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

[bcortens]

That's a limitation of scaling A series core architecture. They meant for mobile devices, not desktop or workstation. Otherwise, they wouldn't mess up Mac Pro 2023 like that.

Citation needed

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Considering the raw compute performance of the M2 Ultra that sounds like a PyTorch problem not an apple silicon problem.

Same with other frameworks or even Apple's own MPS. Apple Silicon is great for what it's optimised, Video/Audio/Music but unfortunately still falls short in other areas like graphics and ML. For a Mac Pro something like a RTX8000 would be nice or even something between that and a A100.

 

[gpat]

Apple could actually do that considering 13 months ago 240W USB PD standard was released. This would be sufficient to power a M2 Ultra.

Although it would be very very loud like Intel's Core i9-13980HX laptop but probably not as hot.

There is actually a market for it which many MR users refuse to acknowledge even when Apple used to sell Intel laptops with this characteristic.

They could probably sell that to folks looking for a luggable workstation, put something like a 40Wh battery instead of the 99Wh one, and use the saved space for an uber-powerful cooling solution.
3nm would help temperatures further.
It would make a powerful statement that their chips are so good that their laptops can replace desktop workstation altogether, and at least it wouldn't be so much of a source of embarassment as the Mac Pro is.
PCIe is next to useless if you can't install graphic cards anyway. TB4 can solve the same usecases outside of GPUs that would be too bandwidth-intensive.

 

[bobcomer]

Look at it from an investor's point of view rather than a purely technical one.

I am looking at it from a business point of view already.

 

[Longplays]

I'm still holding to the belief that there is at least one scaling level possible beyond Ultra (M3 Quadra/Extreme), and we didn't see it yet due to supply chain / fabrication process constraints.
They released the Pro with only 1 SoC choice because they couldn't make it work yet, and couldn't carry selling the Intel Mac Pro forever.
But still, the pricing is outrageous and out of every logic.
$1000 upselling compared to the Studio would probably have made them just as much money by increasing the volume.

Mac Studio M2 Max is $2k. Doubling the M2 Max die pushes the price of the M2 Ultra to $4k.

So say M2 Ultra 2-die pushes the price to $8k + $3k for PCIe = $11k 2023 Mac Pro.

How large of a market is there for such an extreme configuration?

Anywho let us see what 2025 Mac Pro will bring Q1 2025. I know it will have a larger than 192GB memory max.

 

[Longplays]

I am looking at it from a business point of view already.

Look closer.

 

[gpat]

Mac Studio M2 Max is $2k. Doubling the M2 Max die pushes the price of the M2 Ultra to $4k.

So say M2 Ultra 2-die pushes the price to $8k + $3k for PCIe = $11k 2023 Mac Pro.

How large of a market is there for such an extreme configuration?

Anywho let us see what 2025 Mac Pro will bring Q1 2025. I know it will have a larger than 192GB memory max.

Max price has never been an issue. Top-end 2019 Mac Pros sold for far more than top-end 2023 Mac Pros anyway.

 

[bcortens]

1. You are refusing the fact: They cant make it. Can and can not is totally different.
2. We pretty know that since M2 series are just upgraded version of M1 series.

And think again. Hackintosh without ProRes hardware is faster than M1 Ultra on FCPX
3. Again, you dont know what you are talking about.
4. And how many of them are truly available? Beside, they are still Nvidia based software which can not take advantage with CUDA as Apple ditched them.
5. Only one chip on Mac Pro clearly proves that they dont know what they are doing.
6. Do they even trying? None of them are. The truth is, Nvidia invested a lot of time and money on GPU for several decades unlike other companies.
7. Mac platform itself is extremely hostile to gaming industry so I highly doubt it. It has nothing to do with the performance and even then, Apple GPU is still poor and yet much more expensive than what PC can do.

1. Can’t make is not the same as won’t make
2. The RTX 40 series is just an upgraded 30 series which is an upgraded 20 series… Deciding the dividing line between new architectures is somewhat arbitrary. How many new architectural changes before you consider it new?
3. You said the 3D software is limited by the GPUs, you haven’t proven that there are any 3D software features that cannot be supported by current GPUs
4. See this thread 3D Rendering on Apple Silicon
5. Opinion not fact
6. So all those new Intel packaging technologies aren’t meant to help build those giant new data centre SoCs?
7. The Mac platform isn’t extremely hostile, a little hostile, maybe because of the way apple is quick to drop support for old APIs but not extremely hostile, and I would argue the dropped support is also a problem for all app types. Also, the performance of the M2 is perfectly fine for AAA games and Apple sells plenty of M2 macs (Baulders Gate for example). Sure a higher performance gaming PC can be built for less than an M2 Mac mini but it isn’t going to be that much better and given that the mac market isn’t the PC market I doubt many people are cross shopping mac minis and PCs.

 

[Longplays]

They could probably sell that to folks looking for a luggable workstation, put something like a 40Wh battery instead of the 99Wh one, and use the saved space for an uber-powerful cooling solution.
3nm would help temperatures further.
It would make a powerful statement that their chips are so good that their laptops can replace desktop workstation altogether, and at least it wouldn't be so much of a source of embarassment as the Mac Pro is.
PCIe is next to useless if you can't install graphic cards anyway. TB4 can solve the same usecases outside of GPUs that would be too bandwidth-intensive.

There is really a market for it.

Apple used to sell those MBP 15"/16" Core i9 laptops even when YouTubers claim they throttle so much that it wasn't worth buying anything beyond a Core i7.

With the thermal improvements of the 2021/2023 MBP 16" enclosure it will do way way better in reducing any possible throttling. Although it will be hella loud.

The 99Wh battery would likely halve battery life with the M2 Ultra. 40Wh battery would make it barely 20% of its original battery life.

It wouldn't be accepted as workstation replacement though. Not enough PCIe slots.

I could see a 2023 MBP 16" M2 Ultra for $5.5k-6.5k.

 

[bcortens]

There is really a market for it.

Apple used to sell those MBP 15"/16" Core i9 laptops even when YouTubers claim they throttle so much that it wasn't worth buying anything beyond a Core i7.

With the thermal improvements of the 2021/2023 MBP 16" enclosure it will do way way better in reducing any possible throttling. Although it will be hella loud.

The 99Wh battery would likely halve battery life with the M2 Ultra. 40Wh battery would make it barely 20% of its original battery life.

It wouldn't be accepted as workstation replacement though. Not enough PCIe slots.

I could see a 2023 MBP 16" M2 Ultra for $5k-6k.

I don’t think the 16” enclosed would do well with the M2 Ultra, if you really want Apple to make a portable workstation I would argue that they should do it right and build something that is about twice as thick with the cooling solution to match.

 

[Serqetry]

Apple ditched Intel and AMD because they dont wanna pay for their components and save money. Guess what? Apple can just increase the price whatever they want.

Since Apple proves themselves as they can not make chips for Mac Pro, I dont think they can even solve it for now.

That is not why Apple ditched them. Apple will always be paying other vendors for components.

The new Mac Pro may be a joke, but it's not because Apple couldn't do better. They just didn't care to. They have different priorities.

 

[Longplays]

Max price has never been an issue. Top-end 2019 Mac Pros sold for far more than top-end 2023 Mac Pros anyway.

Good catch. I forgot how much more expensive the 2019 Mac Pro Xeon W were on its top-end BTO vs 2023 Mac Pro M2 Ultra top-end BTO.

So say a 2023 Mac Pro M2 Extreme that starts at $11k would have a top-end BTO of say $22k.

Would sthat still be cheaper than the top-end 2019 BTO?

 

[Longplays]

I don’t think the 16” enclosed would do well with the M2 Ultra, if you really want Apple to make a portable workstation I would argue that they should do it right and build something that is about twice as thick with the cooling solution to match.

I was looking at it from the lowest cost way to shoehorning a M2 Ultra into a MBP 16" without custom case.

Just like how Intel does theirs. Someone's buying this and it is a lousy implementation. What more Apple's approach that is superior.

Assuming Apple did the right thing and went 2x thicker MBP 16" were to occur with a copper-based cooling solution as the 2023 Mac Studio M2 Ultra... would 2x its weight of 9.6lbs (4.32kg) laptop be acceptable in 2023?

Alternatively the 5nm AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX beats the "7nm" Intel Core i9-13980HX in raw performance and performance per watt.

At 5nm it should give us some idea the challenges of a 5nm M2 Ultra chip would have in a laptop.

 

[bobcomer]

Look closer.

Sorry, no, I totally disagree with you. Companies worry about their competitors the most, and big ticket customers next (and Apple *isn't* a big ticket customer.)

 

[mcnallym]

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.

Certainly, look up the price for adding 2 TB Chassis with 3 PCI-E slots each to give give 2 PCI-E x16 v3 slots and 4 x PCI-E x8 v3 slots on the end of two TB busses vs the Mac Pro that gives you the slots at PCI-E v4 not on the end of a TB bus and also one chassis rather then 3.

So your non-GPU only PCI-E cards get a v4 rather then V3 so more bandwdith and also lower latency as not on TB buses and split across two chasiss so 3 plugs.

Sonnettech Echo III Desktop is 1099 so call is 2.2K to add those v3 slots on TB vs 3K to have them v4 slots and not on a TB bus.

Is probably how Apple looking at it that there is an 800 markup for v4 and lower latency and one chassis vs 3.

 

[mcnallym]

New Mac Pro is a very specific computer for a very specific group of pro customers (including Apple’s mates at Lucasfilm 😉). It is unnecessary expensive for anyone else, who can as well go with Mac Studio, IMHO.

probably find that is who speaking with as well for the trashcan.

 

[mcnallym]

You’re telling me that PCIe adds $3K?
I doubt that.

two x 1099 for two Sonnettech Echo III Destop Chassis that are PCI-E v3 and on the end of a TB bus each internal and no TB bus. So only 800quid for lower latency and higher bandwidth slots (if you need them) and if you don't you buy the Studio.

 

[mcnallym]

And more landfill garbage because they decided not to make the SoC part modular.

If it is landfill then then is because you are not recycling.

Apple taking a different approach and they will take the machine and recycle the parts. There is a reason they keep that green rating as the whole product more recycleable then older computers,

The Studio Case is 85% recycled aluuminium and can be reycled for example

 

[JouniS]

So say M2 Ultra 2-die pushes the price to $8k + $3k for PCIe = $11k 2023 Mac Pro.

How large of a market is there for such an extreme configuration?

Mediocre configuration, not extreme.

The further you go beyond consumer devices, the more the users' demands will vary. If you just keep adding SoCs with a little bit of everything, you get a system that's expensive but not particularly good at anything.

 

[mcnallym]

It's not clear if there will be any Mac Pros in the future. As others said, people who need powerful workstations are fleeing Macs. As the users flee, so will the software developers. There are still use cases where current Mac Pro will do well but as the gap between Mac Pro and other workstations increases and people keep switching there might come a moment when Apple decides that Mac Pro does not make sense for them. I am curious how much money Apple still makes from the FCP and related hardware sales. It must be shrinking.

Mac Studio flies with FCP. Trashcan flew with FCP as was written to work with the extra GPU that the trashcan provided.

Apple has optimised FCP for its hardware

If youa users main need was FCP then the current macs are great.

However very people of the people that complain about the Mac pro are FCP users.

 

[bobcomer]

I don’t think the 16” enclosed would do well with the M2 Ultra, if you really want Apple to make a portable workstation I would argue that they should do it right and build something that is about twice as thick with the cooling solution to match.

Lenovo has a laptop like that, a P16, over $10,000 regular priced.

 

[koyoot]

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.

In graphics synthetics, M2 Max 38 core is closer to 4080 laptop GPU, which in itself is based on AD103 die.

Apple M2 Max 38-Core GPU - Benchmarks and Specs

Specifications and benchmarks of the Apple M2 Max 38-Core GPU GPU.

www.notebookcheck.net

In games, it is closer to 3070 laptop GPU, which is based on GA104 die.

 

[NT1440]

Like the OP stated it’s lacking in GPU performance in desktops vs the competition.

And in what specific workflows does this come up?

I’ve seen they’re not great for gaming, but the M series seems to crush any video/photo job thrown at it. So I’m looking for specifics here.

 

[NT1440]

Anything related to GPU task. M series are only good for power by watt, not performance itself especially for GPU. They also limit the power consumption too much as well.

Forgive me for saying this, but you seem to be very light on technical details and just regurgitating game-centric half truths along the way.

Is there any other GPU that can directly access up to 192GB of RAM? Apple’s can, and that enables workflows that simply aren’t possible on other devices.

Conversely, there are things NOT possible on the Mac as well.

Do you have an opinion on the benefits of tile based graphics vs what Nvidia and others are doing? The benefits and trade offs of both approaches?

 

[0339327]

And no Intel chips exist today to get the performance (especially on battery

So add the drives you need?

Apologies. TB was for Thunderbolt, not terabytes.

I need 9 Thunderbolt ports to run an array of RAID drives for editing.