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

[Boil]

There are rumors the new Mac Pro is a replacement for the Studio. Multiple other sources seem to confirm that saying it will be smaller and less expensive than the 7,1. If that’s true then I expect it to start around the same price as the Studio. That will give customers better value for their money, especially if it has some expansion capabilities.

So a chassis that is larger than a Mac Studio and includes PCIe slots is going to cost the same as a Mac Studio, that makes zero sense...

Of course where does that leave the 7,1? I think it will either live on and get updated or it will be discontinued. That high-end segment of the market isn’t huge, but I don’t see Apple wanting to lose it.

The window to update the 2019 Intel Mac Pro has long passed, any upgrade at this point would only serve to undermine the transition to Apple silicon...

 

[Mac3Duser]

What I need, if we have an Apple Silicon Mac Pro without AMD gpus :

- a mid tower case, all black (new design)
- lots of connectors
- lots of M2 ports for SSD
- M2 ultra
- 192 gb ram
- daughterboards for ANE cores / graphics cores / sounds / videos etc ( with upgrades available for 4 years at least)

 

[AndreeOnline]

We disagree.

That's fine.

Apple got the “ball rolling” with the cube and the trashcan.

By "ball rolling" I mean any concept that is built upon. Something that grows/progresses with time. Any one-offs won't qualify.

This idea of putting out any crap is better than nothing has been proven wrong.

To be fair, I don't believe that is how Apple saw these products. But the trashcan was an extremely strange product. Of all the things a workstation can be, "small and shiny" is so far down the list, it actually fell off it. And IF they go that route—where are the eyelets that allow you to carry the computer with a leather strap over your shoulder? Where is the convenient handle so that you can just 'pick it up and go' (after disconnecting 8 cables)? At least be consistent.

But if it doesn’t support 3rd party graphics cards, it’s game over.

Is this the real root cause of our disagreement? But then:

Whoever replaces the true enthusiasts and pros that leave will likely be the demographic of my secretary …they are not the think different demographic that saved apple from bankruptcy…

I wonder how many here bought the 4.1/5.1 when it came out. I did. But I remember I was kind of bummed by being "priced out" of the Mac Pro I really wanted. I had to go with a pretty low-spec 6-core, even though I wanted a dual CPU setup.
I know that quite a few of you got in early as well, buying Mac Pros directly from Apple. But I also think there is a pretty large crowd that got in via 'bargain basement Mac Pros' (not a bad thing) that could be upgraded for cheap and punch well above their weight. I think some loud voices we hear now are people who want Apple to sell to them directly what they bought used off the internet: a cheap "approved for macOS case" that can be filled with any components that fit in the physical slots.
But if Apple makes a "GPU"-compatible Mac Pro, isn't it more likely to need a pricey Apple GPU? Will these guys be all over that and buy that directly from Apple?

Good luck with those champions of the brand…

I like the idea of a halo product: a beast (too expensive for mere mortals) that really shows everyone how it's supposed to be done. Universally praised for everything except price, but you still understand where the price comes from. And its shine spills over on everything that is even remotely related.
Perhaps mostly for worse, we are seeing an Apple today that is pretty focused on running a tight ship. I don't think it's fair to bring on the "bean counters" analogy, but there is probably less room today for whimsical or ideological products being motivated by "just because".

My hopes for the future: with Apple's latest releases we've seen performant computers where Apple has made corrections, one could say backpaddling from "the smaller, the better". I hope they continue this approach while still trying to launch "innovative" products like their line of Apple Silicon computers or the Pro Display XDR... even if they should try harder (I guess) to get it right. That display wasn't as well received as they probably hoped it would due to bleeding and such.

Most likely to be pushed out: those who want Apple to be another PC maker. Those who want a 'flexible shell' to fill with their choice of components, from any manufacturer. But in honesty, they were never really let in by Apple. It was more of a back door.
And those who want Apple to make products without compromise, no matter the cost. I don't think that Apple exists today.

 

[goMac]

[ Scoped down from the complexity of a display GPU API (Metal ) to a much simpler compute only API ( OpenCL , SYCL , or perhaps "compute only Metal" ) which also throws out boot issues is a more tractable path to weave in a compute accelerator for more 3rd party compute grunt work. It wouldn't need to be an Apple GPU foundation. Not necessarily super consumer commodity market cheap (not going to make the lowest price anchored folks happy), but far more aligned in objectives and pricing. ]

Metal already supports headless cards. For example, the 2013 Mac Pro’s second GPU was headless and could be used with Metal. In these scenarios Metal runs in a compute or offscreen render mode.

eGPUs can also be used in a headless mode.

 

[macguru9999]

So a chassis that is larger than a Mac Studio and includes PCIe slots is going to cost the same as a Mac Studio, that makes zero sense...



The window to update the 2019 Intel Mac Pro has long passed, any upgrade at this point would only serve to undermine the transition to Apple silicon...

The 2019 Mac Pro will be orphaned like the poor old trashcan .... but at least its a more expandable platform, storage-wise, and will get OS updates for a couple of years.....

 

[mode11]

I also think there is a pretty large crowd that got in via 'bargain basement Mac Pros' (not a bad thing) that could be upgraded for cheap and punch well above their weight. I think some loud voices we hear now are people who want Apple to sell to them directly what they bought used off the internet: a cheap "approved for macOS case" that can be filled with any components that fit in the physical slots.

That's me. But to be fair, I never specifically wanted a Mac Pro - like the rest of the xMac crowd, I just want a desktop PC that runs macOS (reliably). Unfortunately, during the Intel era, Apple chose to sell products based only on mobile or workstation parts. Therefore, a hand-me-down workstation is the closest I can get whilst staying on macOS.

Apple's reluctance to sell a slot-box goes back a long way, and Apple clearly had two stabs at killing it off before relenting with the 2019 MP. It's not a passing phase, and seems to be fundamentally baked into the economics of macOS as a platform. Apple has no presence in the server space, and little in workstations; this just leaves consumers, who mostly want laptops. This is clearly the sweet spot for Apple - along with iMacs, which are essentially laptop parts attached to a large screen (and mini's, which are laptops with no screen).

It's telling that despite the 'success' of the iMac, AIO PCs don't really exist. PC manufacturers likely found that when people actually have a choice, a screen + separate (compact) box makes too much sense to ignore. Apple's focus on laptops and iMacs is likely also why Apple have historically done very little to support game development for the Mac platform. Games benefit from beefy GPUs - but there's no space to cool them in the thin products that Apple favours. So Apple just wash their hands of that market too.

 

[mode11]

But if Apple makes a "GPU"-compatible Mac Pro, isn't it more likely to need a pricey Apple GPU? Will these guys be all over that and buy that directly from Apple?

I understand the bigger point you're making here (and agree), but I think this route would give deep-pocketed pros reason to pause too. It's not just Apple having GPUs available at launch; if they are using a proprietary slot / boot firmware etc., that means buyers will need confidence that Apple are in it for the long haul. Given the wild fluctuations in Apple's attention, MP form factors, string of one-off models (are people now saying the Studio was a stop-gap?) and so on, it would take a lot of faith. It's extremely likely buyers would find themselves in something akin to the PowerPC days - looking on enviously at developments in the PC market, whilst waiting forever for an overpriced Mac variant to appear. If you spend all day in Maya or Unreal Engine, the appeal of macOS would have some heavy lifting to do.

 

[Matty_TypeR]

I don't think its even worth comparing Imac's, studio's and laptop's to a Mac Pro, its very name dedicates it for Pro user's. be it 3d, video, sound or what ever, it is named a Pro Machine and should be just that, able to take GPU's, Sound cards, via expansion slots or what ever the user wants to use in it.

Pro user's will boycott any Mac pro that does not offer expansion with an upgrade path. Trash can Mk2 if there not careful, plus software dev's will just not bother with OSX.

I have a Mac pro 7.1 with 6900xt in it, plus a NV4090 for windows use, a M2 switch Pcie card for storage and a USB 3.2 highpoint card. I can increase my ram if needed as well. i can also dual boot windows when needed. If the new Mac pro cant do this then in my eye's its not a Pro machine simple as that.

 

[mode11]

But the trashcan was an extremely strange product. Of all the things a workstation can be, "small and shiny" is so far down the list, it actually fell off it.

The trashcan was 1 part cost-reducing the Mac Pro, and 1 part showing their asses could still innovate after the passing of their leader.

 

[AndreeOnline]

That's me.

Well. I'm not far behind.*

I typically don't want to go all in on new Mac Pros. They just end up too expensive.
As I said, I bought a new 6 core 5.1 and was happy with it. I was even happier a bit down the road when we saw the prices drop on dual CPU 4.1/5.1s. That really special feeling when you know the true potential of a product when everyone else just sees old, slow and useless.
And then with the PSU-modding it got even more interesting. It felt we really gave that old platform new legs and running shoes.

I picked up my 2019 Mac Pro with a single Vega Pro II for less than $6000 almost two years ago when COVID started and a nearby business wanted to cut the dead weight in a zero-projects-market. Added another Vega and tweaked storage for my needs.

I actually really like the computer and there are several levels of potential GPU expansion when prices come down on used parts. Even though I've "only" got the 12 core, the CPU is a bit of a dead end. With my 4.1 I made a point of maxing it out, and I might do that here as well, but Blender is GPU now and single core performance won't get better by going to the 28-core.


*= but I feel I understand this:
Apple is a burger joint with a secret sauce. They know they serve a fine burger, but they also know people come for the sauce. I get that they don't want to sell buckets of sauce to people who know how to bake and make sweet patties.
And even if I'm also in the camp that likes to go anal in brioche baking and meat ratios in my patties, I do understand how Apple's business works.
Sometimes comparisons are made to "PC makers" that are often just as happy to just make components. Sure they might offer something pre-built, but they'll happily sell you single components of this or that. But that is a completely different business. Almost restaurant vs farmer. Experience vs produce, even if you end up paying for produce in a restaurant as well (marked up, of course).

And if I then look at what I feel is the "big picture" objectively, I just can't muster any frustration. Sure, everything isn't optimal for my specific needs but that's not enough.

 

[mattspace]

Apple is a burger joint with a secret sauce.

...who has decided that they're only going to do sliders that are one quarter the size of their old burgers, can't have any ingredients changed, and cost just as much.

 

[mode11]

Apple is a burger joint with a secret sauce. They know they serve a fine burger, but they also know people come for the sauce.

Sure, macOS is some sweet sauce. And although I didn't especially want a workstation originally, I've really come to appreciate the over-built nature and attention to detail of the 4,1 (I'm sure the 7,1 is even nicer). If Apple had just continued releasing workstations in a similar vein, I'd happily be using an e.g. 2018 model right now. By not releasing a 'regular' desktop, a used workstation de-facto takes that role.

It seems as if those days are well and truly behind us, though, and not just due to the AS transition. Although the Mac Pro could theoretically be sold as a kind of 'break even' halo product, just to ensure the macOS platform has a high-end machine, that doesn't seem to be Apple's way. They expect every product to wash its own face, and preferably make 30% profit. A decade ago, they tried reducing the MPs manufacturing / shipping costs, first by making it a compact appliance, then by refitting the iMac with a Xeon. Realising that approach wasn't satisfying the market, they went back to a tower, but had to double the price to make it viable.

Some of the discussion on this thread looks at all this from Apple's POV, speculating on how many laptop SoCs they might stitch together for a price tag of e.g. $20,000. But from the POV of a customer looking for a solid, expandable workstation, this is rather bizarre. It's really stretching attachment to macOS to breaking point. I love macOS as much as anyone, but inevitably use Windows a fair bit as well, and it's not too bad. If I used it full-time, I'd find further ways of smoothing off the rough edges. There are also areas where the Windows platform is actually superior e.g. support of Unreal 5 features, Nvidia Optix. Plus the regular cadence of Intel / AMD updates means there's a steady supply of 3-year-old HP Z-series / Dell Precision machines hitting eBay. I'm basically waiting on the MP release to decide whether to jump ship or not.

 

[m1maverick]

Instead Apple could come out with a Mac Pro in the 6.1 mould that you pay X-hundred dollars per month to lease depending on the spec, and then the second they drop the M3 or additional GPUs, or you decide you need more RAM / storage etc. you could pay a small upgrade fee for your new configuration and Apple will send you an upgraded machine and a box to send your old machine back that they can refurb / upgrade to send to the next person / recycle.

Even better they could just release a system which allows end user upgrades to RAM, SSDs, and GPUs. Sort of like the rest of the industry does.

I see no reason the SSD in my Studio Ultra should not be user replaceable.

 

[Matty_TypeR]

Even better they could just release a system which allows end user upgrades to RAM, SSDs, and GPUs. Sort of like the rest of the industry does.

I see no reason the SSD in my Studio Ultra should not be user replaceable.

That would all be nice, but Apple will charge you for a new board, with soldered in CPU and memory, along with soldered SSD. Unless you have apple care or are in warranty period. This is where Apple say they are green yet will not allow a simple SSD upgrade or replacement, its a whole new board to original spec when purchased, or maybe charge on top of your apple care if you want a higher spec replacement.

Apple don't want you upgrading any thing, refresh with apple care or if thats run out buy new.

 

[jmho]

Even better they could just release a system which allows end user upgrades to RAM, SSDs, and GPUs. Sort of like the rest of the industry does.

I see no reason the SSD in my Studio Ultra should not be user replaceable.

I agree, but it sounds like you want a PC.

It's starting to sound like a lot of us want a PC.

 

[mode11]

I agree, but it sounds like you want a PC.

It's starting to sound like a lot of us want a PC.

Frankly, a high quality PC that runs macOS would be ideal; that's essentially what the Intel Mac Pro was.

AS is great for laptops, as it has excellent CPU performance and power efficiency, and (almost) no-one upgrades the CPU or GPU in a laptop anyway. Though even there, the ability to upgrade RAM and storage post-purchase would be desirable (albeit obviously not to Apple).

For something powered by the mains rather than a battery, power efficiency is less significant. Ditto for extreme integration, in a box that has plenty of space (which includes SFF machines).

This discussion is based around trying to figure out how the Hell Apple will take a tightly-integrated SoC and make it suitable for an expandable desktop machine. Especially when their AS Metal APIs emphasise the use of shared system RAM. With the obvious fear that it isn't possible / practical, and Apple are OK with that.

 

[mode11]

That would all be nice, but Apple will charge you for a new board, with soldered in CPU and memory, along with soldered SSD.

Presumably you mean "That would all be nice, but Apple would prefer to charge you for a new board, with soldered in CPU and memory, along with soldered SSD"?

I don't imagine Apple expects to sell people new motherboards (is this even an option?). The tactic is more to force the up-sell at purchase, at their exorbitant prices, as both sides know there's no possibility of upgrading later, if e.g. 32GB of RAM turns out to be insufficient, or you need more than 1TB of storage.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Gurman: New Apple Silicon Mac Pro will look identical to current model, lacks expandable RAM - 9to5Mac

In today’s edition of the Power On newsletter, Mark Gurman reiterates his reporting that plans for a high-spec Apple Silicon...

9to5mac.com

”Moreover, Gurman says the Apple Silicon Mac Pro (featuring merely an M2 Ultra chip) will also look identical to the current Intel Mac Pro, so customers should not expect any major design change. The product will also not support expandable RAM, as the Apple Silicon architecture means all memory is tied to the M2 chip.

In terms of expandability, users should expect to be able to upgrade SSD size, GPU and networking capabilities. This will be the main selling point compared to the forthcoming M2 Ultra Mac Studio, which does not allow for any expandability.

Gurman says the machine has two spare SSD slots, in addition to slots for graphics, media and networking.”

 

[AndreeOnline]

...who has decided that they're only going to do sliders that are one quarter the size of their old burgers, can't have any ingredients changed, and cost just as much.

I realise I've been playing the Devil's Advocate for a few posts. It's a good exercise since I try to come up with my own arguments against what I'm writing at the same time.

It's been a minute since I last went into an Apple Store, shook Tim's hand and was called by my name. Apple isn't really a Mom n Pop store anymore.

In these discussions, are we trying to nail down working business scenarios for Apple that could cater to our needs (that's the viewpoint I'm going for), or are we simply stating "what we want Apple to make", regardless?

For a while now, it's been my feeling Apple isn't targeting any certain type of user or user group. I think they just look at available technology and try to make "nice" products that sell to as many customers as possible. They are still cognisant of different needs and have their different platforms, but I still think that accounts for some of the ebbs and flows in terms of years where we might feel "we get a lot of bang per $" and years where we get less.

What you say might be true for the Mac Pro range, but I don't think it reflects the company. Entry level products have remained at a pretty constant price point but relative power in entry level machines is much greater today than it was. That simple fact also accounts for so many opting to stay on a level below true Pro machines—they are simply already good enough.

Anyway. I don't think I need to rationalise any further on why Mac Pros don't live up to their full potential. Sometimes it's nice to just vent.

Leaving with one last restaurant analogy: it has always annoyed me when restaurants offer great looking, fine tastings meals for fair prices, but then charge an arm and a leg to open a bottle of wine. It should be the other way around: charge for the actual work and creativity that goes on in the restaurant and sell wine "at cost" plus a little. They have nothing to do with the wine, except storing it at temperature and some handling of boxes.
On that note, Apple should charge for their innovation and design, but off the shelves components like RAM and storage shouldn't be much more than buying it yourself. A little more for the logistics of it, but that's it.

 

[m1maverick]

I agree, but it sounds like you want a PC.

It's starting to sound like a lot of us want a PC.

I have several PCs with my most capable being my Z840.

 

[mode11]

In these discussions, are we trying to nail down working business scenarios for Apple that could cater to our needs (that's the viewpoint I'm going for), or are we simply stating "what we want Apple to make", regardless?

The problem with the former is that it likely results in Apple either cancelling the Mac Pro entirely, charging a fortune for it, or basing it around their existing iPhone-based SoC architecture, in ways that don't make sense for a Pro machine. But hey, I'm not a CPU architect, so perhaps Apple will surprise us with an ingenious new approach to computing that will doubtless seem obvious in retrospect.

Or if they do cancel the Studio, perhaps they'll release a 27" M2 Max iMac (in Space Grey!) alongside the Mac Pro, and some of us will be tempted in that direction.

For a while now, it's been my feeling Apple isn't targeting any certain type of user or user group. I think they just look at available technology and try to make "nice" products that sell to as many customers as possible.

That's OK, but didn't they set up the Pro working group specifically to rethink what a contemporary Mac Pro meant? Even if the conclusion was... a PC workstation. The passive cooling and lack of cable mess were nice touches though.

On that note, Apple should charge for their innovation and design, but off the shelves components like RAM and storage shouldn't be much more than buying it yourself. A little more for the logistics of it, but that's it.

I guess Apple simply charge for whatever they can get away with. The soldered-on RAM and NAND may have efficiency benefits, but it won't have escaped Apple's attention that it's also ideal for upselling at purchase.

 

[Boil]

I am willing to bet that every single person in this thread agrees that Apple needs to charge less Apple Tax for their upgrades...!!!

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Gurman: New Apple Silicon Mac Pro will look identical to current model, lacks expandable RAM - 9to5Mac

In today’s edition of the Power On newsletter, Mark Gurman reiterates his reporting that plans for a high-spec Apple Silicon...

9to5mac.com

”Moreover, Gurman says the Apple Silicon Mac Pro (featuring merely an M2 Ultra chip) will also look identical to the current Intel Mac Pro, so customers should not expect any major design change. The product will also not support expandable RAM, as the Apple Silicon architecture means all memory is tied to the M2 chip.

In terms of expandability, users should expect to be able to upgrade SSD size, GPU and networking capabilities. This will be the main selling point compared to the forthcoming M2 Ultra Mac Studio, which does not allow for any expandability.

Gurman says the machine has two spare SSD slots, in addition to slots for graphics, media and networking.”

Im not sure what upgradable graphics card means, but that it uses the same case it’s making me happy in that it seems to have a more likely chance to mean 3rd party upgradable.

The gimped cpu and ram is a major bummer though. My hope is iteration might allow for more ram in future designs (like the Xeon models mentioned in this thread I think that use the faster SoC ram as cache), and obviously better CPUs will come.

I wonder if it will be pci4 or 5….

Considering how lame they are in Mac Pro production, you may want to get it while it’s hot as the follow up might never come or will come years later….however, the 2nd iteration with potentially better pci and much better CPU M3 options, and dare we dream, more expandable ram options, might be worth waiting for?

 

[mode11]

Gurman: New Apple Silicon Mac Pro will look identical to current model, lacks expandable RAM - 9to5Mac

In today’s edition of the Power On newsletter, Mark Gurman reiterates his reporting that plans for a high-spec Apple Silicon...

9to5mac.com

”Moreover, Gurman says the Apple Silicon Mac Pro (featuring merely an M2 Ultra chip) will also look identical to the current Intel Mac Pro, so customers should not expect any major design change. The product will also not support expandable RAM, as the Apple Silicon architecture means all memory is tied to the M2 chip.

In terms of expandability, users should expect to be able to upgrade SSD size, GPU and networking capabilities. This will be the main selling point compared to the forthcoming M2 Ultra Mac Studio, which does not allow for any expandability.

Gurman says the machine has two spare SSD slots, in addition to slots for graphics, media and networking.”

And will be out by the end of the year! So perhaps a soft launch in December 2023, with BTO availability by February 2024!

It's Apple's SOP to re-use the chassis of the previous machine during an architecture transition, to maximise the 'nothing to see here, move along folks' effect, rather than freaking people out changing everything at once.

The lack of RAM upgrades is not a surprise, though the idea of a large, fast local pool + DDR5 slots for capacity did seem intriguing.

Gurman doesn't specify whether those upgrades can be done post-purchase, though being able to fit PCIe-based SSDs and network cards is pretty unremarkable for a tower.

The ability to upgrade the GPU is what a lot of the discussion has hinged on, given the lack of AS API support for PCIe / TB GPUs, or AMD drivers for them. As @deconstruct60 suggested earlier (bottom of this post: #546), strictly compute-orientated GPU modules would be a lot more straightforward to integrate than an external display GPU, though.

 

[m1maverick]

This discussion is based around trying to figure out how the Hell Apple will take a tightly-integrated SoC and make it suitable for an expandable desktop machine. Especially when their AS Metal APIs emphasise the use of shared system RAM. With the obvious fear that it isn't possible / practical, and Apple are OK with that.

It's my opinion they're not going to do that. IMO it will be less integrated than the current chips.