And we're supposed to find out tomorrow (1/17) supposedly?.....
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 8.1 - WHAT IF...
- Thread starter maikerukun
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 7.1 mac pro next generation
- Sort by reaction score
And we're supposed to find out tomorrow (1/17) supposedly?.....
And there you have it. 5nm and no RT HW on m2 max. The boring and predictable seems to be the best way to anticipate apples future machines.
Boring and predictable is a lot better than what Apple has generally done. I think most people here want boring and predictable, not Apple waiting longer to release the dream wishlist item some people just assume it can magically produce.
Major element of interest with the release today is the M2 Max tops out at 96GB, so presumably the Ultra-powered Mac Pro would have a 192GB ceiling, at least on the SoC.
Apart from losing my **** over the YouTuber intro—that frustrates me to no end, and I can't even explain why; maybe I should just be happy for these giggling, wide-eyed individuals—I think it looks good.
Apple is in iteration mode now. I sure hope no one waits around for the next Mn that will suddenly double the performance from the previous one. 20-30% is great. 40% for some use cases (I'm simply accepting the claims for the time).
But, yeah, there you have the new Mac Pro baseline: up to 96GB shared memory, larger Max chip and so on.
I've decided to stay optimistic on the GPU speculation and fall back to "meh, it didn't pan out" if that doesn't come to fruition. At this point I'm more anxious about their next 27-32" screens.
Apple is in iteration mode now. I sure hope no one waits around for the next Mn that will suddenly double the performance from the previous one. 20-30% is great. 40% for some use cases (I'm simply accepting the claims for the time).
But, yeah, there you have the new Mac Pro baseline: up to 96GB shared memory, larger Max chip and so on.
I've decided to stay optimistic on the GPU speculation and fall back to "meh, it didn't pan out" if that doesn't come to fruition. At this point I'm more anxious about their next 27-32" screens.
240 Hz support in the MBPs is pretty nifty, and perhaps points to future products. I'm not sure if there's an issue with doing 5K120Hz over TB4, though. Certainly the Studio Display is a fine option for displays now but we're already seeing better options with better tech coming imminently, and without the Apple Niceness Tax. I don't think I will buy another 60Hz panel in the future. Going to ride this Dell 4K until there's a substantially better next-gen option.
30-40% gpu increase is solid for year over year. The thing that’s discouraging is lack of RT hw since it means it will not be there in ultra chip either, thus in worst case, the new mac pro will be quite underwhelming and not really pro
Well big news is 8k HDMI now supported by new m2pro/max laptops.
Based off the MacBook Pro announcements; I have some minor hope for the AS Mac Pro; I do think that Apple has something unique planned; we shall see. The Mac Mini not being sold with the M2 Max is curious. I doubt there is any thermal reason for this; more than likely done so not to dig into Mac Studio sales.
I knew you were gonna be happy about that lolol
Odd conclusion given that in the table the first party GPU with very heavy iGPU 'DNA' (tuned for resizable BAR mode) comes out first in performance ( > 10% better). 3rd parties go slower in that chart. [ a bit unclear in chart whether the i9-12900K is testing the iGPU or CPU decompression. Either way the RAM allocated to the iGPU is substantively smaller which will have an impact on just how much can pull and decompress in one shot. ]
Not clear direct storage is going to "scale out in the box" well either. (point two GPUs at a single SSD probably isn't doubling. )
DirectStorage benchmark shows massive transfer speed improvements
Tests from PC Games Hardware show that Microsoft's DirectStorage API can help NVMe SSDs load assets significantly faster than SATA SSDs. They also offer the enormous advantages...www.techspot.com
A hefty chunk of that is just making the die bigger with more of approximately the same GPU cores. Another chunk of that is "up to 30%" where just picking the corner cases where get some core and cache increase pay offs .
It is work. But bigger, more expensive die on about the exactly the same node as root foundation for the increase is cautionary. Where the cache doesn't catch incrementally more memory requests there is pretty good chance this consumes more power too.
Total non shocker given they are stuck on TSMC N5P. The die bloated up substantively bigger just adding the additional cores and cache. (and media processing and NPU improvements. and foundation support for HDMI 2.1 (a standard passed a good while back.) ).
Even if RT hw was 'relatively' small that would just put the overall die in the "even more bloated" state given the fab node choice. Pretty good chance RT hw is not coming until at least a major node shrink. ( Apple has different priorities than Nvidia or AMD so likely queue up for when there is larger transistor budget than now that doesn't grow the die substantively larger.. )
I don't think maximum RT was the primary target for the Mac Pro in Apple's market plan.
A GPU core 'local' RAM workload of 128GB model even if not raytraced is something they could cover with an Utlra M2 ( 2 * 96GB with room for app/OS/etc. )
And AI/ML postprocessing.
1. The Mini's chassis really isn't set up to handle the Max well. ( 90w peak SoC ) Certainly not as well has the Studio chassis does.
Besides:
M2 Pro MBP 14"/16" ----> headless Mini M2 Pro .
M2 Max MBP 14"/16" --- > headless Studio
M2 MBA / MBP 13" / iMac --- > headless Mini
Apple has the headless options all covered now. They don't really need even more overlap to drive even higher fratricide. Apple has a higher tolerance for fractricde now ( a Mx SoC sell all feed into the same pot of money and common component part pool for multiple Mac products. ). However, they probably are not looking to absolutely maximize the fratricide.
The multiple die SoC are on track not to have a integrated display model and much lower volumes. ( if they just kept the iMac Pro chassis could cover the Ulra also. I suspect the thinness politburo will kill that off though. )
2. The Mini Pro largely replaces the upper end Intel Mini . Lots of those buyers are in the cloud services business which are often more CPU core bound than GPU core bound. So M2 Pro or M2 Max ... CPU core count basically the same. The additional expense isn't buying much.
Probably in part why
'full' M2 Pro Mini + 16GB ( 32GB total ) <---- $1,999 ----> 'binned' M1 Max Studio 32GB
If have 10 racks with custom mounts for the Mini chassis that is an easy tie break. M2 Pro Mini fits and has more CPU cores right now. ( more GPU cores isn't going to make a web server processs run any faster. Or compile code faster. Or ... ). Even when the CPU core count gap ends when the Studio gets an M2/M3 upgrade ... rack chassis mount synergy (and higher rack density) will still win. I kind of doubt though the Studio will keep the $1,999 entry price. All Apple has to do is drop the 512GB SSD option on the studio and they are separated. ]
Whereas someone with a GPU core and bandwidth constraints will still pick the M1 Max Studio. [ Even
3. The more curious part was why M1 and M2 Pro are both capped at 32GB max capacity. [ One reason why the Intel Mini was still around because could get to > 32GB RAM capacity configurations. But standard AWS Mini Intel configuration was 6 cores and 32GB RAM , so it was probably popular with many. And the M1 configurations were a definite backslide on RAM. ]
We'll eventually see how big the board is on the M2 Pro Mini teardowns but it is partially thermal related. There is more than just the SoC at issue ( the max SSD capacity is high also). Where the fan placed may not be well aligned where they need to place a much bigger Max SoC. [ In the Intel model the BGA spot is off to the side and So-DIMM make better use of 3D volume limits. I'm not sure the Max would play well being squeezed into a corner. ]
Apple probably has a 'noise threshold criteria also which defacto puts some thermal limits here. [ there are two fans in a MBP 14"/16". the Mini is stuck with just one. ]
Overlap with the Mac Studio is in there also, but probably not the only primary criteria.
Looks like (basically) the same heat sink & blower fan from forever...
Whole lot of empty space in the chassis still...!
Anyone notice, in the announcement video, the wall of rackmount 7.1 Mac Pros we have been seeing in the assorted videos over the last few years has turned into a wall of Mac minis...!?!
Obviously not a full-blown teardown image, but the mobo looks pretty small...
Apple isnt going to show off their old hardware. Same way the old Mac Pro got dumped from “family photo” shots of the Mac lineup.
Once the new Mac Pro comes out I’m sure we’ll head down to the chip lab and see a bunch of them strewn around.
it is probably a lot easier to keep secrets about the mac pro from leaking so I do believe we will be surprised. Then again, the m2max comparisons to 4 gens old intel was so sketchy that is is ridiculous. Sure, those were the pre ASi macs but had they stayed intel, the difference would be quite another story.
If they spin the same **** for the mac pro, they can say that the m2ultra easily beats the 28 core old xeon. It is true oc, but that xeons was yet again an overpriced turd not competitive even when it was released. Apple has obviously no problem with these kind of retarded comparisons and fake wins.
But… it still leaves the battle on the gpu front. There simply is no way to fake a win for a 76 core m2 ultra against a loaded mac pro. Is it? Ok maybe if you use affinity designer and pixelmator as measurements but for true pro stuff like maya, houdini, nuke, redshift etc. right?
Or maybe it is just rendering that really suffers and that is a great thing they can choose to omit. It would be sketchy as F. But hey, marketing… hopefully we will look back at this thread and laugh at ourselves when that beast arrives and is everything we ever could have wanted 😂
If they spin the same **** for the mac pro, they can say that the m2ultra easily beats the 28 core old xeon. It is true oc, but that xeons was yet again an overpriced turd not competitive even when it was released. Apple has obviously no problem with these kind of retarded comparisons and fake wins.
But… it still leaves the battle on the gpu front. There simply is no way to fake a win for a 76 core m2 ultra against a loaded mac pro. Is it? Ok maybe if you use affinity designer and pixelmator as measurements but for true pro stuff like maya, houdini, nuke, redshift etc. right?
Or maybe it is just rendering that really suffers and that is a great thing they can choose to omit. It would be sketchy as F. But hey, marketing… hopefully we will look back at this thread and laugh at ourselves when that beast arrives and is everything we ever could have wanted 😂
Obviously they'll cherrypick benchmarks to make themselves look good, but what company hasn't? And what professional cares about benchmarks versus actual performance in the real world?
As for "faking" wins against a loaded Mac Pro, I doubt they're going to try and do that, and it doesn't make sense to do so, especially given what we know about its potential capabilities. Even among people buying Mac Pros, vanishingly few people are buying $40,000+ configurations. For the vast majority of potential customers, the new Mac Pro doesn't need to beat a 28-core Xeon with 1TB of RAM and dual W6800X Duos, because that's not a realistic matchup for most people.
You can see what they actually do on the Mac mini page, where they compare the new machines to the outgoing model as a baseline, along with the last Intel iMac with a 5500XT. That's not a random choice for comparison, because they're clearly aiming the M2 Mac mini at 27" iMac fans (because yeah, that product doesn't seem likely to come back) and also they pick what was probably one of the most popular GPU upgrades (5500XT), rather than the 5700 or 5700XT BTO options. Because that's what most people probably upgraded to, and it's a more useful example as well as making their numbers look larger. Likewise, what's the comparison on the Mac studio page to? A 16-core Mac Pro and a 5700X, because that's the person they're targeting with that—someone who had a $8K or 9K Mac Pro and can now get much more power (if not the expandability) from a $2K and up machine.
So you can bet since the 28-core Xeon processor is going to get smoked by the M2 Max, they'll have that as a bar, but I bet they're just going to compare the machine's GPU power to something like the 6800X or 6900X—where not only will they look more favorable, but it's much closer to the GPUs most people actually have in their Mac Pros and will be looking to upgrade from.
(Here the fact they haven't added MPX 7000-series GPUs also helps them, I suppose.)
If the thing ships with an M2 Max and Ultra, then clearly the story they're telling with the Mac Pro isn't going to be about its straight performance anyhow—it's going to be about what makes it different than a Studio (to be determined.)
@fuchsdh I agree with what you have written from most perspectives. However , to me, the 5700xt imac with up to 2 extra egpus is what I compare to when I look at the studio. Great cpu, underpowered Gpu. ( I actually have two razer core x with 6900xt that just collects dust since ASi doesn’t support egpus. to be honest it was quite flimsy and renderers never got mature on metal before last year…) The mp2019 with just a single 5700x would have been my mp2019 choice as well since those 6900xt (1800$ each at the time) would have been housed in it. So If that power cannot be beat, it is not an enticing product whichever way apple spins it. Probably better to stay dual platform anyway since price diff and flexibility is on another level on PC. The short lived intel/nvidia era lives on in my memories and probably clouds my thinking with decade old dreams. It was surely a great time having a single box doing both mac and pc stuff while being priced competitively and having the same exact same perf.
But hasn't it been said and confirmed, from multiple sources, that they WILL reuse the same case/outside for the 8,1?
So in this point, it wouldn't be old hardware...
The snapshot from the video clip you linked in was for the M2 Mini. M2 die is bigger but the overall package is about the same as the M1. The M2 Pro is a bigger package so the logic board will be bigger. Also going to 8TB SSD likely soaks up more space. There likely still will be noticeable empty space. I suspect Apple will still center the package in the new larger logic board's center to reduce the trace fan out across the board to the ports. If Apple captures the SoC package heat directly and blows the majority of it straight out the air vent then the cooling system would be pretty efficient ( and can keep the fan speeds way down most of the time).
If Apple 'had to' stuff a M2 Max into a Mini case because there was no Studio case, they could. It would be just as 'stressed' a fit as putting the 6 core i7 into the same case. But if already have an alternative case built to handle an Ultra it is just that much easier to put a Mx Max into that one. (e.g., Apple could go with the less costly and lighter weight heat sink for the M1 Max Studio. ). It would be loud Mini. (that would be largely OK inside of data centers , but deeply contrast with the rest of the Mac desktop line up at this point. )
At around 2:25-2:35 when the product managers is talking about where Mini's are used Apple weaves in that stock MacStadium's picture of oversized racks of Mini's in their data center. So not surprising at all that Apple would weave in a "We can rack Mini's too ... ours look prettier ... hint, hint maybe sign up for XCode Cloud " about a minute later in the video.
Somewhat looks like might be able to wheel those mini racks around. Good luck with that with all the weight of that old Mac Pro rack stack.
That whole lab is a product placement staging. Look at the lab bench desktop surfaces. a couple of Mini's attached to what seem to be mostly XDR's and a Studio Display ( forget those 'old' 27 iMacs. ) , MBP 16" (a preview for the next segment for their upgrades) , and iPad Pro ( don't forget those have M2's also).
[Also go back to 2:05 when the Product manager is weaving through Mini use cases with attached Studio Display attached and the 5 people video later. ]
I don't think it is big 'knock' on the Mac Pro rackmount. Apple probably doesn't want to talk about it (because they are kind of 'late' ). I don't think they are saying these are 1-to-1 replacements now. Just trying much harder to sell what is in the announcement directly. I suspect some parts of Apple also like that the mini in data center mode has adapted the racking policy/mechanisms to the Mini's design as opposed to Apple having to conform to standard they don't control.
I suspect the rack chassis will get reused also if Apple is using the same tower chassis. (that's one of the things that the "half sized" Mac Pro didn't quite match up on... why detach it from the rack case? Unless the rack case was a 'big fail'. ). It likely will be back in another video later on.