So basically many configurations of the same device class, then ? And one off ? until the AS 27” iMacs hit, these are the latest iMacs
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.
MP 7,1 Mac Pro 7.1 owners! What would 8.1 need to be to get you to leave your 7.1 behind?!
- Thread starter maikerukun
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agree. I do find it for streaming and YT the Apple TV is 100% better and the OS is smoother on the Apple TV. I just wish Apple made the Apple TV a bit cheaper or more powerful.
What? The M2 8 Core GPU is faster than M1 8 Core GPU.
M1 GPU 8 core: 21700 Metal
M2 GPU 8 core: 26300 Metal
MacBook Pro (13-inch Late 2020) - Geekbench
Benchmark results for a MacBook Pro (13-inch Late 2020) with an Apple M1 processor.
browser.geekbench.com
Attachments
Learn to read posts (carefully) before responding. No point taken out of context for another bickering which is meaningless & common on MR in IMO.
I said M1 GPU & M2 GPU (each the base model) is another study in my post you quoted. Not the one I'm interested in for looking at the scaling up in performance across all M1 GPUs.
So
The GPUs with LPDDR5 in bold are referring to the rest of M1 GPUs. I think it's clear from the context before it. If not, then this clarifies it.
It's a lovely thought, and I hope you're right, but the reality is, until that happens, they should definitely provide FULL SUPPORT of the Mac Pro 7.1 Driver updates and all. And I don't think you're wrong...they definitely thought they would be at least on par but the reality is they would have to be as powerful as at least 2 RTX 4090's as 1 RTX 4090 is equivalent to 1 w6800x DUO. They won't be there for several years is my guess.
I don't disagree with any of this. And I would argue many of us fit in several of those categories. I 100% would rather get an updated version of the 7.1 that has 60 core CPU and accepts the 7000 series AMD W Duo GPU's. It would be really great if the "couple of Intel systems in the works" happened to be two more generations of upgrades to the Mac Pro 7.1 design.
Hmmmmm a good point. I definitely hope you're wrong, but you guys are right...Apple definitely crafts what they say very purposefully...
The thing is Intel also had delays with their Xeons. Intel was supposed to launch its next gen Xeon in late 2021. Now it's launching in late 2022 for small subset of customers and a full launch won't come till Q1 2023.
I am happy that Apple moved from Intel, I am confident in Apple's CPUs. It's just the GPUs unless Apple steps up but so far Apple's GPUs are weak.
Agreed. Though it looks like the pandemic together with supply issues voided their plans
Yeah, I just replaced my MPX GPU module with an RX 6800 XT. The fact that this is easily possible is just one of the reasons why the 7,1 is great.
I 100% AGREE. Their CPU speeds are impressive as hell, and if they can quadruple that speed and get their GPU's up to par then that will be something to marvel at.
Hmmm, do you think the technology was ready to take a fully loaded current Mac Pro 7.1 head on? As in do you think the tech was there for an AS Mac Pro to take that head on and win?
No, not nevessarily. I am sorry, I guess I did not make clear what I was trying to convey:
TC stated that they have a number of Intel machines in the pipeline. That was 2 years ago. However, no Intel Mac has been released since and chances are there won‘t be any more Intel Macs.
TC certainly wasn‘t lying; so the question arises why Apple didn‘t release any Intels. Of course we don‘t know; I suspect the pandemic along with ensuing supply chain disruptions might have something to do with it
I see, must have missed that one. Still the point stands: just one machine - I doubt that was the plan in 2020
probably not just the one. The chip storage and lockdowns and made it worse to ship more.
As you said, TC is no liar, which is why I feel a handful of 7.1 Refreshes are in the pipeline.
Hmmm, so if that holds to be one of the few he referred to, that would still leave two to go...
It almost feels like Porsche racing department back in early 70s wanting to go racing in Can-Am in USA with the 917 but not sure what kind of engine it should have, only knowing that the existing ones weren't adequate to take on the big-banger McLaren-Chevrolets.
So they did two streams of development, one a big 6.6 to 7.2L flat-16 and the other a smaller flat-12 turbo engine, then go with the one that worked out more suitable (the turbo).
Could it be that Apple is doing the same with Mac Pro, looking at Silicon based machines and maybe has something Intel based that we don't yet know about? Something Intel based will keep people happy who also want to use Windows natively while still staying with a well designed Apple machine.
No offense to the PC workstations, they might be fast but they aren't anywhere near as nicely designed inside.
Last edited:
I am not happy Apple dropped intel..the customer is now forced into the AS path, and they dropped alot of good systems, i hope some big company is going to sue Apple for this support ********. All i want that they atleast support the last 2 Intel MacOS's for yearsssss(10+)...and for that support i would pay, so i can keep using my Intel Mac Pro which still is a good machine. My 2 cents..
Last edited:
best thing about PC is that we can choose our own case. Don't have to buy PC OEM stuff.
While not as nicely designed inside as the Mac Pro the Z-Series workstations are well designed. IMO I would not make a buying decision based on the internal design of a system (unless all else were equal).
To my knowledge Apple hasn't published support commitments for the length of time they'll support their products. This would make it more difficult to do sue them for breech.
Apple's products are usually considered by Apple to be systems as opposed to pure hardware and pure hardware. There is some large wiggle room though for macOS .
They do state clearly for hardware service support
"..
Service and parts may be obtained for longer, as required by law or for up to 7 years, subject to parts availability. Additionally, Mac notebooks may be eligible for an extended battery-only repair period for up to 10 years from when the product was last distributed for sale, subject to parts availability. .."
Obtaining service for your Apple product after an expired warranty - Apple Support
Learn about your options for getting service and parts for Apple devices that are past their warranty period.
The notion that there are no clear communication about any service support windows at all simply isn't true. Hasn't been true for well over a decade. The standard "end of sales " + 5-7 years has existed in multiple iterations of the support document. ( the notebook battery thing is somewhat new. If there are extras in inventory they "may be eligible". )
Apple has revamped their Knowledge Base Tech article system over time, but but back in 2014 (same ID number). Basically the same thing:
https://web.archive.org/web/20141122054940/https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624
[ don't offhand remember the old article ID number and web link or when the web archive starts, but this goes back to substantively before Intel transition. ]
Software ? No. It isn't like the Windows timeline or old school IBM software support window documents. However, common sense is that if the hardware is obsolete ... Apple isn't going to spend money on software for it. So the notion of having completely no notional at all is a stretch. Same for Apple's N , n-1 , n - 2 of backing off of security fixes. it isn't written in stone but they'd done it since "Mac OS X" started.
Lots of folks seem to bring prejudicial biases to the support equation of " I paid lot more , so support should last longer" . There is nothing in Apple's policies or commitments that say that system pricing matters at all (pay $1K or $50K ... same clock). Slow motion upgrades happen to give that side-effect, but it isn't Apple policy. Once Apple starts the 'countdown' clock it is running.
Apple has cut off the Mac Pro 2013 from software relatively early. Being comatose product for over half a decade is something that runs against the assumption in Apple's policy ( that there are regular updates in a 1-3 year window). If Mac Pro 2019 runs past Dec 2022 , it too will be a on a slippery slope for extended macOS coverage. But hardware wise, Apple is on the hook ( that support document is likely binding in vast majority of places. ).
There is not written binding commitment made by Apple for anything like 10 years. The Vintage/Obsolete hardware service formula goes for 5-7 years after sales stop (available new). The 7 is also not binding. That range means they can cut it at 5 years.
macOS there is no substantive 10 year track record at all.
Some Macs are getting fewer updates than they used to. Here’s why it’s a problem
Dropping old Macs can be justified, but some are dying before they should be.
arstechnica.com
The trend has been a bit down. And 'average' is likely going to get worse because Apple will shuffle the Intel models off to Vintage/Obsolete land as fast as the rules allow them too. If the Mac Pro 2019 goes 'comatose' and gets no "model year update" then at some they start the clock ( even if feed a few to some narrow niches. )
Not enough would pay. If Apple shows up and says $15K/year/system for support lots of folks talking smack about how they will pay ... won't. $1.5K very high fraction likely still won't. $150 probably many won't.
There is no license key / DRM system for macOS . Or accounting system for specific software/hardware pairs. So the overhead isn't cheap. The personnel certainly wouldn't be cheap. Time and resource opportunity costs won't be cheap.
Apple's upgrade funding model is that they charge folks upfront. There is a collective pot of money for systems sold in year X for future upgrades. As upgrades roll out that pot is incrementally used up. No accounting system needed. Long term roadmaps for personnel and resources are much more clearer and cost manageable . The costs are lower for users because spread out of 40M per year.
No Intel Mac? Scroll back to post #75 a page back. Multiple SKUs got produced. Mulitple SKUs are Macs. And macOS feature updates to Mini , iMac , and Mac Pro is new pipeline stuff. ( when M1 Mini introduced in Fall 2020 , I suspect few would have predicted that the Intel variant would still be around almost two years later. )
Was there an Intel W-3300 (Ice Lake) Mac Pro or iMac Pro update ( launched in 2017 ... surely they could bump that in 2020-21 like the iMac 27". ) ? Possibly. That is a better fit to the hopeful interpretation of what TC said. When the iMac Pro just faded away ... that was a bad sign for any kind of Mac Pro "in-between" update.
Pretty decent chance there was a roadmapped W-3300 Mac Pro that had W6000 MPX modules that sputtered out just as the MPX modules. Not just pandemic but Intel just couldn't provision W-3300 in numbers. ( Dell/HP/Lenovo all skipped it also. Not just Apple). Similar issue for AMD where Threadripper was no updated. But AMD/Intel needed to ship more Epyc / Xeon SP packages (at higher margins and revenues) so there were no dies left for the workstation product.
Problem now in mid-2022, is that the W-3300 isn't competitive. If Intel's 2017-18 roadmaps had W-3300 ship by December 2020 then things might have turned out different. Even before the pandemic , that was running off the rails. The crypto mania that soaked up GPU dies didn't probably didn't help either. Also if AMD had delivered earlier (more so would have helped a bump for the iMac Pro in late 2020 - early 2021) .
Throw in on top of that the W-3300 came to market running 'hot' probably didn't help much. Late and a thermal issue. (and too many cores at top end for macOS.). Current GPUs running hotter also just pours gas on that 'fire'.
The other major contributing issue is that the pandemic probably made it hard to accurately measure demand for the Mac Pro also. It didn't ship in volume until early 2020. So its ramp was pretty much aligned with a massive 'shut down'. That probably cause higher than normal returns and lease cancellations. Forecasting how many Intel MP 2021 could sell against a strong Ultra Studio probably had lots of noise in it. I'm sure the Mac Pro 2019 was profitable for Apple. But if they are not sure how many are going to buy an update given it would be a "last gasp" system, then more doubt about demand isn't going to help.
When Apple introduced the Mac Studio they revealed some of the Mac Pro 2019 demand information. The most popular CPU selection was the 16 core. The more popular GPU selection was the W5700. That is actually a problem for a "in-between" Mac Pro. If those had been 24 core and ProVega II then Apple probably would have been more keen to pull the trigger on a higher margin W-3300 configurations that went 16 - 24 - 32 cores. Likewise on GPU starting at W5700 and moving up to W6800 and W6800 duos . The problem was that demand was lying right on top where the Ultra was performance wise . ( Yes, slots and internal expansion are significant value features for a large subset of Mac Pro users, but very high performance overlap is a product fratricide issue. More than a few folks are going to take the higher Price/Performance ratio. )
The Mac Pro 2019 has some juicy margins for Apple. Killing off any "in-between" upgrade system would save money and keep margins higher. Apple coasted on the 2010 Mac Pro until 2013. And the 2013 for 6 years. Going into a rip van winkle mode for the Mac Pro is pretty much the modus operandi for about the last decade. That option was probably always on the table.
The Mac Pro 2019 with two W6800 Duo is a substantively different system than what launched in December 2019 in terms of performance. Apple didn't slap another year after the name (e.g., MP 2012), but pragmatically it is "new pipeline" stuff relative to June 2020.
Updated CPU or not the 100% increase on Mac Pro entry costs was still going to leave lots of old timer Mac Pro Users still waving their pitchforks and torches at the Apple castle refusing to buy either option. (another demand problem that would have existed whether or not the pandemic showed up or not. ) . A smaller group of others are buying "bare bones" MP 2019 and substituting in their own CPU , GPU upgrades ... which pragmatically from Apple's perspective is just more demand destruction in terms of funding a new Intel MP update. No ROI, so Apple doesn't do the investment.
Last edited: