Mac Pro 2023 = Another Mac Pro 2013 crisis and failure.

[sunny5]

If you can remember back in 2013, a trash can Mac announced and a lot of Mac Pro users were so furious about how Apple create a workstation. As a result, a lot of pro users left Mac system and Apple left the pro markets for several year until iMac Pro or Mac Pro 2019 release. This time, it's happening again.

Mac Pro 2023 lack so many things and it does NOT promise anything. When I saw it when Mac Pro 2023 announced, it just reminded Mac Pro 2013.

CPU
Up to 24 core is not good. Mac Pro 2019 already supported up to 28 cores and currently, it can go as high as possible up to 128 cores for workstation computers. Beside, there are reasons to support dual CPU in order to support more PCIe lanes.

GPU
Apple GPU's performance is still fundamentally bad. Yes, it's bad. Both M1,2 series aren't even close to RTX 30 series which is based on Samsung 8nm, not TSMC 5nm. RTX 40 series are TSMC 5nm based and it's clearly not comparable. Since M1 Max/Ultra, Apple stopped comparing their own chips to Nvidia instead of Intel Mac because they know their GPU performance is just bad. Beside, the power consumption is too limited as well. Since M1 Ultra has similar performance to RTX 3060, I highly doubt that M2 Ultra is close to RTX 3090. RTX 4090's bandwidth is already way beyond M2 Ultra's 800GB/s and those workstation GPUs are way beyond that. Whoever defends Apple GPU's performacne, you never used RTX 40 series and workstation series. This is why Nvidia is dominating GPU performance for a while.

On the other hand, Mac Pro 2023 supports only one M2 Ultra which is a joke. Mac Pro 2019 supports up to 4x highend workstation GPU and others can go beyond that. Apple did not make M2 Extreme or something better instead of re-using M2 Ultra for so called workstation. No, M3,4 can not save Mac Pro as long as it's SOC and not expandible.

Apple GPU is powerful? Since M1 Ultra cant even close to RTX 3090 but 3060, which is a hard fact, I dont think M2 Ultra is still close to RTX 3090.

RAM
Nope, you cant even upgrade it and expand beyond 192GB of RAM which is WAY less than what Mac Pro 2019 can provide which is 1.5TB of RAM. Unified memory is not a magic and the RAM size still matters. Yes, that's a lot of VRAM but the truth is, Apple GPU itself has a poor performance, the bandwidth speed is way slower than both highend and workstation GPU, and PC can also expand VRAM with more GPU as well. This is a huge limitation and disappointment since Mac Pro users ever since heard the first rumor that Mac Pro will not have upgradable RAM.

Price
Really? $1000 more for less features? Apple justified their transition from Intel to Apple Silicon by reducing the price dramatically as they dont need to purchase both CPU and GPU components which can save a lot of money but in reality, Apple increased way more than before. For example, upgrading RAM is extremly expesnive and yet the memory chip itself is really cheaper than you think. Beside, Apple Silicon uses less memory chips than normal RAM. Dont forget that Mac Pro series started from around $3000 price range and Apple increased the price up to $7000.

PCIe slots
You cant even use either AMD or Nvidia GPU. PCIe slot is only gen 4 while others are using gen 5 and MPX module is gone! What are we suppose to do with PCIe slots?

What a mess
Mac Pro 2023 proves that Apple can NOT make a powerful AS chip for Mac Pro, they seriosuly dont care about Mac Pro and Pro markets, and they just ruined it. It just reminds me Mac Pro back in 2013 when Apple proudly announced it and it turned out it was a failure. At this point, because of Mac Pro 2023, the 3D and AI software which requires high GPU performance will either not support Mac or ditch Mac system. Dont say this is not for you, that's the worst excuse to make and we know what Apple did with Mac Pro 2013. Quite a lot of youtubers already disappointed about Apple's move toward Mac Pro 2023 so I'm not the only one complaining about this.

Clearly, Apple Silicon Mac is doomed with its performance and workstation. They better bring a real Mac Pro or this is a huge mess forever just like Mac Pro 2013 did.

 

[DarkPremiumCho]

I must say, this Mac Pro doesn't excite me much. It seems like Apple is doing it for the sake of the completion of the ARM transition.

 

[senttoschool]

A fairly decent-sized reason I'm an Apple Silicon Mac optimist is because I own Apple stocks: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-i-can-use-gains-to-buy-an-m1-laptop.2275952/

Do you own AMD/Nvidia stocks?

Disclaimer: I also own Nvidia stocks.

To answer your original question, yes it's disappointing. Not because of the things you're arguing but because we don't have an M2 Extreme SoC yet or maybe never.

 

[leman]

Just for the sake of the argument, let’s suppose that Apple continued to use Intel CPUs and AMD GPUs. That would mean Sapphire Rapids w-series and Radeon Pro 6x-7x series.

This Mac Pro would likely start with the 12-core w5-2455X or the 16-core w5-2465X in the base model and go all the way up to the 56-core w9-3495X. The M2 Ultra is roughly comparable to the 28-core w7-3465x, which would have been a mid#tier upgrade.

At the GPU front, the base GPU would probably have been a Radeon Pro W6600 with upgrade options to W6800 and up to W7900 in dual configuration. The M2 Ultra is roughly comparable to yet unreleased Radeon Pro W7800/W7900 and offers more RAM.

Sure, the M2 Ultra Mac Pro is hardly exiting. It doesn’t offer any scalable workstation technology or expandability we were hoping to see. It’s also certainly limited for some users. But the thing is, when one looks at it from a rational standpoint, you are trading high-end configuration options for a much better baseline configuration. A comparable Mac Pro to an M2 Ultra using modern components and Apple pricing structures we know from the past would be an 10-12K option at least.

 

[Sterkenburg]

To answer your original question, yes it's disappointing. Not because of the things you're arguing but because we don't have an M2 Extreme SoC yet or maybe never.

If this Mac Pro were what they wanted to get to the market they could have released it together with, or shortly after, the M1 Ultra Mac Studio and refreshed it with M2 this year.

The way I see it, it's pretty clear Apple was planning something along the lines of a M1 or M2 Extreme, but something went wrong during development (scaling is not as easy as people think it is) and they were forced to put together a placeholder product to complete the transition.

 

[unclefarkus]

I’m an architect who has to use Windows for my high end work because GPU/Nvidia and this does nothing to edge me back to Mac which is something I would really like to happen.

 

[AAPLGeek]

As Siracusa said on ATP, they've essentially set up the Mac Pro to fail with this "update". In a few years the already shrinking pro customer base will shrink even further and Apple will then quietly kill it.

It's an absolute joke to call this product "Pro".

 

[leman]

The way I see it, it's pretty clear Apple was planning something along the lines of a M1 or M2 Extreme, but something went wrong during development (scaling is not as easy as people think it is) and they were forced to put together a placeholder product to complete the transition.

This is also how I see it. With multiple setbacks and delays in bringing out new generations of chips, the choice was basically either to do nothing, release another Intel-based Mac Pro, or do what they did.

I’m an architect who has to use Windows for my high end work because GPU/Nvidia and this does nothing to edge me back to Mac which is something I would really like to happen.

You mean the lack of software is preventing you from coming back to the Mac? For architecture/CAD in general Apple Silicon GPUs should perform very well in theory (large amount of VRAM, super efficient rasterization, data sharing between CPU and GPU which accelerates geometry editing), but I can imagine that the CAD software is almost exclusively Windows for legacy reasons (please correct me if things have changed).

 

[leman]

As Siracusa said on ATP, they've essentially set up the Mac Pro to fail with this "update". In a few years the already shrinking pro customer base will shrink even further and Apple will then quietly kill it.

It's an absolute joke to call this product "Pro".

I understand your comment at an emotional level, but when we get down to facts... why? Is it lack of upgradeability, the general performance or something else? I mean, at the end of the day the baseline model gives you an equivalent of a $3000 workstation CPU and a $2000-$3000 workstation GPU. There is no scaling up from there, but as far as workstations go, it's not a terrible deal.

 

[Le0M]

I'm no expert. Can someone explain to me how a maxed out Mac Studio differs from the 2023 Mac Pro? Because to me, they look pretty similar in specs. Not only: the Studio looks quite cheaper.

 

[Xand&Roby]

I'm no expert. Can someone explain to me how a maxed out Mac Studio differs from the 2023 Mac Pro? Because to me, they look pretty similar in specs. Not only: the Studio looks quite cheaper.

The Mac Studio has thermal limitations that the Mac Pro does not have.
In addition, the Mac Pro has a whole series of internal expansions that the Mac Studio can only have external ones.
Finally I read that there are modification kits from Apple for the Mac Pro that are not there for the Mac Studio.
The controversies are sterile: many of those who complain do not need a Mac Pro, but they would like it at the price of a Mac Studio, for this reason in 2013 it was not good because it was not expandible, in 2019 it was not good because it cost too much, in 2022 they did the Studio that less expandible than the Pro 2013 but that is fine, now there is the Mac Pro 2023 and it's not good because it costs too much.
Those who work there buy them, use them, gain to eat. The others are chatting.
I can tell this anecdote: in 2013 I had been working for years for an editorial group that broadcasts television channels at national level in my country and also at international level. In 2008 they had bought from the Apple branch, which was born next to this group 35 years ago precisely to provide them with Mac workstations before others (at the time there were no Apple Stores, at most resellers) a supply of 200 Mac Pros, so much so that on the Apple web page for companies the case study was explained. They needed them more than anything else because in each studio there was a temperature-controlled cabinet, a residue of the old computer infrastructure. The Mac Pros were not very high-end, they were mid-range. In 2013 the sports director next to my studio one morning starts testing two new 2013 Mac Pros mounted in the Sonnet rack, because the company wanted to upgrade all the machines that were starting to have problems. In 4 hours they burned the two new Mac Pros, they had probably mounted something wrong. The experimentation ended there, my company went on with the Mac Pro from 2008 to 2012 cannibalising the machines that were no longer working, because in the meantime Apple's B2B support did not guarantee adequate support. I left in 2016, I don't know what they use now, but I think they switched to the Mac Pro 2019 and Mac mini servers where didn't need too much power, then replaced with Mac Studio, and now they will evaluate the Mac Pro 2023.
The problem remains that of cooling: a machine turned on for years that renders several hours a day must be able to be cooled properly, and the thermoregulated room is not enough, it also requires an adequate internal cooling system.

 

[JouniS]

I understand your comment at an emotional level, but when we get down to facts... why? Is it lack of upgradeability, the general performance or something else? I mean, at the end of the day the baseline model gives you an equivalent of a $3000 workstation CPU and a $2000-$3000 workstation GPU. There is no scaling up from there, but as far as workstations go, it's not a terrible deal.

Costs are objective, while value is subjective. If you don't need a workstation CPU/GPU, those components are worth much less than their price. Workstations are often built using consumer CPUs/GPUs, because workstation components are poor value for money if you don't need the additional features.

A SoC is always a compromise. If you have specific needs, you may have to pay for features you don't need while not getting the features you would need. And if you are in the market for a workstation, you probably have specific needs.

The biggest problem with the new Mac Pro is the lack of configurability. You can add internal storage, faster network interfaces, and specialty hardware, but that's it. If you need more CPU power, more GPU power, or more RAM, you're out of luck.

I was kind of interested in the the Mac Pro, but it turned out to be too weak. My hard requirement was 512 GB RAM, while everything else is secondary. The M1 Ultra would already have been fast enough, and anything with a PCIe slot would have had enough capacity for internal storage. An AMD/Nvidia workstation would have been $10k to $12k, depending on the exact configuration, while comparable Macs are no longer available.

 

[leman]

The Mac Studio has thermal limitations that the Mac Pro does not have.

I doubt this will have any relevance in practice. The entire Ultra chip uses less power at full load than some newer x86 mobile CPUs after all. The Studio won't have any problems with dissipating the 100-150W of power needed to operate the M2 Ultra.

There were some rumours that the Ultra in the Mac Pro might be significantly overclocked but judging by Apple product page the performance level is the same as a horizontally scaled M2 Max.

 

[leman]

My hard requirement was 512 GB RAM, while everything else is secondary.

Yeah, this is indeed a bummer. Let's hope that future Mac Pro revisions will bring more workstation scalability as well as modular tiered RAM.

 

[gpat]

The main difference is that, with the 2013, Apple was genuinely convinced that they were releasing a revolutionary product, and likely lost money because of this.
Now they're just being lazy, so they won't lose any.
So yes, by a consumer point of view, the 2013 was better.

 

[gpat]

The Mac Studio has thermal limitations that the Mac Pro does not have.
In addition, the Mac Pro has a whole series of internal expansions that the Mac Studio can only have external ones.
Finally I read that there are modification kits from Apple for the Mac Pro that are not there for the Mac Studio.
The controversies are sterile: many of those who complain do not need a Mac Pro, but they would like it at the price of a Mac Studio, for this reason in 2013 it was not good because it was not expandible, in 2019 it was not good because it cost too much, in 2022 they did the Studio that less expandible than the Pro 2013 but that is fine, now there is the Mac Pro 2023 and it's not good because it costs too much.

The problem remains that of cooling: a machine turned on for years that renders several hours a day must be able to be cooled properly, and the thermoregulated room is not enough, it also requires an adequate internal cooling system.

As the M1/M2 Ultra chip was created for the Mac Studio, if the Mac Studio can't cool properly the Ultra, maybe that product shouldn't have existed in the first place.
If the Mac Studio can properly cool the Ultra, on the other hand, congrats on the moot point.

 

[AlphaCentauri]

There’s no thermal limitations on Mac Studio (otherwise, please cite the source). In fact, cooling system is over-designed and Studios remain cool and quiet even under heavy load.

As for Mac Pro, it is what it is. This is not a random decision or lack of technological know-how (just see the tech in their AR glasses, they can design anything they want). Mac Pro is probably 0.1% of all Macs they sell. Out of those 0.1%, some people use specialised pro audio or video capture PCI-E cards and the new model caters for them. And that’s it.

The number of people who need 3D rendering cards in Mac Pro (or actually do 3D on Mac Pro) is probably so small that it amounts to rounding error, there is really no business reason to create separate branch of Apple Silicon processors just for them.

I’m not saying I agree with Apple on this, but as I said, it is what it is.

 

[Longplays]

There’s no thermal limitations on Mac Studio (otherwise, please cite the source). In fact, cooling system is over-designed and Studios remain cool and quiet even under heavy load.

As for Mac Pro, it is what it is. This is not a random decision or lack of technological know-how (just see the tech in their AR glasses, they can design anything they want). Mac Pro is probably 0.1% of all Macs they sell. Out of those 0.1%, some people use specialised pro audio or video capture PCI-E cards and the new model caters for them. And that’s it.

The number of people who need 3D rendering cards in Mac Pro (or actually do 3D on Mac Pro) is probably so small that it amounts to rounding error, there is really no business reason to create separate branch of Apple Silicon processors just for them.

I’m not saying I agree with Apple on this, but as I said, it is what it is.

My guess is those who have a problem with 2023 Mac Pro M2 Ultra are 20% or less of their actual Mac Pro users.

The Mac business unit makes up 6% of Apple's Q1 2023 revenue. Revenue from Mac Pro product line relative to Apple's total revenue is likely "an atom in a bucket of water". Not a "drop" but an "atom".

Why else would Apple space out the Mac Pro from annually from 2006-2013 then by 2013, 2019 and 2023?

Within this decade Apple saw demand for a pro desktop without PCIe slots hence the 2013 Mac Pro, 2017 iMac Pro and 2021 Mac Studio.

Mac Studio's that popular that it received a M2 refresh after M1. Hopefully the Mac Pro will enjoy this cadence goinf forward.

There was rumors of a M2 Ultra 2-die (Extreme) that would cater to higher-end users willing to spend beyond $8k or even $10k. My guess is that Apple hit a technical limit of either design or manufacturing. They also saw not enough market for them to pursue it.

Unlike any iPhone that has an inventory time of hours/days a Mac Pro likely has it in days/weeks or even months.

When Apple left Intel it also left the economies of scale of worldwide demand for workstation-class desktops.

No business can cater to everyones needs all the time. Apple has historically willing to let others service those they cannot make good business with.

 

[MrGunny94]

We'll have to wait and see. Best people to ask are those who work in 3D Studios and heavy music production... Can't wait to see opinions.

I'm not really the target audience for this as the M2 and M2 Pro are more than enough of for what I do.

 

[Longplays]

I'm not really the target audience for this as the M2 and M2 Pro are more than enough of for what I do.

Did you use a Power Mac or Mac Pro in the past 3 decades? If yes, why did you move to a Mac with a M2 & M2 Pro?

 

[mectojic]

Apple's entire lineup these days can be described as 'safe'. There are no risks, there are no blow-out projects, everything is calculated. The Mac Pro was also calculated; who knows, maybe Apple did invent some higher scaled CPUs, but their true end goal is to eradicate expansion forever and push people to buy the Mac Studio.

 

[Longplays]

and push people to buy the Mac Studio.

The demand for a Mac Studio-type desktop has always been there.

Whether the Mac was using Intel, PPC or even 68K.

The execution was just problematic as the parts and tech wasn't available to make it succeed.

 

[0339327]

View attachment 2213755
If you can remember back in 2013, a trash can Mac announced and a lot of Mac Pro users were so furious about how Apple create a workstation. As a result, a lot of pro users left Mac system and Apple left the pro markets for several year until iMac Pro or Mac Pro 2019 release. This time, it's happening again.

View attachment 2213756
Mac Pro 2023 lack so many things and it does NOT promise anything. When I saw it when Mac Pro 2023 announced, it just reminded Mac Pro 2013.

CPU
Up to 24 core is not good. Mac Pro 2019 already supported up to 28 cores and currently, it can go as high as possible up to 128 cores for workstation computers. Beside, there are reasons to support dual CPU in order to support more PCIe lanes.

GPU
Apple GPU's performance is still fundamentally bad. Yes, it's bad. Both M1,2 series aren't even close to RTX 30 series which is based on Samsung 8nm, not TSMC 5nm. RTX 40 series are TSMC 5nm based and it's clearly not comparable. Since M1 Max/Ultra, Apple stopped comparing their own chips to Nvidia instead of Intel Mac because they know their GPU performance is just bad. Beside, the power consumption is too limited as well. Since M1 Ultra has similar performance to RTX 3060, I highly doubt that M2 Ultra is close to RTX 3090. RTX 4090's bandwidth is already way beyond M2 Ultra's 800GB/s and those workstation GPUs are way beyond that. Whoever defends Apple GPU's performacne, you never used RTX 40 series and workstation series. This is why Nvidia is dominating GPU performance for a while.

On the other hand, Mac Pro 2023 supports only one M2 Ultra which is a joke. Mac Pro 2019 supports up to 4x highend workstation GPU and others can go beyond that. Apple did not make M2 Extreme or something better instead of re-using M2 Ultra for so called workstation. No, M3,4 can not save Mac Pro as long as it's SOC and not expandible.

RAM
Nope, you cant even upgrade it and expand beyond 192GB of RAM which is WAY less than what Mac Pro 2019 can provide which is 1.5TB of RAM. Unified memory is not a magic and the RAM size still matters. Yes, that's a lot of VRAM but the truth is, Apple GPU itself has a poor performance, the bandwidth speed is way slower than both highend and workstation GPU, and PC can also expand VRAM with more GPU as well. This is a huge limitation and disappointment since Mac Pro users ever since heard the first rumor that Mac Pro will not have upgradable RAM.

Price
Really? $1000 more for less features? Apple justified their transition from Intel to Apple Silicon by reducing the price dramatically as they dont need to purchase both CPU and GPU components which can save a lot of money but in reality, Apple increased way more than before. For example, upgrading RAM is extremly expesnive and yet the memory chip itself is really cheaper than you think. Beside, Apple Silicon uses less memory chips than normal RAM. Dont forget that Mac Pro series started from around $3000 price range and Apple increased the price up to $7000.

PCIe slots
You cant even use either AMD or Nvidia GPU. PCIe slot is only gen 4 while others are using gen 5 and MPX module is gone! What are we suppose to do with PCIe slots?

What a mess
Mac Pro 2023 proves that Apple can NOT make a powerful AS chip for Mac Pro, they seriosuly dont care about Mac Pro and Pro markets, and they just ruined it. It just reminds me Mac Pro back in 2013 when Apple proudly announced it and it turned out it was a failure. At this point, because of Mac Pro 2023, the 3D and AI software which requires high GPU performance will either not support Mac or ditch Mac system. Dont say this is not for you, that's the worst excuse to make and we know what Apple did with Mac Pro 2013. Quite a lot of youtubers already disappointed about Apple's move toward Mac Pro 2023 so I'm not the only one complaining about this.

They better bring a real Mac Pro or this is a huge mess.

1. I am heavily disappointed due to i. The lack up user-upgradable ram, ii.the lack of PCIe GPU support, iii. the max ram being less than what I have currently installed and, iv. the added cost when this machine should’ve been under $4K.

2. My current 2019 Mac Pro costs nearly twice what a maxed out 2023 unit would be.

3. The 2023 unit includes afterburner, which was $2K add-on for 2019.

Overall, I’m not happy but recognize that Apple needs to complete the AS transition. This machine is basically a Studio with PCIe and afterburner. It’s interesting that the Studio is very reasonably priced while the MacPro is so obviously overpriced.

I haven’t decided if I’m going to make the upgrade, get a Studio or build out a solid PC and switch to Resolve or Premier.

The MacPros weaknesses would’ve been forgiven had they been honest about it and priced it at a reasonable $2,499 or even $3,499.

 

[Longplays]

The MacPros weaknesses would’ve been forgiven had they been honest about it and priced it at a reasonable $2,499 or even $3,499.

So you want a Mac Pro M2 Ultra for $3,499.

A Mac Studio M2 Ultra is $3,999.

Why not ask it for free, instead?

 

[0339327]

So you want a Mac Pro M2 Ultra for $3,499.

A Mac Studio M2 Ultra is $3,999.

Why not ask it for free, instead?

I’d be ok with $3,999 too. I didn’t realize that the Mac Studio was that price with the Ultra. My point is that the model is overpriced as is.