A comparable (at least in performance) PC workstation costs 9-10k, so it’s not like they have much incentive to price it lower…
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro 2023 = Another Mac Pro 2013 crisis and failure.
- Thread starter sunny5
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A comparable (at least in performance) PC workstation costs 9-10k, so it’s not like they have much incentive to price it lower…
From my point of view, the Mac Pro is targeted to professionals who have esoteric needs.
I develop software that runs in the data center. The average cost-effective computer, when tailored to our needs, has 64-128 CPU cores and 1-2 TB RAM. (AWS calls those memory-optimized instances, and they are much cheaper than the so-called high-memory instances.) Because the individual jobs are almost always smaller than that, the development environment can be smaller, with maybe 32 CPU cores and 512 GB RAM. That could be a workstation or a dedicated server. Or even a cloud instance, though the cloud can easily become the most expensive option.
When I think of a workstation, it's basically a scaled-down version of the average cost-effective computer. Something with CPU cores, memory, storage, and network, and any GPU that can handle 2-3 monitors. There is no particular need for powerful GPUs, fancy special-purpose accelerators, or PCIe slots / Thunderbolt ports for connecting obscure devices.
The Mac Pro is a somewhat weird product, but the overall Mac range has plenty of options for pros who have run of the mill needs like video editing, document production, software development, etc.
So I think I agree with you (if I understand correctly), in that Apple's focus on producing chips that work best in a laptop (and in their phones and iPads for that matter) has left the Mac Pro lacking in features that would make it a mainstream solution for people who need more power - so yes, targeting the rather esoteric bunch of pros who happen to need PCIe slots without needing them to handle GPUs or a large amount of RAM.
I am still of the view the only reason any kind of Mac Pro ended up being produced was to avoid embarrassment at discontinuing it as part of the move to Apple Silicon.
Hmmm...pretty sure we could piece together a PC for under 5k that stomps all over the M2 Ultra Studio/Mac Pro in overall performance. About the only thing the M2 will win at is ProRes video handling.
I built my own workstation but you can build a generic high end gaming station for 5 k. The AMD EPYC isn’t cheap, nor is Intel Xeon. The AND thread ripper isn’t in the same ball park, if you consider memory BW, GPU memory speed anc bus in ultra/studio.
I’m pretty sure about that too. And yet, look at the workstation market and how much those things cost. Of course, if you want a CPU with matmul acceleration or a GPU with large amounts of RAM, you are looking at 4000+$ per component.
It’s amusing how often “overal performance“ means cinebench/geekbench and some games. Areas where workstation class hardware beats consumer hardware can safely be dismissed as unimportant.
That's pure crazy, I could get the better performance from a $3000 machine, so I think you're WAY off in your estimate of just how fast you think the M2 Ultra is compared to a run of the mill high end intel PC. I'd take an 13900K i9 over the Ultra, and I'd have as much RAM and SSD as I'd need.
You don't need a xeon or an epyc or threadripper to have better performance than the Ultra. Consumer level CPU's are a heck of a lot faster than just a couple years ago. I can get an 13th gen i5 that easily beats out my 10th gen i9, which itself was as fast as my M1 Max.
I think you’re missing the point. Consumer parts can beat workstation parts in certain benchmarks and workloads, but there a number of areas where workstation parts can easily beat consumer parts. That’s why people buy them, unless you think workstation buyers are ignorant. One of those areas is gpus with huge amounts of memory.
No, not missing the point, as I'm comparing the performance of the M2 Ultra in a Mac Pro to what I can get in a normal PC and it's just not competitive price-wise. I don't need a "Workstation" level PC, whatever that means, to get better performance. My i9 PC is called a workstation by Lenovo, but I bet it wouldn't cover your meaning of it, even though it's better equipped than 99% of the PC's out there.
Sure I could get a PC and load it with GPU's and an epyc processor, and have something a lot better than what I'm talking about, but that's not what I need -- just normal everyday compute performance.
well…
this shows you did miss the point. Performance for what? Certain tasks need more performance than the parts you have, which are cheaper than the Studio.
No one is saying YOU need that performance. Just that some people do. For those that do, the components are expensive.
I think we had variations of this conversation way to often.
You need to understand that this is not about you and your needs. Of course you don’t need a 5K Xeon or a 48GB workstation GPU. But for folks who do , say, certain types of scientific computation or complex scene rendering, this hardware is attractive because of its advanced capabilities. This is also the niche the M2 Ultra is targeting.
It’s ok to accept that certain types of products are not for you. It doesn’t make them stupid or useless either.
Last edited:
You don't get what I'm saying -- general performance, not niche. I don't need anything you're talking about, I just need lots of RAM, a fast processor, fast disk, and networking. I can get all that from non "workstation" hardware.
And I don't disagree with that, but I will say that there's more of people like me than the type that need that Workstation. All I intended from my initial post in this part of the sub thread was to say if the Mac pro wanted to be in my space, at its current max performance level, it would have to be a lot cheaper. $3000-$4000 range. Otherwise I can use something cheaper instead.
I'm not about to buy a Studio, I had an M1 Max, and I wont go there again, so I have an M2 Mini Pro for my Mac "performance" machine. (Not complaining about it btw, it actually does a good job at what I need, I just wish I could have got more RAM.)
Oh I do.
Yes, more proof you dont understand the point being made
I know. Others do. Do you recognise that others have different needs to you?
Yes, others can’t have their needs met by that. Do you understand that?
Yes, that’s why it’s a niche and partially why it’s more expensive. The world is larger than your needs.
It doesn’t want to be in your space. Do you understand?
Yep. We all have different needs and trying to shoehorn others needs into your own wants just can't work well. You know me from those past arguments, cost and raw general performance is king, with lots of RAM and disk, and what I want is colored by that. Xeon's and up don't impress me for a desktop, no need to spend that money on it or ECC RAM. High end GPU isn't a need for me -- ever. You want to say the Mac Pro is competitively priced, it's not given those wants to me, and me saying that does not mean it's not competitive or great for you or others.
Ditto.
Just point to where I said that. I know you can't -- I NEVER said that.
I was just talking about me, an IT Manager in a small corporate shop, with 50 years of computing experience in all kinds of IT jobs.
The rest is just to insulting to comment on other than to say, you responded to me with a different talking point -- I shouldn't have even responded to that spin in the first place, so sorry, you wont hear from me again.
No offence intended.
I responded to you when you said it was crazy to spend money on workstation parts.
I stated that workstation parts served a different market than the one you care for. A niche.
You stated you were only interested in general performance, not in niches.
I stated other people may have different interests to you.
You stated your interests again.
etc…
We can drop that workstation class GPU into a i9 13900K system and get all the same GPU horsepower as the standard workstation class PC that might be running a Threadripper or Xeon CPU.
Now what we can't do is drop more than 1 without performance hits on the PCI bus before needing to get expensive motherboards and CPUs as mentioned.
And this is the point I have brought up before -- multitasking on Xeon systems is very very good. I really wish Apple would have refreshed with the latest Xeon instead of doing the M2 Ultra. They should have waited for the M3 before moving the Mac Pro over.
And now I am waiting for everyone to say Apple does not want to have to code to multiple architectures; well guess what, they are going to have to do that anyway because they have an obligation to support Intel systems for a reasonable amount of time. Mac Pro 7,1 users are not going away anytime soon; which why I double down and say Apple needs to release AMD 7xxx series MPX cards also; or in the very least drivers.
Now what we can't do is drop more than 1 without performance hits on the PCI bus before needing to get expensive motherboards and CPUs as mentioned.
And this is the point I have brought up before -- multitasking on Xeon systems is very very good. I really wish Apple would have refreshed with the latest Xeon instead of doing the M2 Ultra. They should have waited for the M3 before moving the Mac Pro over.
And now I am waiting for everyone to say Apple does not want to have to code to multiple architectures; well guess what, they are going to have to do that anyway because they have an obligation to support Intel systems for a reasonable amount of time. Mac Pro 7,1 users are not going away anytime soon; which why I double down and say Apple needs to release AMD 7xxx series MPX cards also; or in the very least drivers.
if i would go for the better PC workstation version of the M2 ultra..that would cost me around $4200 just for the main antagonists cpu+gpu+ram just these 3 , of course you can get higher but im expecting the M2 ultra and see how it perform under my work situation and see whats the equivalent in the pc world
PPC to Intel transition disagrees with you.
10.4 was out at the time of transition.
10.5 supported both
10.6 was Rosetta for PPC Apps on Intel.
10.7 PPC What is that
yes there were some 10.6 beta for PPC however not released to retail.
I am going to guess that what you call reasonable and what apple calls reasonable are not going to be the same.
once the Mac Pro launched what new hardware came out for the PowerMac?
I’m guessing whatever comes after Sonoma will be the last intel supported OS; so intel based Macs will just be stuck.
From my experience the PPC > Intel transition was way more painful.
was arguing with my brother yesterday about what he should update his old windows box with and he had his eye on a Geekom Mini, so I pointed out this was really a laptop in a desktop box with non upgradable discreet graphics, then I thought about it some more and what are my future options as a Mac user, yup there just the same, I'm stuck with running a laptop in a desktop box with non upgradable graphics or anything for that matter, as a middle of the road machine I'm sure its great but it 'aint a Pro machine, the only way to upgrade is buy a new one which I'm sure suits apple just fine, I'm sure the trade in will be very generouse
I am not sure Mac Pro qualifies as a workstation. Workstations need (and have) ECC memory, lots of I/O and some other stuff that Mac Pro does not have.