the same tech integrated in various ways across different platforms. There'll be additional work, surely. But compare owning the design & planning + production to waiting for Intel's 'Gump's box of chocolates'.

Either way, there would be no way of upgrading either the CPU or GPU.

Yup. This might very well be the case. The Mac Pro will still have expansion, so there is that flexibility. Maybe they could to something akin to the Afterburner card, but expand its capabilities?
User upgradable storage seems like a no-brainer.

In an earlier post you were hoping for new MPX modules yourself. Freelance creatives also don't all have unlimited budgets for equipment - being able to upgrade later as prices fall helps spread the cost of a new machine.

Yes. I picked up a used Mac Pro for a pretty good price (pretty recently), well aware of where the future lies. But regardless of that, I would still like to see this beautiful computer live on for a few years. An updated MPX module would be great. The Vega II is a pretty "old" card already, lacking DSC and so on. But make no mistake, I'm all for AS and the road ahead. I think it's a great choice by Apple, even if it's controversial. I think the ecosystem will be better for it when the dust settles.

All in all, I'm not out to provoke or frustrate you, but I think we are looking at different pages of the Play Book.

 

[mikas]

I really agree with mode11 logic and hope that apple thinks the same. On the other hand I have to say that unfortunately I wait to happen exactly what AndreeOnline predicts. It's all SoC from now on. For the better or the worse.

I remember that quote / advice last year from apple developer conference, directed towards programmers, something like: "Act like it's always and only apple integrated graphics when you build your apps".

I'd really like to see all goes well and we get discreet GPU's and upgradable RAM and storage. But I don't think we will.

Apple don't want to say anything or give any roadmaps whatsoever. We just have to wait - once again.

Wait, there is a roadmap. Two years from now all Apple silicon lineup.

 

[mode11]

They'll be using the same chips across the line

The same architecture, sure, but not the same chips. For example, a 28-core Xeon is not merely a binned version of an i5 or i7 - it's a totally different die. One that's not only much bigger and more expensive to produce, but sold in vanishingly small numbers. Hence their huge cost. An AS chip with 128 GPU cores and e.g. 32 CPU cores would be enormous, if built as one chip.

I would still like to see this beautiful computer live on for a few years

Totally agree - it's a work of art. It would be disgraceful of Apple if they didn't release at least one high end MPX module per year for the next few years. If they don't, hopefully they'll at least include drivers for new AMD GPUs in macOS. Though if they aren't using discreet GPUs in any new machines (which they almost certainly won't in any MacBook or iMac), that's a bit of a question mark.

I'm not out to provoke or frustrate you

Not at all, it's an interesting discussion. If anything, I've been quite hard on a computer you've got a lot invested in (even if you got a deal / went in with open eyes), so it's nice you're philosophical about all this.

I realise that over the history of desktop computers, more and more devices (e.g. Ethernet, audio) have been incorporated into chipsets, then into CPUs themselves (e.g. memory controllers, Thunderbolt), and the logical conclusion is that everything is essentially miniaturised onto one chip. This is already the case with phones, tablets etc. There are clear performance / efficiency benefits. It's just disappointing that having apparently embraced the expandable box again at their mea culpa in 2017, Apple looks set to close it again in the near term. Which would be a U-turn on a U-turn. I also still think that if Apple really does go for a large single-chip solution, they'll have to settle for 'good enough' at the high end, as it just won't be cost effective to really push the boat out with a unique chip for a tiny number of (albeit expensive) computers.

 

[SecuritySteve]

Well. Apple Silicon is an integrated solution for CPU+GPU. It's not "just" a CPU.

Maybe you're thinking of AS is a replacement for Intel CPU+Intel integrated graphics—that can stand alone but also work with a GPU? That's not how I see it at all, and it isn't where the rumours (and WWDC sessions) are pointing. An AS Mac running Rosetta apps should be able to work with a normal GPU, but Rosetta is just a phase. I don't think you can run a traditional GPU on native AS code due to the unified memory and other things in the apis that were build from the ground up to be optimised for the M-series chips.


The 64 and 128 GPUs are Bloomberg level rumours. They don't always pan out, but it's also not just forum speculation. As you can see in my numbers above, a 128 core GPU would be more than 3.5x faster than a Vega II. It would be twice as fast as a 6900XT. I'll fend off the 4090 for now, as Apple would have new gen chips at that time as well.


But isn't that the beauty of it? They'll be using the same chips across the line. No more limited, niche series computers. Just the same tech integrated in various ways across different platforms. There'll be additional work, surely. But compare owning the design & planning + production to waiting for Intel's 'Gump's box of chocolates'.


Yup. This might very well be the case. The Mac Pro will still have expansion, so there is that flexibility. Maybe they could to something akin to the Afterburner card, but expand its capabilities?
User upgradable storage seems like a no-brainer.


Yes. I picked up a used Mac Pro for a pretty good price (pretty recently), well aware of where the future lies. But regardless of that, I would still like to see this beautiful computer live on for a few years. An updated MPX module would be great. The Vega II is a pretty "old" card already, lacking DSC and so on. But make no mistake, I'm all for AS and the road ahead. I think it's a great choice by Apple, even if it's controversial. I think the ecosystem will be better for it when the dust settles.

All in all, I'm not out to provoke or frustrate you, but I think we are looking at different pages of the Play Book.

SoC makes sense for the smaller products on Apple's lineup. When they make M-series processors for Mac Pros, iMacs, and even high-end MacBook pros, I expect continued partnership with AMD for their latest GPUs on Apple Silicon. That means that the top tier AS CPUs will not have integrated GPUs (or at least, they will only resemble Intel GPUs in performance capabilities and act as an accelerator at best).

Why? Because the performance of discrete GPUs continues to surpass SoC systems. SoC also doesn't scale very well at the top end of the market, whereas it is a very strong contender for the bottom tier (laptops, minis/NUCs). AMD's CEO has also stated that their partnership with Apple will continue onward into the future, indicating that there are plans for more cooperation later this year.

If Apple really wanted to blow our socks off, they would release a discrete GPU MPX module that was usable in both the 2019 Mac Pro, the 2021/2022 AS Mac Pro, and the intel variant. This Apple GPU (no CPU tied to it) would probably shock AMD, so I do not expect Apple to go down this route.

This would be achieved by writing their own driver for Intel and AS versions of macOS 11 / 12. That's the only hold-up for using new GPUs on the system.

 

[goMac]

Sort of, but not quite. AS MP will not use "traditional" GPUs. It won't ship with them and it won't offer expansion for GPUs via PCIe.

It seems incredibly unlikely we'll see integrated GPUs in a Mac Pro. Maybe in the rumored Mac Pro Mini, but I don't think you'd ever see it in a full size Mac Pro.

The chip would have to be gigantic, and the yields would be awful.

Apple is also going to have to move to faster video memory, the integrated DDR4 in M1 won't cut it for high end use cases. That either means the entire system moves to DDR5 or HBM which is going to be super expensive, hard to source, and unsustainable. Or the GPU moves back towards it's own bank of VRAM, which is going to be very difficult to fit on a single chip.

Apple might compete against single GPU configurations with a giant uberchip. But remember the Mac Pro can come with up to 4 GPUs. It's going to be very hard for Apple to take on a four GPU configuration in a single chip.

I think for their higher end computers they'll use different designs. They've already said M1 is not a design they'll carry across the entire Mac line. There are other purpose built designs coming for their other Macs.

 

[AndreeOnline]

The same architecture, sure, but not the same chips. For example, a 28-core Xeon is not merely a binned version of an i5 or i7 - it's a totally different die.

Fair enough and a good point. I still think that Apple never had an issue with charging for exclusive products and that being in control of the whole chain will make it more interesting for Apple to invest time in it.

Totally agree - it's a work of art. It would be disgraceful of Apple if they didn't release at least one high end MPX module per year for the next few years.

Let's hope they do. I hadn't seen AMD's statement earlier, but that is at least an indication that something is in the works.

Not at all, it's an interesting discussion.

??

SoC makes sense for the smaller products on Apple's lineup. When they make M-series processors for Mac Pros, iMacs, and even high-end MacBook pros, I expect continued partnership with AMD for their latest GPUs on Apple Silicon.

I think we'll get an indication pretty soon. When performance oriented iMacs and MacBook Pros are launched soonish this year, I think we'll see the writing on the wall.

Why? Because the performance of discrete GPUs continues to surpass SoC systems.

The rumoured GPU with 64 or 128 would be something new that no one has tried before. Nothing is even close. The numbers from a few posts back line up and suggests it could work, but there are a lot of practical problems that needs to be solved—many of which have been mentioned in more critical posts in this thread (all of them valid).

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Wouldn't it be hilarious if these hypothetical MPX modules were THE fastest thing for ETH mining?