MP 7,1 Mac Pro 7,1 - hit or Miss?

[fuchsdh]

Here’s what I found last week, seems promising

Apple Mac Pro exclusive AMD Radeon Pro W6900X GPU pops up on Geekbench, beats RX 6900 XT in Metal API tests

Overall, the Radeon Pro W6900X is somewhere between an RX 6800 XT and an RX 6900 XT. Since it is noticeably faster than the RX 6900 XT in the Metal API tests, the professional card could be getting 32 GB of VRAM. The clocks will most likely be lower though, so it might only feature a more...

www.notebookcheck.net

Not sure that rumor makes much sense to me. why would an Apple Mac Pro specific card have a blower in it? Why would they make another Intel Mac Pro but tie it to enthusiast chips with no ECC RAM and lower core counts? What’s up with that “it’ll cost 50,000 dollars” bit at the end?

 

[johnnymcc]

The fact that you can dual boot windows and use rtx cards is great. All the expansion. It's basically a fully expandable and modular PC. That is a great mac. Sure the future mac pro on Apple silicon will catch up. But this is it right now.

What's the best way to setup a dual boot for Windows on the 7,1? My 7,1 arrives tomorrow and I'd love to set this up. I currently use Open Core on my 5,1 to do this.

 

[tsialex]

Here’s what I found last week, seems promising

Apple Mac Pro exclusive AMD Radeon Pro W6900X GPU pops up on Geekbench, beats RX 6900 XT in Metal API tests

Overall, the Radeon Pro W6900X is somewhere between an RX 6800 XT and an RX 6900 XT. Since it is noticeably faster than the RX 6900 XT in the Metal API tests, the professional card could be getting 32 GB of VRAM. The clocks will most likely be lower though, so it might only feature a more...

www.notebookcheck.net

This is not a leak, it's a hackintosh using an OEM Radeon Pro W6000.

AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT / 6900 XT for macOS?

The photo is not of a MPX module, but from a standard PCIe GPU (seems to be the OEM version of Radeon Pro W6000) and the original Geekbench is from a hackintosh. It's very easy to spot, since no Mac Pro has Core i9 as a CPU, all real Mac Pros identify as Mac Pro (2019), a detail frequently...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[blackquartz]

Out of curiosity, are you using macOS to run these apps?

yes, using Macos.

Not sure that rumor makes much sense to me. why would an Apple Mac Pro specific card have a blower in it? Why would they make another Intel Mac Pro but tie it to enthusiast chips with no ECC RAM and lower core counts? What’s up with that “it’ll cost 50,000 dollars” bit at the end?

my bet: it’s a prototype, the name W6900x is reserved for MPX modules, but it’s just a rumor so far

 

[deconstruct60]

My bet: it’s a prototype, the name W6900x is reserved for MPX modules, but it’s just a rumor so far

Prototype of what? Perhaps both a W6900 and later a MPX 6900X. Extremely likely there is a AMD Pro W6800 card coming with 32GB of VRAM.

AMD Radeon PRO W6800 features Navi 21 and 32GB of memory - VideoCardz.com

AMD Radeon Pro W6800 gets 32GB of memory A new leak confirms we have the first Navi 21 graphics card with 32GB of memory. On UserBenchmark an unreleased Radeon Pro graphics card has been spotted. The card is recognized as ” AMD Radeon Pro W6800 32GB (1002 73A3, 1002 0E1E)” basically confirming...

videocardz.com

More than likely there will eventually be a AMD Pro card at 6900 with the same RAM. ( it is the same base die after all ). The 'spin' has been that these extra RAM versions were going to "Apple exclusive". The above indications that is probably not exactly true. Apple has a decent chance of selling more than AMD but that Apple has paid AMD enough money to get a GPU that could not be sold in any circumstance to anyone else was doubtful all along.

What may happen is that Apple has bought out all the W6900 qualified dies for a period of time. AMD has the MI100 to sell as a pure compute card at the high end. (pretty good chance Apple will ignore it.) They shouldn't have a problem selling the W6800 in healthy numbers. Decent chance Apple would pass on a W6800 ( as probably only wants to do 1-2 new MPX module types. Replacing the 5700 with the 6700 probably has more interest for Apple than something incrementally off of the 6900. )

AMD could just release a PRO W6900 card late in the update cycle for the family. That doesn't mean they couldn't prototype the card right along the W6800. ( again it is the same die just with fewer CU's enabled and the same amount of VRAM.). Apple is just getting a tempoary exclusive because the dies will likely be relatively scarce for a while. But likely the mainstream 6900 demand is making that an even thinner supply pool than plans outlined years ago.

The AMD folks embedded inside of Apple that do low level driver would could get both mainstream prototypes to bootstrap onto macOS. The 'trickle down' support for the consumer cards just falls out as a side effect.

The 'X' at the end is only a flurish that Apple puts on these products. The baseline implementation is still a mainstream AMD product (with perhaps a narrow die configuration control setting.) .

 

[deconstruct60]

I disagree. I think people should rage on the price. Particularly since rumors are that the Mac processor replacement for this may also be hugely overpriced. If people dont complain, apple wont correct things.

There is decent chance that those Mac Processors are not quite all that hugely overpriced. If those are the
"xx CPU cores , xx GB RAM , xx GPU cores " groupings then there is a pretty decent chance those are SoC prices where the RAM count is higher ( and set at Apple prices ) and the GPU is inside the SoC.

So not paying for just a CPU. Also paying RAM ( and yes, at large Apple markups ) , and for a custom Apple GPU that is in the mid-upper range (the W5700X isn't low discount priced either).

It is as much stuff can't select out as it is overpriced. ( if bought RAM and workstation GPU from HP/Dell/Lenovo then those aren't bargain priced either. )

If Apple is going to simplify their memory controller design efforts to just be limited to soldered on Laptop RAM (no module ECC , no quad digit GB capacity , etc. ) then that will probably cause a bigger "dust up" than the prices on the SoCs for a large swath of the classic Mac Pro user base.

 

[GSWForever8]

I would say a hit. It is upgradable, a treat that almost every single Mac doesn't have. I'll say hit for pros, miss for consumers, which means they nailed their objective. Now they need to make one for the average consumer...

 

[johnnymcc]

I would say it's a hit for me since I got my 16-core machine for $5500! It's arriving today and I cannot wait:

3.2GHz 16‑core Intel Xeon W processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.4GHz
96GB of RAM
Radeon Pro 580X with 8GB of GDDR5 memory
1TB SSD storage
Stainless steel frame with feet
Magic Mouse 2
Magic Keyboard with Numeric Keypad
Sonnet Fusion Flex J3i for 2019 Mac Pro (Let's you add 3x SATA drives to the Mac Pro)
Belkin Aux Power Cable Kit For Mac Pro

 

[deconstruct60]

I would say a hit. It is upgradable, a treat that almost every single Mac doesn't have. I'll say hit for pros, miss for consumers, which means they nailed their objective. Now they need to make one for the average consumer...

Average consumer??? Apple answered that with the new iMac 24. Doesn't even have any USB-A sockets let alone slots or internal upgrade mechanisms .

If look at the latest leak out of Bloomberg.. Higher core count M-series on track for Mini , iMac large screen that are baselined on the MBP 16" SoC. So don't hold your breath.

Similarly the leaked Mac Pro so far has significantly less slots and probably soldered on package RAM.

 

[GSWForever8]

Average consumer??? Apple answered that with the new iMac 24. Doesn't even have any USB-A sockets let alone slots or internal upgrade mechanisms .

If look at the latest leak out of Bloomberg.. Higher core count M-series on track for Mini , iMac large screen that are baselined on the MBP 16" SoC. So don't hold your breath.

Similarly the leaked Mac Pro so far has significantly less slots and probably soldered on package RAM.

Oh. Thanks for the information!

 

[mattspace]

Similarly the leaked Mac Pro so far has significantly less slots and probably soldered on package RAM.

"We made a non-upgradable appliance to replace our hugely upgradable slotbox, and boy did we hear from you as to how much you hated it. So, here's a new machine, that's the most slotty slotbox we've ever made."

"It's too expensive at the low end for the performance you get"

"We heard how you thought our slotbox was too expensive, so here's a non-upgradable appliance computer. Also, it's more expensive than before. Want to complain some more?"

 

[rondocap]

It’s a hit, for those who want the ultimate performance Mac and will pay for it. Was never meant as a straight forward consumer Mac IMO. It’s the way to extract the most power on the Mac eco system For those apps that can take advantage.

I edited some Red raw footage and pro res raw on an m1 MacBook Pro, and while it did the job, it was much slower than my Mac Pro and not built for heavy multitasking, so there’s that.

 

[Onelifenofear]

imilarly the leaked Mac Pro so far has significantly less slots and probably soldered on package RAM.

what’s leaked? All I’ve seen is complete conjecture.

 

[goMac]

"We made a non-upgradable appliance to replace our hugely upgradable slotbox, and boy did we hear from you as to how much you hated it. So, here's a new machine, that's the most slotty slotbox we've ever made."

"It's too expensive at the low end for the performance you get"

"We heard how you thought our slotbox was too expensive, so here's a non-upgradable appliance computer. Also, it's more expensive than before. Want to complain some more?"

I'm fairly certain Apple wants pros to lease their computers, and that's what the 2013 was all about. And it sounds like that's what the Apple Silicon one will be about.

Don't need to upgrade it if you just get rid of it every three years! And can't complain about purchase price when you're leasing it...

 

[jinnyman]

I'm waiting for Mac Pro 8,1 with Apple Silicon, and yet to be seen graphic aimed for prosumer or higher level.
Just hope the price level this time is less prohibitive, or else, justified by vastly improved performance enough so that I can actually consider buying it.

And btw, 7,1 is going to be a definite miss if it doesn't get anymore hardware upgrade oiptions in graphics. (we know CPU is done for) Those who opt for higher end specification and not willing to upgrade ever is ok I guess, but AS performance, when it comes out, may makes you wanting more.

 

[deconstruct60]

what’s leaked? All I’ve seen is complete conjecture.

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/18/bloomberg-mac-pro-32-high-performance-cores/

From Bloomberg article.

"...Redesigned MacBook Pros are expected to debut as soon as early this summer, said the people, who requested anonymity to discuss an internal matter, followed by a revamped MacBook Air, a new low-end MacBook Pro and an all-new Mac Pro workstation. .."

When someone with an Apple badge talks to a reporter and says the upcoming systems have "blah blah blah" then that is a leak (from Apple).


back in December.
"... Apple is also reportedly testing a chip design with as many as 32 high-performance cores for higher-end desktop computers planned for later in 2021, as well as a new half-sized Mac Pro planned to launch by 2022. . ..."

Bloomberg: Apple Working on Next-Gen Apple Silicon Chips for MacBook Pro, iMacs, and Mac Pro Due to Launch Next Year

Apple is working on a series of new custom Apple silicon processors to power upgraded versions of the MacBook Pro, new iMacs, and a new Mac Pro for...

www.macrumors.com

And earlier report

"... Apple's first Mac processors will have 12 cores, including eight high-performance cores and at least four energy-efficient cores, according to the report. Apple is said to be exploring Mac processors with more than 12 cores for further in the future, with the company already designing a second generation of Mac processors based on the A15 chip. ..."

Bloomberg: Apple's First Arm Mac to Launch by 2021 With 12-Core Processor

In line with a timeframe shared by analyst Ming-Chi Kuo last month, Bloomberg today reports that Apple is planning to release at least one Mac with...

www.macrumors.com

Technically the above doesn't fit the recent updates of a 8p-2e-16g ( and 8p-2e-32g ) building block that the recent report talks about. But if just look to the "Jade 2C" and "Jade 4C" ( where 'c' could be chiplet)
you get 16p-4e-64 with that larger baseline "doubled up". ( so now at minimum of 4e )

The oldest report was suggestive that they were going to use a "8p-4e" building block. It wouldn't be too surprising if they either walked that backwards to get to either

i. smaller (more affordable ) pieces

or
ii. that leaving some cores out ( flipped off for slightly better yields ( A12X -> A12Z over time) and/or bandwidth issues with the large number of hungry GPU cores attached.


So about over a year with Apple person saying about the same thing three times in a round.


As to whether Apple is using chiplets or monolithic dies or some method between the two perhaps can label that conjecture. There are multiple ways to skin the cat here (GPU cores on their own chiplet . GPU cores spread out over multiple dies , GPU cores on one huge monolithic die. ) TSMC has 2-3 multi-chip-module techs Apple can use to cobble together different SoCs from the same baseline die or just do various monster big ones. ( Previously Apple only went to about 120mm with iPad Pro SoCs. the M1 lands in that zone and not surprisingly also landed in a iPad Pro. )

But is the MBP 16" likely coupled to the iMac and "half sized" Mac Pro? If they have related code names Jade 1C , Jade 2C , and Jade 4C ... then the names are certainly coupled. ( some M1-adjective bigger SoCs. )

That the new MBA , MBP 13" , (probably entry Mini) ,etc. hare a different code name makes them pretty likely to be 'M2'

The RAM being soldered on is a bit of an inference. But how many mid-large GPUs have you seen wither DIMM assigned RAM? As the core count grows much larger keeping the cores feed with data becomes an even more complicated balancing act. Arbitary DIMMs would extremely likely make that even more difference. That's more conjecture on why arbitrary user RAM would actually work more smoothly.

 

[deconstruct60]

These are a bit misdirected from what Apple was doing.

"We made a non-upgradable appliance to replace our hugely upgradable slotbox, and boy did we hear from you as to how much you hated it. So, here's a new machine, that's the most slotty slotbox we've ever made."

Kind of. Some folks liked it and Apple pragmatically did the iMac Pro as a priority project to follow on in that direction. ( dropped down to one embedded GPU but internal upgrades about in the same ball park).

Yes, there was a vocal subgroup that got a bigger box but Apple also increased the base price 100% to get that "most slotty slotbox" . In reality it is was like some vocal folks with large budgets said if you build an expensive big box we'll buy in numbers that will may you (Apple) happy. In the $2k-5K budget zone the Mac Pro wasn't a replacement for the MP 2013 ( or 2010-2012).


The Mac Pro 2006-2012 had four 3.5" drive bays.... the Mac Pro 2019 has zero out of the box. It actually isn't the "most biggest container of 3rd party stuff" friendly box ever.

"It's too expensive at the low end for the performance you get"

Again which audience ( subclass of older legacy base talking about) ? yes Apple left some folks out on both moves ( 2013 and 2019 ) if the iMac is being subsumed into the iMac large screen then there is a new gap for a new Mac Pro variant. Why shouldn't Apple fill that gap?

Getting rid of the two MPX bays greatly decreasing the Thunderbolt video routing provisioning. ( e.g. just one pair of TB ports on back provisioned by MPX slot and rest of the ports provisioned by SoC TB controllers ) if chop down to number of slots to what directly provisioned by the SoC ( e.g. three x16 PCI-e v3 bundles and a x4 PCI-e v3 , One MPX band , the 'old' slot 5 , and 'old' I/O card slot. ).

There is lots of support chips on the logic board that disappear that will drop the bill of material cost (and Apple's mark up on that). Similarly if the drop the DIMM complex and routing.

"We heard how you thought our slotbox was too expensive, so here's a non-upgradable appliance computer. Also, it's more expensive than before. Want to complain some more?"

While a decent chance the RAM and SoC are soldered down. ( actually huge chance the SoC is soldered down since it has the secure element in it and the actual keys to unlock the primary drive. ) , there is little ti indicate a about "half sized" Mac Pro will have zero internal upgrade functionality. If loose one aspect ( RAM , internal 3.5" , etc.) makes the whole thing a non-upgrade appliance is a hyperbole. If the users can turn it off, open the case , remove/add some internal components , close case and turn it on ... then the system is upgradable. if want to play whack-a-mole and every major subcomponent has to come off the board and requires ability to strip of system of anything substantive that Apple originally put in... that is more about control (BDSM) than upgrades.

I suspect the references to the "Cube" are closer to something designed to fit on a desk ( no tall "feet" to stand off the floor" , no wheels attachment,

If Apple was completely dumping all slots the system would to be 'about half size'. The bulk of what is driving the full sized Mac Pro volume is the slots. It wouldn't need to be close to half size at all if there are zero slots.

Whether the "half sized" Mac Pro is manically GPU upgrade focused is about as much of a software "problem" as a hardware one. If there is still zero movement at WWDC 2021 (and in macOS 12 ) then that is much bigger blocking issue. Slots ( solely in and of themselves) don't buy much if can't actually run software and data over the card. ( And there is no stable "native boot over to Windows" work-around likely either. Not a generic UEFI system. )

 

[goMac]

Whether the "half sized" Mac Pro is manically GPU upgrade focused is about as much of a software "problem" as a hardware one. If there is still zero movement at WWDC 2021 (and in macOS 12 ) then that is much bigger blocking issue. Slots ( solely in and of themselves) don't buy much if can't actually run software and data over the card. ( And there is no stable "native boot over to Windows" work-around likely either. Not a generic UEFI system. )

My guess is that the Apple Silicon Mac Pro (at least any half sized one) won't have any graphics upgrade capability. That's why Gurman has also said there will be likely an 8,1 Intel Mac Pro as well. That'll be the differentiator, if you want GPU upgrades or multiple GPUs you buy the Intel one. Otherwise you buy the Apple Silicon one. Basically I think the Apple Silicon Mac Pro will likely be the new trash can.

If the Apple Silicon Mac Pro could take GPU upgrades, they'd likely bring MPX to Apple Silicon. No way a half sized Mac Pro could fit an MPX module, especially if there is any reduction in the depth of the case.

Beyond issues like the number of PCIe lanes, there is also a pretty clear reason why Apple is stalling on doing a Mac Pro tower in Apple Silicon: It would be the only Apple Silicon Mac with discrete graphics. Apple may not want to bring upgradable graphics to Apple Silicon because it would create a weird configuration that doesn't match the rest of the lineup.

I hope Apple changes their mind on eGPUs, but it seems like there is a similar thing happening with eGPUs. Apple doesn't want to fragment graphics on Apple Silicon by having discrete GPUs be possible. If Apple brings back eGPUs on Apple Silicon in macOS 12, that might be a sign that things are changing. But at this point I really doubt we'll ever see support for anything but integrated GPUs on Apple Silicon, software or hardware.

Apple will probably do a few more revisions to the Intel tower, like Gurman has indicated, and hope the tower users all just go away. Kind of like they hoped with the 2013.

 

[th0masp]

Basically I think the Apple Silicon Mac Pro will likely be the new trash can.

Sounds like it. Would be one hell of a change of strategies over the years though, wouldn't it? Cheesegrater to Trashcan to Ultra-Grater-9000 to Trashcube. All in a decade.

And going all in on eGPU towards the end of the platform's life, then trowing it all out for the shiny new thing? You would expect them to come up with business decisions in a way that does not involve throwing a W20.

 

[mattspace]

Sounds like it. Would be one hell of a change of strategies over the years though, wouldn't it? Cheesegrater to Trashcan to Ultra-Grater-9000 to Trashcube. All in a decade.

And going all in on eGPU towards the end of the platform's life, then trowing it all out for the shiny new thing? You would expect them to come up with business decisions in a way that does not involve throwing a W20.

When "SlotBox" was literally the business case for the Mac Pro (which never had official eGPU support) as evidenced by the 2013-iMac Pro failure strategy, and the 2019 reset (few people were howling for a BayBox, as opposed to a SlotBox), i just can't picture any credibility being salvageable by Apple for this, no matter how good the performance for an AS version is, it just screams of a company flailing for a stable direction and strategy.

 

[mattspace]

I'm still fantasising about the idea of fitting AS Processors (with some integrated graphics), slotted ram & SSD, and basic I/O into a form factor the size of a full-size (Vega 2) MPX module, and having a system that's just 3 double-wide MPX slot / bays (no PCI-only slots), with some sort of MPX-BUS that's a superset of PCI for AS MPX to AS MPX peering, so it can be populated by 1-3x AS MPX modules, or 1 x AS MPX module, and any 2 of PCI or MPX modules.

*sigh*

 

[th0masp]

When "SlotBox" was literally the business case for the Mac Pro (which never had official eGPU support) as evidenced by the 2013-iMac Pro failure strategy, and the 2019 reset (few people were howling for a BayBox, as opposed to a SlotBox), i just can't picture any credibility being salvageable by Apple for this, no matter how good the performance for an AS version is, it just screams of a company flailing for a stable direction and strategy.

I just don't get why. Should be their most straight forward, boring product with a really predictable release cycle.

Isn't it the same leadership too, responsible for all of it - no big shakeup at the top level that would explain strategy shifts like that? Can't recall hearing about one except for Forstall's departure.

 

[mattspace]

I just don't get why. Should be their most straight forward, boring product with a really predictable release cycle.

Isn't it the same leadership too, responsible for all of it - no big shakeup at the top level that would explain strategy shifts like that? Can't recall hearing about one except for Forstall's departure.

From memory there’s been a few changes in organisation and people with hardware & engineering.

 

[goMac]

I'm still fantasising about the idea of fitting AS Processors (with some integrated graphics), slotted ram & SSD, and basic I/O into a form factor the size of a full-size (Vega 2) MPX module, and having a system that's just 3 double-wide MPX slot / bays (no PCI-only slots), with some sort of MPX-BUS that's a superset of PCI for AS MPX to AS MPX peering, so it can be populated by 1-3x AS MPX modules, or 1 x AS MPX module, and any 2 of PCI or MPX modules.

*sigh*

I mean one possibility is that the SoC is fitted on a swappable board. So you could pull the SOC and replace it with a newer module. That might let Apple call it upgradable, and let them claim that they're officially supporting CPU upgrades for the first time.

But... the SoC would be most the cost of the machine. So I'm not sure that makes much sense. Especially if the RAM is part of the SoC package. And it would mean in order to get a GPU upgrade you'd have to pay for a new CPU at the same time.

I think there are unanswered questions about the GPU too that we'll just have to wait to find out the answers to. DDR5 might be slow for a high end GPU. Maybe Apple could put the GPU on it's on board and give it a cache of faster memory but... that's back to a discrete GPU.

 

[mattspace]

I mean one possibility is that the SoC is fitted on a swappable board. So you could pull the SOC and replace it with a newer module. That might let Apple call it upgradable, and let them claim that they're officially supporting CPU upgrades for the first time.

But... the SoC would be most the cost of the machine. So I'm not sure that makes much sense. Especially if the RAM is part of the SoC package. And it would mean in order to get a GPU upgrade you'd have to pay for a new CPU at the same time.

I think there are unanswered questions about the GPU too that we'll just have to wait to find out the answers to. DDR5 might be slow for a high end GPU. Maybe Apple could put the GPU on it's on board and give it a cache of faster memory but... that's back to a discrete GPU.

Well that's the thing, I just don't buy that there's a product opportunity for a Pro desktop mac, with non-replacable RAM. So any fantasies I have for what a new Mac Pro would be, have DIMM slots. If that means the "pro" M(x) processor is significantly different to the existing ones, or if the RAM on die is effectively just a super huge cache etc...

I still think it's problematic to project what the Mac Pro will be, based on the current M-series chips. Personally, I believe that the M-series are just iPad chips that were rebranded and pressed into service, and we haven't seen a real mac-specific ARM design. I'd wager the M-iMac was probably originally designed as an Intel product, since all the thinness is a result of the power brick being outboard (and we know how small they can be for a laptop), not the processor involved.

I'm not thinking swappable boards, but literally putting the "computer" part of the computer into one of the VegaII size MPX modules. We know Apple is comfortable with users having PCI/MPX upgrades as a user-servicable part at least. Theoretically MPX gives Apple the ability to do an obscenely wide proprietary bus for the second half of the slot. Lets them advance the chassis from PCI3-PCI4-PCI5 etc at its own pace, without being tied to "customer can't buy this any more than every 4 years". Dual-MPX becomes the new Dual-Processor - you get twice as many ram slots, twice as much onboard storage, twice as many i/o, etc.

Even if a lot of the price of the machine is invested in the processing MPX module, that gives Apple a better incentive to close the loop on materials through trade-ins etc.