MP 7,1 Mac Pro 8.1 - WHAT IF...

[mode11]

Seems at the very high-end the old way of doing things still reign supreme. Wonder if they can swallow their pride, simply just buy and adapt Sapphire Rapids (or the latest Epyc) platform into the kind of Mac Pro that the target audience wants.

That means they have to keep MacOS alive on x86 but that would have been the decent thing to do anyway.

That would be the pragmatic thing to do, but isn't very 'Apple'. They will want the clean break. It would also send the message that AS can't cut it at the high end, and x86 is required for the heavy lifting. Cementing the image of macOS being for people blogging in coffee shops, whilst real work is done on PCs.

As much as AS benefits Mac laptops, the transition can also be read as Apple porting their less successful OS to use the hardware of their main platform, iOS, for the cost savings that brings to them. Looked at only via a spreadsheet, it's the decision many businesses would make.

Apple could have extended the 6,1 product line to accommodate different increasingly demanding performance/workflows/professionals.

Personally, I'd have just made one model, 50% larger. Perhaps the GPUs could have used large passive heatsinks like MPX modules, with airflow from the single large fan blowing through them. This would allow for easily upgradable GPUs (I would have also put the PCIe connector in the regular place, to allow for reference GPU PCBs). You'd still be restricted to roughly mid-range GPUs, though, so still not a winning concept.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Apple is big enough and rich enough that if it had any interest, it could have released new Xeon workstations on a 2-year cadence all throughout the 2010s. They didn't even need to change the chassis - no-one would have cared, and it would have actually been convenient for many (mine is underslung on a desk with a MP-specific handle bracket). It's like they deliberately release machines that don't hit the mark, then use that as evidence that no-one wants a Mac Pro anymore.

well the hardware changes may of forced them to dump the cpu trays and the old case was an leftover from the G5 days that needed that much cooling.

 

[mode11]

Sure, the Mac Pros have always seen plenty of internal tweaking, but the basic chassis could have stayed the same. Xeons need less cooling than G5s, but conversely, modern GPUs need more cooling than those of the early 2000s. And of course, Apple were welcome to design an all-new tower if they wanted.

 

[innerproduct]

wouldn’t it be nice if the new pro was like a very smart infrastructure mostly? Pcie slots, cooling mpx modules etc but the actual compute unit being replaceable? I guess someone already mentioned something like a daughter card so the concept would be similar. Maybe dual slots /trays for compute units so that you could start with a single m2ultra and then change to a dual m2 ultra and later to m3 etc? So with some custom interconnects and sw layer to hide the nastyness we basically end up with a mini- cluster in a big box?

 

[fuchsdh]

It's hard to argue with anything in that article; I've made many of the same points here myself. I don't think Ars is dancing on the grave of the Mac Pro, just pointing out the obvious - Apple have little interest in making it. Any objective look at the releases over the last decade+ would make that abundantly clear.

If Apple had e.g. released an iMac in 2013, then not updated it until 2019, I think we'd all be in agreement that Apple isn't interested in making them anymore. As Mac Pro enthusiasts, though, we have trouble letting the dream die.

Apple is big enough and rich enough that if it had any interest, it could have released new Xeon workstations on a 2-year cadence all throughout the 2010s. They didn't even need to change the chassis - no-one would have cared, and it would have actually been convenient for many (mine is underslung on a desk with a MP-specific handle bracket). It's like they deliberately release machines that don't hit the mark, then use that as evidence that no-one wants a Mac Pro anymore.

The article makes one other good point - an expandable chassis is only relevant if expansion cards, particularly GPUs, actually have drivers. Nvidia GPUs are already out of the question, and the latest generation of AMD cards are unsupported too. If the only cards you can use are audio / video capture cards and the like, the Mac Pro would lose 90% of whatever appeal it has.

Personally, I'm hanging in there until the AS MP release (or confirmed cancellation), though I'd be staggered if it's something I'd actually buy. I have little doubt it will use a massive SoC, have no PCIe GPU support, and cost £8K. I'd be surprised if I'm not using a PC desktop by this time next year, though will still use my iPhone, iPad Pro and MBP alongside it. I'm currently booted into Windows, and stuff like Unreal Engine runs great, whilst on macOS it gives me warnings about my hardware not being up to spec. Having full access to my Steam collection doesn't hurt either.

Yep. I don't think Ars is saying anything controversial; it's not like Apple couldn't serve that niche or there aren't some pros for whom even the Studio is not the product for them. But Apple just don't see very interested in it, especially as that kind of professional user has drifted further out of the mainstream and Apple's software side has lost its focus (I mean, leave aside Mac Pros—the fact Logic and Final Cut still aren't on iOS is mind-boggling. Even Adobe is getting its act together there.)

Arguably 2019–2020 was the only good years for Mac Pro in more than a decade (a new model + decently regular GPU and BTO updates), even shadowed by the Apple Silicon transition, and now we're basically back to where we were.

I get why they created the 6,1 Mac Pro—it really does seem like Apple was shaken by the press and the loss of Jobs. But the aftermath showed the real problem with the company, post-Jobs—Jobs was a dick, and he was mercurial, but he knew how to rectify a mistake and put it in the rearview mirror. Even if replacing the 6,1 quickly with another tower wasn't an option, they could still have updated it, even with its thermal limitations... and they didn't. The lack of consistency more than anything else is Apple's problem with its higher-end consumers, and with the 7,1 they really don't seem to have improved (okay, so your Apple Silicon plans fell through—just stick new processors in the 7,1 and a new top-end GPU and call it a day.)

 

[Joe The Dragon]

The lack of consistency more than anything else is Apple's problem with its higher-end consumers, and with the 7,1 they really don't seem to have improved (okay, so your Apple Silicon plans fell through—just stick new processors in the 7,1 and a new top-end GPU and call it a day.)

But saying may = that Apple Silicon does not scale or that mac pro level ram on die is to much. OR that Apple Silicon does not have the GPU / CPU power that an mac pro level system needs.

As for pci-e / storage. Apple Silicon has low lanes and that data only TB ports can't really be done.
Apple can do better storage pricing / apple slots like the mac pro 7.1 in new pro system. maybe even 2 disks with dual die (with that may force raid 0) and bill it as the fastest storage of any workstation out there.

It's just that the studio is not user end service so they locked out changeing cards by the user.

 

[mode11]

The basic issue is that the Ultra appears to be as good as it gets with AS. Unless Apple reveal something fundamentally different for the Mac Pro, it’s dead in the water.

Some of the suggestions here seem like desperation, trying to make a workstation out of multiple laptop SoCs. Even if possible, it seems like an expensive and convoluted way of doing it, with little benefit to the customer. And it will still get steamrollered by Nvidia GPUs, and likely Intel CPUs at some point.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

The basic issue is that the Ultra appears to be as good as it gets with AS. Unless Apple reveal something fundamentally different for the Mac Pro, it’s dead in the water.

Some of the suggestions here seem like desperation, trying to make a workstation out of multiple laptop SoCs. Even if possible, it seems like an expensive and convoluted way of doing it, with little benefit to the customer. And it will still get steamrollered by Nvidia GPUs, and likely Intel CPUs at some point.

Disagree.

Some of the posts in here seem desperate to say that we have this existing m chip and it’s all we can ever have. Also there was a Post here in this thread showing a soc design for an x86 platform that still had external memory and could use the soc memory as a giant cache. I guess some here don’t have the “imagination” necessary to do the same with ASi or the amazing “imagination” necessary to add some pci lanes or write some video drivers. Some high tech sh** right there. 🙄

Some people really like being Eeyore even in a “what if” thread.

 

[mode11]

Yeah, I referenced that idea in post 315 (another poster had linked to the Intel slides). Anything’s possible; I think the question is how far Apple is willing to stray from its core iPhone / laptop SoCs, for a model they’ve been ambivalent about, to put it mildly.

 

[fuchsdh]

Yeah, I referenced that idea in post 315 (another poster had linked to the Intel slides). Anything’s possible; I think the question is how far Apple is willing to stray from its core iPhone / laptop SoCs, for a model they’ve been ambivalent about, to put it mildly.

I think the only reason to be hopeful is that Apple had their roundtable and specifically went out of their way to make something they hadn't made in a long, long time (a high-end workstation), and they have specifically called out the Mac Pro in their keynotes (rather than pretending it doesn't exist like they did for years—complete with leaving it out of Mac "family photos" and the like.)

But yeah, they've got a lot to prove. But the Apple Silicon switch is an exciting time at least to see what it could be (and I get that most pros don't want "exciting", especially after having been burned by it in the past.) It's not to say there's not room to do something different. It's Apple, after all. If someone's going to make something more interesting than an ugly slotbox, it's basically up to them to do it.

 

[majus]

I think it is interesting that Gurman's latest newsletter really got knowledgeable people in this and other forums talking about the coming Mac Pro. I think that was the reason for such a detailed leak -- ramp up the interest for a surprise mid-to-late January announcement of the new and improved Mac Pro. We shall see soon enough.

 

[Colstan]

I think it is interesting that Gurman's latest newsletter really got knowledgeable people in this and other forums talking about the coming Mac Pro. I think that was the reason for such a detailed leak -- ramp up the interest for a surprise mid-to-late January announcement of the new and improved Mac Pro. We shall see soon enough.

I honestly think it is the opposite. Gurman used to have codenames, specs, form factors, and release dates. Now, all he has are the number of CPU/GPU cores, which anyone could have predicted using basic math with the base M2. He's gotten increasingly vague and repeatedly missed his window of "in the coming months" for new Macs. He always gives himself enough wiggle room to say he "called it", meanwhile we forget his mistakes when he has a shiny new rumor that we lap up.

With the cancellation of his "Extreme" chip, he can simply say "plans changed", and go with that. I get why we follow Gurman, he's the best leaker we have, but that's not saying much; he burned his best sources long ago. The last concrete detail he got was the new System Settings in macOS Ventura, I'll give him that, but at this point he's running on fumes. (And I'm not talking about just the Mac Pro, but all of his Mac info.)

I will agree that he definitely got us talking, I don't think it has anything to do with anyone inside Apple, but because the guy needs to keep the attention of tech nerds to keep the clicks coming. It worked.

 

[mode11]

Yeah, I doubt Gurman works with Apple PR. If Apple wanted to drum up some hype, they could just share *any* details themselves about the upcoming machine…

 

[George Dawes]

Considering the performance of a top end studio is there a need for a Mac Pro anymore ?

I know it sounds like heresy but maybe apple are just working on souped up versions of the studio than another great big box ?

 

[mattspace]

Considering the performance of a top end studio is there a need for a Mac Pro anymore ?

No. More. Than. Four. Displays.

Mid. Range. Consumer. GPU. Performance.

I know it sounds like heresy but maybe apple are just working on souped up versions of the studio than another great big box ?

This product has been tried in 2013. It failed in every measure that counts. It doesn't matter how much Apple wants to build a $10k+ iPad, no significant percentage of the market for spending that amount of money wants to do so for a system that can't have fundamental system features upgraded post-purchase.

For the same reason that everyone stopped buying cars, in preference to trucks, even though "knowledgeable people" keep telling them they don't need trucks. Whether someone "needs" reconfigurability or not, the psychological safety net of having that freedom is a non-negotiable for most customers for a machine of that pricerange.

 

[Mac3Duser]

Apple must communicate seriously on the mac pro. Conflicting elements are no good. Let them say frankly and quickly if one can add a graphics card and various expansion cards, or if it is a big mac studio with nvme M2 ports.
if the ASI can not fit in the mac pro, let's go with Sapphire rapids or Threadripper. It would not be a failure, only different needs. Laptops are amazing. And that's a lot. The mac studio would also be suitable for audio and video use.

 

[mode11]

Considering the performance of a top end studio is there a need for a Mac Pro anymore ?

Yes. Nothing in Apple's current range except the MP 2019 has strong GPU performance. Nothing supports real-time raytracing. Apple either need to keep up with the rest of the industry, or allow users to add in cards. Preferably the latter, as Mac Pros have traditionally been updated at a glacial pace.

Apple must communicate seriously on the mac pro. Conflicting elements are no good. Let them say frankly and quickly if one can add a graphics card and various expansion cards, or if it is a big mac studio with nvme M2 ports.

This is a massive issue with Apple. Their 'say nothing + big reveal' marketing schtick is fine in the consumer space, but people can't plan businesses around a vendor who refuses to reveal future plans.

Even now, we have no idea when (or even if, really) a new Mac Pro will come out, or know anything about its architecture or form factor. If a company needed to buy Apple workstations today, what should they do? Spend a fortune on Intel workstations that could be obsoleted by new paradigms in a couple of months? In the PC space, Intel and AMD publish long-term roadmaps, with Dell, Lenovo etc. reliably introducing new hardware in step.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Considering the performance of a top end studio is there a need for a Mac Pro anymore ?

I know it sounds like heresy but maybe apple are just working on souped up versions of the studio than another great big box ?

I have a top end studio. It’s crap for high end work compared to my `2019 Mac Pro. It can’t even drive one 8k screen. It’s a joke. It’s a glorified Mac mini plus. Hell yes there is a huge need for a Mac Pro.

 

[DeepIn2U]

The Intel Xeon in the 7,1 is the only horrible hardware in it. This Xeon is pitiful in a ultra high-end workstation in 2022. That's my only issue. 28 cores is nothing if those cores don't have the latest CPU arch. (Single core speeds will be slower than a Snapdragon/A Series CPU)

BUT other than that the 7,1 is an excellent machine due to its VERY powerful GPUs.


There's rumours the 8,1 uses the 7,1 as a dev box.

I’m still trying to see how the Xeon cpu scales in the Max Pro 7,1 if:

Multi core scores and performance with video editing is just on par with Studio Ultra (maxed out), given the same 128GB RAM for each.
Mac Pro 7,1 tops out at 192(?) GB RAM, yet isn’t the RAM slower than on the Studio?

Apple has publicly stated Mac OS X has been designed to sallow for symmetric multi processing supporting multi processors - and I’m included to think macOS 11 & up do as well. As hinted or evidenced, isn’t the M1 Max two CPU’s and the Ultra 2 M1 Max bonded by some interconnect? If so then what’s to say Apple isn’t working on a multi die motherboard but with RAM and storage upgrades le and PCI4/5 slots?

Will storage be the same as the Studio and Mac Pro 7,1’s?

I think the real thing holding any Pro’s back would be:
Cpu head-room in the 5yr minimum future. How will the performance be Va the industry ?! Not likely to upgrade the cpu would be a real pain even if it had to be done by Apple themselves it would help.
RAM - must be upgradeable as well as storage but not super locked into Apple’s own supply. (Looking oat the Mac Studio going from the base 512GB to 1TB is $250CAN, yet going form 1 to 2TB is $700CAN ???? ☠️

Industry standard expansion with enough space to handle a minimum 335mm video cards yet forget about nVidia solutions. A real question is will macOS and the hardware supprt eGPU solutions?!

I think many real Pro’s should and would do the following after announcement:
Attend sessions of roadmap and support from Apple.
Investigate hardware components from 3rd parties for full support (not just the initial release but 7yrs into the future).
Wait about 6 mth before purchasing to really see how serious Apple is!


Apple really needs to work with all kinds of 3rd party hardware manufacturers for real support! Not just expect a build it and they will come.

 

[uczcret]

Mac Pro 7,1 tops out at 192(?) GB RAM, yet isn’t the RAM slower than on the Studio?

7,1 tops out at 1,5 TB ECC RAM (plus 128 GB VRAM)….quite a long way from the Studio’s 128 GB unified memory.

 

[AlphaCentauri]

I have a top end studio. It’s crap for high end work compared to my `2019 Mac Pro. It can’t even drive one 8k screen. It’s a joke. It’s a glorified Mac mini plus. Hell yes there is a huge need for a Mac Pro.

Depends what one is doing. For high end 3D/Rendering and video production I agree with you 100%

For music production, I could use better single core speed, I would love to have more than 128GB Ram and (maybe) PCIe slots. I might be OK with M2 Studio Ultra…

 

[Basic75]

7,1 tops out at 1,5 TB ECC RAM (plus 128 GB VRAM)….quite a long way from the Studio’s 128 GB unified memory.

If the new Mac Pro uses the same mobile-first architecture with tightly-coupled RAM as all the other Mx chips then Apple could configure the on-package RAM as LLC and allow a couple of TB of slower RAM modules as actual RAM. And if we're really lucky they'll add end-to-end ECC to the entire lineup!

 

[avkills]

The Mac Pro 7,1 also has six channel memory. One you load it up the memory is quite fast.

 

[maikerukun]

Another thing that people need to realize about Xeon CPUs is that they are really good at multi-tasking and multi-threading. Even more so when you have a boat load of RAM.

Not that I suggest it, but one can be rendering things in After Effects or 3D apps and still actually use the computer for mundane tasks such as email and web browsing.

Since I have no Apple Silicon machines; I can not comment on the ability of them to multi task like Xeons; but I can say that Xeons are much better than the i9 in my Mac Book Pro, even when I had RAM parity on both.

Go check these guys out:

https://www.lunaranimation.com/lunar-blog/2021/03/02/mac-pro-a-year-in-the-studio

There are the animation studio that handled the closing credits for Jumanji 2, but more importantly for the point of my example, they are the guys who handled the Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ Bundle commercial campaign.

And the two facts that are interesting here is A) They are a 100% PURE Apple ran Studio and B) Those commercials were made on the ORIGINAL Mac Pros, the ones with the old Vegas "not even close to what we are running in our 2019 Pro's today"...

Scroll down to the middle of this link before exploring their website and seeing their cool ass studio and look at the BTS video they created for their Disney+ Bundle ads.

And this is where it gets REAL interesting; they're building out the ad in a Maya, and then have TWO OTHER COPIES OF MAYA open and running and working on individual elements while the first copy is busy rendering and running in real-time. They ALSO have copies of OTHER HEAVY APPS open and running on separate spaces as well.

And the best quote in this section is how they say (paraphrased) "the best thing about the Mac Pro is it's like have multiple machines in one. I can have many different pro applications open and running all on entirely separate spaces without slowing down."

This has also been my experience with my Mac Pro and again, I will never understand how Apple isn't just making another intel based Mac Pro with PCIe 5.0, 48+ cores, and access to AMD GPU's "if not others"...

It's the most basic and easiest homerun ever set up in the history of Apple lol.

And they'll instead choose step up and walk the hitter to 1st base lolol.

What. The. Hell.

 

[maikerukun]

Considering the performance of a top end studio is there a need for a Mac Pro anymore ?

I know it sounds like heresy but maybe apple are just working on souped up versions of the studio than another great big box ?

Yes. There is still a need.