That's what we are saying here. We don't think the M series chips are going to be used in the 8.1 We are thinking Apple has a brand new chip they've been developing for about 4 years or so specifically for the Mac Pro 8.1
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
Not sure why on that track when most of the creditable rumors have been that it is highy connected to the M-series.
From the 2020 leaks that there was Jade , Jade-chop , Jade2C , Jade4C codenames for the rest of the M1 generation SoCs. Which turned into M1 Max ( Jade or Jade2C if the codename was for the die and not the package), M1 Pro ( Jade Chop ) , and M1 Ultra ( Jade2C ) . Jade4C failed to surface as product but not too surprising for 1st generation transition under the conditions.
There is the rumor/sighting of the one-slot-wonder M1 Mac Pro. (perhaps Jade4C that never made it into full production).
Followed up by rumor/sighting of the 6-slot-wonder M2 Mac Pro.
In the concrete announced by Apple context ... the M1 Ultra covering the MP 2019 (7,1) in the 16 core most popular 16 core configuration and the most popular W5700 configuration. Haven't even gotten to the "twice as much as Ultra" configuration yet.
So it is not most of what Apple actually sells that the M-series is not covering in performance. It is the extreme outer fringe of the MP 7,1 configurations that they are not covering. The question is that niche of the already around 1-2% Mac market (that is the Mac Pro) is worth going after with a targeted SoC for just for less than 1%.
The Mac Pro 2009-2012 system was tweaked to merge the single socket and dual socket workstation market into one single chassis system for both. There was a time back in 2016-2018 where there was several folks pushing the notion that Apple "had to" come with a dual socket Mac Pro to compete with the largest HP Z8 and Dell 7000 series offerings. In 2019, Apple did not.
Same thing is happening now. This "Apple has to match the biggest Threadripper 5000 and two of biggest firebreathing dragon Nvidia 4090s or it is a "fail" " notion is likely not what Apple's metrics are at all. And the same thing is just as likely this time around. Apple likely won't do a traditional dual socket CPU-GPU set up either. Apple wasn't slavishly copying Dell/Lenevo/HP at the top end before and likely not starting in 2023 either.
Maximum wall power consumption than those other guys isn't the primary metric they are measuring themselves against. It was a relatively high performance threshold , but there wasn't really an "money is no object, maximum R&D spend" to be highest possible anywhere performance.
Apple probably is not building a system to win any "biggest" bragging rights contest.
AMD didn't cover the 4090 with the 7900XTX or XT and yet probably going to win the race over next 12 months of generating the most profits. (and perhaps unit sales in that upper class). Similarly, Apple is likely to put more focus on doing value add in the $6-28K than on the $28-50K range Mac Pro line up. That upper range really doesn't generate the kinds of volumes that Apple generally prefers to deal with. Same reason they generally don't like > $1,000 software packages either.
ASi Mac Pro (base model)
ASi Mac Pro (fully-loaded)
- M2 Ultra SoC
- 24-core CPU (16P/8E)
- 76-core GPU
- 32-core Neural Engine
- 96GB LPDDR5 SDRAM
- 800GB/s UMA bandwidth
- 1TB SSD (two 512GB NAND blades)
- (2) Media Engines
- (2) 10Gb Ethernet ports
- (6) PCIe slots
- US$5,999
ASi Mac Pro (fully-loaded)
- M2 Extreme SoC
- 48-core CPU (32P/16E)
- 152-core GPU
- 64-core Neural Engine
- 384GB LPDDR5 SDRAM
- 1.6TB/s UMA bandwidth
- 8TB SSD (two 4TB NAND blades)
- (4) Media Engines
- (2) 10Gb Ethernet ports
- (6) PCIe slots
- US$14,999
A sub 15k fully loaded Mac Pro will be awesome, provided it scales well.
Cost wise the 7.1 wasn’t a good value proposition, unless you bought the base version or thereabouts and did your own upgrades. The CPU was a joke price to performance wise.
Last edited:
Similar arguments that were proven failures about why ‘more trashcan’ was ‘inevitable’ and ‘good, enough, for us’. And yet, 7,1.
Perhaps the 7,1 turned out to be a financial disaster and therefore we got the Mac Studio (Trashcan 2022 edition).
If the 7,1 had significant financial returns or if Apple needs developers to work with a monster compute Mac to develop for VR/AR, we will see something like the 7,1 but with ASi. The video and music market is covered to very larger extent by the Mac Studio. The Trashcan could not follow the trend because the CPU and GPU got hotter rather than more efficient and hence the 7,1. ASi would have thrived well in the Trashcan and iMac Pro formats that had power supplies of about 500W.
There is zero reason to cater for a fringe customer base unless they have strategic value. It is not obvious that they have any strategic value for Apple.
Or...or...perhaps it is again a repeat of the trashcan defense that was argued vigorously here, and that resulted in apple LITERALLY going on an apology tour, showing a segment here is incapable of learning, and only capable of being apologists justifying any and all apple failings to its customers. Perhaps. I mean, who is to say. /sarcasm
I think you should ask yourself: 1) Is the Mac Pro community strategically important for Apple? 2) Is the Mac Pro community large enough to make business sense?
The failure of Apple was to brand the trashcan "Mac Pro" and at the same time did not have a conventional Mac Pro in the lineup. Another miscalculation by Apple was that in order to improve the performance, AMD and Intel increased power usage which of course did not go down well with the MP 2013 format. I think the "apology" was for that miscalculation: they had build themself into a thermal corner. Sure they had because they were relying on AMD/Intel.
With the Mac Studio and MBP Max optimised for video, the number of users who needs a traditional Mac Pro is declining. That is the current head ache for the the Mac Pro community and probably for Apple as well.The signs are clear: the inability to provide a Mac Pro for the european market due to some electricity standards (how sad is that?), in an attempt to revitalise the segment with Mac Pro 2013 (which failed) and six years of waiting for 7,1 that also become very expensive (to the chargrin of many here). It screams that the Mac Pro is an economic failure and has been since at least 10 years ago.
It's normal. What is the "Mac pro" philosophy? It is very simple. It's having a pc tower and being able to change the components as you want, starting from a not too expensive base (more or less 2500 dollars).
If the ASI mac pro base model is too expensive and no one can add its ram , ssd and graphics card, it will fail because the mac studio will be fine for most pro use.
the 7.1 base model has a great case but it was way too expensive (reminder: at first it was sold with 256GB and 32 GB of ram).
A way of saying to 90% of 5.1 community: "this computer is no longer for you".
Apple should regain the 1.1-5.1 community with the mac pro ASI. It wouldn't be a useless step back.
users expect only one thing: to be able to put the cards they want in a large format case.
If the ASI mac pro base model is too expensive and no one can add its ram , ssd and graphics card, it will fail because the mac studio will be fine for most pro use.
the 7.1 base model has a great case but it was way too expensive (reminder: at first it was sold with 256GB and 32 GB of ram).
A way of saying to 90% of 5.1 community: "this computer is no longer for you".
Apple should regain the 1.1-5.1 community with the mac pro ASI. It wouldn't be a useless step back.
users expect only one thing: to be able to put the cards they want in a large format case.
So what is the 1.1-5.1 community bringing to the table that is important? They want a low priced Mac Pro and the ability to add third party components. What is the value for Apple with that setup compared with Mac Studio or the 7.1?
Having these uncomfortable questions in mind, it is easy to see a Mac Pro as a Mac Studio+ possibly with slots for specialist cards (not GPU, these are mainstream cards). That will of course be an utterly boring Mac Pro.
We also buy a mac because we like Mac OS. If Windows becomes better and better (more and more like Mac Os), while retaining the toolbox that allows the user to do what he wants, what is left?
Well yes for the moment it is quite difficult to find beautiful pc cases with a design as good as the mac pro 7.1.
If buying a good nvidia workstation + a macbook pro m2max = the price of a base model mac pro 8.1, what would you buy ?
Well yes for the moment it is quite difficult to find beautiful pc cases with a design as good as the mac pro 7.1.
If buying a good nvidia workstation + a macbook pro m2max = the price of a base model mac pro 8.1, what would you buy ?
Frankly windows has come a long way. It’s no macOS yet, but it’s a far cry from what it used to be in the win2k days.
Investing in quality hardware also helps.It isn’t as if the windows systems are cheap on the high end side of things.
I actually find macOS boring nowadays. To spend so much for middling performance just for the OS is not a good value proposition.
That even with 1.5 decades of windows on Macs they haven’t been flying off the shelves (and gain significant market share) suggests there are many factors at play. Upgrade is just one factor (and only for the desktop segment)
Throwing the trashcan under the thermal envelope or some power standards bus appears to be just smoke and mirrors. Other computers managed just fine viz the latter. The former is a completely self created issue.
Apple could well have waited for the AS before announcing the Mac Pro 7.1 (that they didn’t is telling - both for the trash can and the unreleased AS M1 Mac Pro variety)
Last edited:
LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
I mean...ZERO chance this comes in sub $15k lolololol. Maybe I'm wrong. I'd love to be wrong, but no way lolol.
But you understand it is ONLY fringe because it isn't able to keep up with the big boys. I can PROMISE YOU, if Apple released an 8.1 that was more powerful and faster than a Puget System loaded with 2 4090's and a 64 core CPU, PIXAR, LUCASFILM, ILM, WETA, DREAMWORKS, DISNEY, DIGITAL DOMAIN, GLOWSTICK BAY STUDIOS, LUNAR ANIMATION, AND EVERY OTHER VFX HOUSE would buy all of their supply, and I mean ALL of their supply IMMEDIATELY and without hesitation. They would become the powerhouse in the FX world overnight.
There is strategic value to them doing it, they just haven't had an interest in doing it ever since they lost that crowd 12 years ago.
The only thing I'd bet on, is the base AS Mac Pro is priced, and performant above the highest possible Mac Studio config. I'd be shocked if there was any overlap between them.
There was some overlap between the iMac Pro and the 7.1.
I expect it will be close though with the 8.1 offering something over the mstudio ultra (if lower soecced than the mstudio ultra)As to what that is remains a speculation. Possibly some 1,2 slot PCIe 2x/4x maybe.
Otherwise it can only compete if the base model has higher specs over the maxed out studio ultra.
No they won’t. Price to performance may be a consideration.
Apple isn’t big on on premises, after-sales support & services. Microsoft/Intel/AMD/HP/Dell/Puget/Nvidia won’t sit idle either.
And the software eco system never took off thanks to Apple’s uncanny ability to mess things in that sphere.
Last edited:
Yeah, but the iMac Pro, and the 7,1 were never intended to exist as complimentary products.
The iMac Pro was a stillborn remnant of a dead product strategy - replacing the Mac Pro as a product, with an iMac as a product. There was no 7,1 in the iMac Pro timeline future.
Base model 128-196GB of RAM. As the 7,1 showed - there was never an "iMac Pro without the cost of a 5k retina display" option. The availability of slots was priced higher than the (as Apple described it) "free" display that was removed.
"I want more ram than the maxed studio"
"buy a Mac Pro"
"But I don't want to pay for PCI slots"
"too bad"
My point was the studio fulfils the black box role of the iMac Pro (minus monitor + portability = successor to the tcMP too).
So either Apple put it out there as a stopgap for the Mac pro/iMac Pro +’we want beefy Mac mini pro’ crowd or they pushed it out because the extreme M1 AS version was even less scalable.
I could be wrong but a lot of peeps seem to like the Mac Studio, potential Mac pro customers not bothered about internal expansion (even the tcMP had its admirers )
Much of the lower end minus expansion role of the Mac pro might be cannibalised by the studio.
I suspect we will see a lot of such devices in the PC world soon.
Last edited:
Loaded M1 Ultra Mac Studio is US8K, but that would give a 16TB SSD (the 8TB SSD is a $2.2K upgrade); so a loaded M2 Extreme Mac Pro at $15K seems reasonable...
For that matter, I could see the base M2 Ultra Mac Pro actually starting at US$5K, dropping a thousand bucks off the base 2019 Intel Mac Pro pricing...
This would bring in a ton of folks who might have been looking at a Mac Studio and a Sonnet PCIe expansion housing, and moving more base models helps offset R&D costs for the entire Mac Pro lineup...?
So a base Mac Pro should start at $8K, $2K over the current base Mac Pro pricing...? Doubtful...
Why would the base M2 Ultra ASi Mac Pro have lower specs than the base Mn Ultra Mac Studio...?
Current rumors for the ASi Mac Pro spec six PCIe slots...
Base M2 Ultra Mac Pro & base M2 Ultra Mac Studio should have the same specs, excepting the dual 10GbE ports and six PCIe slots...
It exists to harvest more people from folks who wanted "bigger than a mini", and honestly I think the 27" iMac is dead forever.
I suspect they're primarily iMac customers who are happy at not having to junk a monitor when they upgrade the computer, and Mac Mini customers who don't want to downgrade to the M1 from the i7 models.
The Video editors were always abandoning the Mac Pro for whatever was the new hotness, whether it was iMac Pro, iMac or Macbook. That's almost the universal narrative in the Apple-centric media.
I doubt it. Very few companies have chip-fab capabilities, and no one in the PC space is going to voluntarily give up AMD / Nvidia access. Apple can only do it because they have an effective monopoly on macOS computers.
Intel does small NUCs, and they still allow stonking big video cards, user upgradable ram, everything.
I had meant that for the same price a Mac Pro would have to be lower specced than an ultra but offer something that ultra doesn’t, to justify the price.
Similarly a maxed out ultra would be less expensive than a Mac Pro with the same specs because the Mac Pro offers something else (only thing I can think of is internal expansion or allow the chips to run at higher clock speeds (unlikely)
Else few would buy the Mac Pro if the studio offers the same features, leaving only the extreme version Mac pros as viable market differentiators.
Last edited:
I don't understand why the mac pro should be expensive.
the philosophy is customizable, with precisely a low starting price. Otherwise it's pointless.
Except movie and animation studios, and very few prosumers, nobody will put 8000 dollars in a base model mac pro, when the mac studio with m2max will do 95% of what we need for less than 4000 dollars. And when a nvidia workstation will be around 4000 dollars too (talking about base models).
the philosophy is customizable, with precisely a low starting price. Otherwise it's pointless.
Except movie and animation studios, and very few prosumers, nobody will put 8000 dollars in a base model mac pro, when the mac studio with m2max will do 95% of what we need for less than 4000 dollars. And when a nvidia workstation will be around 4000 dollars too (talking about base models).