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

[innerproduct]

To me, Mac Pro means expendable with a rack-mountable option. The sealed, desktop-only market is served perfectly well by the Studio.

Amazon now makes its own processors for its data centers. With all the digital services Apple is offering, maybe they are contemplating the same switch. If Apple became its own Mac Pro customer, the product would instantly go from niche to high volume.

This might actually be a key. Quite reasonable considering that apple wants to own everything they do vertically. We interesting….

 

[Mac3Duser]

the trashcan is not bad and I'm sure it sold a lot more than the 7.1 which is overpriced and suitable for very few people (who like the HP Z Workstation but don't want to change their boot SSD alone for few money)...

 

[fuchsdh]

I would go so far as to say that the Studio effectively is a continuation of the tube Mac Pro. They just had to distance it a bit because of the negative reputation.

Eh, the expandability question is still part of it, though. You could swap the SSD, processor (with difficulty) and RAM with previous similar products like the Cube and Tube. The Studio is much more appliancey—which doesn't negate its use for pro stuff just in sense of power but also doesn't reach other people (which is why they decided not to just rely on the iMac Pro.)

 

[Mac3Duser]

the problem with mac studio ultra is that it is not optimized for softwares, VR, AI, 3D and many other things... So why would mac pro 8.1 be if it is a double M2 ultra? just to do something faster for the video and music edition?

 

[Boil]

To me, Mac Pro means expendable with a rack-mountable option. The sealed, desktop-only market is served perfectly well by the Studio.

Has Apple even offered any rackmount capabilities to any Mac Pro besides the 2019 Intel Mac Pro 7,1 model...?

I know there have been third-party options for the "Trashcan" Mac Pro 6,1 model, but I believe the 5,1 & earlier Mac Pro models were too tall for any rackmount solution unless the handles were cut off...?

 

[Boil]

the problem with mac studio ultra is that it is not optimized for softwares, VR, AI, 3D and many other things... So why would mac pro 8.1 be if it is a double M2 ultra? just to do something faster for the video and music edition?

Is it not the software that needs optimized for the hardware...?

 

[innerproduct]

Is it not the software that needs optimized for the hardware...?

That is oc part of the problem but most sw needs to be cross platform and we can not expect all to be super optimized for mac GPUs using metal. And, even with full optimization, apple has chosen a very limited power envelope for their products. Theoretical max tflops actually matters. A perfectly scaling Ultra with 20 TF GPU will not beat a 30 TF GPU for “embarrassingly” parallel loads like rendering. A mp with a 10k price tag needs to be competitive across the board. The 7.1 was even if it was priced to high AND when it was released there were no rendering SW out on the market. That has changes now and in a sane world, apple would have let the developers harvest their efforts in optimizing for metal on discreet gpus, but instead apple switched the game around completely leading to the weird situation we have now wher Octane was finally released for mac in a stable form (last week!) but only supports m1/m2 since it was not possible and meaningful to optimize for both amd discreet fpu on intel and AS code paths. (Or so OTOY describes the situation at least) Redshift works on both amd and AS but as we have seen, it scale really bad from Max to Ultra while quite decent on amd)
Hope I don’t derail the discussion with this. Oth , we have plenty of time for discussion until march 😂

 

[maikerukun]

As someone that owns way too many computers, I won't debate the desire to own multiple generations of Mac Pro, especially when one is the pinnacle of the Intel era (which already entails a fair amount of computing workloads that are simply not available on an Apple Silicon Mac and likely never will be).

That all being said, you do know that this won't be "MacPro8,1", right? There literally won't be such a Mac now that Apple has moved towards a general "MacX,Y" naming scheme (starting with the Mac Studio, but continuing on with the M2 MacBook Air and the M2 13-inch MacBook Pro).



Uh...I'm pretty sure this is the dominant theory around the campfire. Far from "nobody has ever mentioned it".

In fact, it would only be logical for the Apple Silicon Mac Pro to keep in with the Intel Mac Pro in that it does not use the same class of processor as the rest of the lineup.

Furthermore, it's very clear that Apple doesn't intend to keep its desktops updated anywhere near as often as its laptops. As it stands currently, the only Mac product line to even see annual changes is the MacBook Pro. There was no new MacBook Air in 2021 and, with the exception of 2019-2021, changes to the iMac line were only happening once every other year (though, you could argue that the only real exception to this was the 2020 27-inch iMac, given that the Mac Studio was its replacement whereas the 2021 M1 iMac was not). The Mac Pro won't be an exception at all. We're going to see 3-6 years in between Mac Pro refreshes AS THE NORM.

But, much in the same way that there are people still chugging away on 2010-12 Mac Pros some 10-12 years later, the first Apple Silicon Mac Pros will definitely be apt to remain supported for the same 9 years that the 2012 and 2013 Mac Pros were. Hell, you have A9 iPhones having been dropped from iOS 16 support, yet iPadOS 16 definitely still supports the first generation 12.9" iPad Pro's A9X. Why? Because relative to A9, that particular SoC was (and still sort of is) a beast.




If you're talking dreamland, sure, that would be cool.

Back in reality, that ain't gonna happen. Apple has been very clear, since day one of them announcing the switch to Apple Silicon to begin with, that the RAM and GPUs will be integrated with the SoC. So, while Apple could toss you a bone and give you a PCIe x16 slot with a ton of bandwidth, you will never be able to put in an AMD or NVIDIA graphics card into that slot. Similarly, they might keep the MPX module convention around (seeing as MPX isn't limited to graphics cards), but you won't see graphics cards occupying those slots.

So, looking at the current Mac Pro, you won't see those RAM slots, and you won't see GPUs occupying those slots.

I don't see why a socketed SoC isn't possible. But get ready to cry at the prices of those replacement chips.



You might see 64 graphics cores on the SoC. You will not see a W7800X grace that box. Again, third party graphics are not a thing in Apple Silicon Mac land.



Not a bad topic to engage with intoxicated. I do it with my buddy all the time!



They won't. You can wake up from that particular dream right now.



We seemed to survive the PowerPC era of Power Macs just fine without ECC. Not saying that we won't want it for the Apple Silicon era of high-end Mac computing, but is it as much of a need now that we're not in Intel land and given how efficient Apple's unified memory architecture is? Not saying it wouldn't help, but is it as much of a must?



We're nearly in 2023 and you still haven't watched the video from WWDC 2020 where Apple completely debunked this: https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10686/

Go to 1:00 in. There will be no discrete GPU in the way that we had on 15, 16, and 17 inch MacBook Pros (nor any of the PowerBook G4s that preceded them), Mac Pros, nor iMacs. The GPUs will always be on the SoC. End of story. In turn, while you can certainly make the Intel version of macOS run with third party GPUs (given that's all there were) and add/hack on drivers for ones that aren't already there, YOU CANNOT DO THIS WITH THE APPLE SILICON VERSION OF macOS!



You know that PCIe slots are useful for more than graphics cards, right? In fact, upgradeable graphics, while a big sticking point for 2013 Mac Pro and iMac Pro (2017) complainers, is far from the only reason why those customers still wanted PCIe slots. There are plenty of high-end video and audio capture cards that you're not simply slapping into a Thunderbolt 3 expansion chassis and calling a day with. THAT'S who the Mac Pro is for.



There hasn't been a Mac Pro with a base cost of $2500 in at least 9 years.



The Mac Pro will be for those that (a) need whatever faster SoC Apple has planned. If that SoC is socketed, all the better. I have no reason to believe it is, but also no reason to believe that it wouldn't be a good idea for Apple to do that (and sell aftermarket upgrades) as this is the only way users can upgrade RAM or graphics after the fact.

SSDs will probably be handled exactly the same way they are on the current Mac Pro; which is to say that the modules just contain the NAND while the SSD's controller comes from the SoC which will be cryptographically paired to the modules. Remove the modules and the data on them is useless. Upgrade the modules by doing a DFU restore of the Mac Pro (thereby rendering whatever data was on the old modules as good as gone). I'm sure Apple will throw in those same SATA ports and any other drive expansion that was present on the current Mac Pro. Nothing about Apple Silicon precludes those from existing.

Users will buy the Mac Pro over the Mac Studio for the same reason why they didn't buy the 27-inch iMac instead; they will want PCIe expansion and way higher-end options than otherwise exist. Toward that end, you're likely going to see SoCs on the high end of the Mac Pro that won't ever be in a Mac Studio.




While I don't disagree that the current Mac Pro was/is way too expensive, you have to take into account that there are fewer people that NEED this kind of Mac than was the case during the 1,1-5,1 days, or even the Power Mac G5 and Power Mac G4 days. You only really need a Mac Pro if you need (a) internal expansion and/or (b) CPU/GPU horsepower needs that exceed what you'd otherwise have in a Mac Studio or 27-inch iMac.



Again, unless you need internal expansion or seriously powerful CPU/GPU horsepower (and mind you, the M1 Max and M1 Ultra DO outperform most Mac Pro configurations in this arena), you do not need a Mac Pro. The message isn't that "This computer is no longer for you", but rather "you no longer need this class of machine because now the lesser models are adequately performant".



Most cards that you'd throw into a current Mac Pro are high-enough end to justify the cost of the machine. You're not as likely to be as casual about the PCIe cards you throw into a Mac Pro as you would be a PC you built yourself, any Power Mac, or any 2006-2012 Mac Pro tower because cards for Mac aren't designed to be casual. Most of them are high end. The days of casual Mac tower usage are over and done with thanks to the 2013-2019 gap wherein the best Xeon Macs we had were the trash can and the iMac Pro.



Uh...the iMac Pro was literally made as a stopgap for the 7,1; designed for folks that begrudgingly switched to standard 27-inch iMacs because the trash can aged without updates. The 7,1 was literally the entire point of the iMac Pro's timeline. If that's what you were trying to say, then you went about it sorta roundabout.





Depends on whether or not the M1 Ultra or some other A15 or A16 based equivalent is the basis or not. If it is, then 64GB will probably be the base model specs. If not, then 128GB as a starting RAM amount makes sense.


The maxed studio has 128GB of RAM. You're paying for a hell of a lot more than just PCIe slots by buying ANY Mac with more than 128GB of RAM in tow. Hell, consider all of the Macs that Apple has produced that have 128GB of RAM as an option. None of them were/are even remotely low-end and that has nothing to do with PCIe slots.

Do you think this system you are trying to bring everyone's high down with is going to be able to best a 4090 in 3D animation and real time GPU based rendering? That's honestly all that matters to me. I will happily cough up $60k for that machine if it can best my current machine "which means it needs to best 2 RTX 3090's by about 60%."

 

[maikerukun]

So what if the new Mac Pro simply is what rumours have been suggesting since the beginning: a dual or quad chip M* with some extra PCI lanes for things outside of graphic cards. Like for connectivity, pro tools/audio stuff etc. And that's it?
Then we would be looking at basically Mac Studio Ultra perf *1.2 for the low end and at best MacStudio Ultra*2.4 when it comes to CPU. That would be a great CPU, no doubt, and be good enough to compete with current gen intel and AMD CPUS.
The GPU on the other hand would be kind of terrible for the price point. As we have seen in other threads (and from personal experience) In Redshift (the only currently stable and useable GPU renderer on the Mac outside of Blender/cycles) the Mac studio Ultra renders the very representative benchmark in 6min 30s. IIRC, a single 6900XT managed the same render in less than 5 min.
So, if the new MP using M2 tech would scale better than the M1 Ultra, we might at the very very best see total linear scaling and end up with about sub 4 min for the new M2 Ultra and sub 2 min for the maxed out M2 Extreme.
If the price is right that is definitely useful performance, but about the same as a single, last gen nvidia card. There is oc a selling point that the RAM is unified but well see how much it matters. Seems to me the CPU will be so good that one would seriously consider going for a CPU renderer instead. (since those are still more feature complete and more responsive in general)

Personally, the "extreme" risk to be to costly for what it offers and since I personally only used PCI slots for graphics and some networking before 10Gbe was standard , I will be better served by an updated Mac Studio I think.

My dream Mac Pro would be a system where I could get GPU performance that is in similar range as the PC competition and then be able to upgrade just the GPU part in 3 years to make the system viable at least 6 years.
The more I think of it the more reasonable the Mac Studio Ultra M2 edition with current M1 issues ironed out will be what I am looking for. That solution is still 3X as expensive as the MacPros I used to buy back in the day so even that is stretching the budget and ROI calculations.

Hmmm, have you played around at all with OctaneX? I gotta say, I have been using it for ALL of my client work for the past year and yes, it's buggy, and yes it has its ummm...quirks LOL, but honestly, it's been extremely stable and blazing fast and in terms of benchmarks it blazes right past dual config RTX 3090s.

But more importantly, It's MILES faster than Redshift and Cycles...not that I don't like those, I do...but they need to get up to speed with OctaneX before I can use them in my daily workflow.

That said I do use a lot of compromises to make sure things don't crash while I'm working and I don't use extremely heavy settings until my final renders.

For me, the new Mac Studio EXTREME or 8.1 or whatever we all want to call it lol, needs to be blazing fast. I have a puget system at the studio that I use specifically for virtual work and with my Rokoko suit "which I'm currently figuring out how to level the efficiency of it on my Mac Pro at my home studio", and I simply want my Mac Pro at home to always be at least on par if not faster in GPU performance as my Puget. "granted it runs 2 RTX 3090's and I won't be upgrading to the 4090's because I'm LITERALLY WAITING TO SEE WHAT APPLE IS ABOUT TO DO HERE LOL".

I'm praying that the 8.1 is fast enough that I can continue championing Apple as I always have. I admittedly HATE that I always have to do my 4k footage raw editing on my MacBook Pro M1 Max and my Mac Studio because this powerful ass machine can't handle editing footage lolol, it is an embarrassment and a dark mark on an otherwise flawless monster "literally, editing footage is the kryptonite to this superman machine".

Anyway, the dream lives on until the machine is revealed lol.

 

[maikerukun]

To me, Mac Pro means expendable with a rack-mountable option. The sealed, desktop-only market is served perfectly well by the Studio.

Amazon now makes its own processors for its data centers. With all the digital services Apple is offering, maybe they are contemplating the same switch. If Apple became its own Mac Pro customer, the product would instantly go from niche to high volume.

Wow...I really never thought about this...I like it!

 

[innerproduct]

Hmmm, have you played around at all with OctaneX? I gotta say, I have been using it for ALL of my client work for the past year and yes, it's buggy, and yes it has its ummm...quirks LOL, but honestly, it's been extremely stable and blazing fast and in terms of benchmarks it blazes right past dual config RTX 3090s.

But more importantly, It's MILES faster than Redshift and Cycles...not that I don't like those, I do...but they need to get up to speed with OctaneX before I can use them in my daily workflow.

That said I do use a lot of compromises to make sure things don't crash while I'm working and I don't use extremely heavy settings until my final renders.

For me, the new Mac Studio EXTREME or 8.1 or whatever we all want to call it lol, needs to be blazing fast. I have a puget system at the studio that I use specifically for virtual work and with my Rokoko suit "which I'm currently figuring out how to level the efficiency of it on my Mac Pro at my home studio", and I simply want my Mac Pro at home to always be at least on par if not faster in GPU performance as my Puget. "granted it runs 2 RTX 3090's and I won't be upgrading to the 4090's because I'm LITERALLY WAITING TO SEE WHAT APPLE IS ABOUT TO DO HERE LOL".

I'm praying that the 8.1 is fast enough that I can continue championing Apple as I always have. I admittedly HATE that I always have to do my 4k footage raw editing on my MacBook Pro M1 Max and my Mac Studio because this powerful ass machine can't handle editing footage lolol, it is an embarrassment and a dark mark on an otherwise flawless monster "literally, editing footage is the kryptonite to this superman machine".

Anyway, the dream lives on until the machine is revealed lo

OctaneX

Use octane extensively on pc but since I am a Houdini user there has not been plugins available for mac that matched the production builds. And that made it not a viable move to invest in the 7.1 so I am still waiting for a Desktop mac that solves my 3d needs. Love my 16 m1max as a good laptop but can’t be compared to a proper workstation when it comes to 3d.

 

[mode11]

Sure they could but there is misconception that 5,1 was good computer without flaws and these flaws was an Apple decision.

The 5,1 was a good computer, though being a minor revision of the 2009 4,1 it was getting a little long in the tooth by 2012. It may not be flawless, but it was damn good.

My point was that the 5,1 was not high end in the GPU department and lacked ability to support (future) high end GPU due to poor power delivery. In my opinion a computer you need to mod to do what is supported to do is built wrong from the factory. Is something wrong with that criticism?

Your point was that the 5,1 wasn't a proper workstation, which was nonsense. It supported the professional GPUs of its day (macOS drivers notwithstanding), and fundamentally had the guts to support later ones too. The lack of AUX power was a detail oversight by Apple, not a reflection of the overall quality of the machine. The fact this oversight was easily bypassed by end users in later years points to that.

The ability to heat dissipate determines the performance of any computer. During the Intel /AMD era, things got worse for every generation because of lack of innovation. There was an increasing discrepancy between what many people wanted (smaller and silent computers) and the chips development did not support that. The result was ASi and we are back on track in the thread.

People have always wanted small and quiet computers, but professionals accept large towers because ATX expansion cards, and powerful GPUs in particular, need the space.

I don't see why a socketed SoC isn't possible. But get ready to cry at the prices of those replacement chips.

Can't see Apple ever doing that, unless it meaningfully reduced manufacturing costs. In any case, with Apple as the sole supplier of SoCs, don't expect any bargains (as you note).

We seemed to survive the PowerPC era of Power Macs just fine without ECC.

True, though the last G5's peaked at 16GB I believe, and G4's supported just 2GB.

I'm sure Apple will throw in those same SATA ports and any other drive expansion that was present on the current Mac Pro.

I can't really see the SATA ports. They probably just came for free with the Xeon chipset. It's probably the sort of thing they'd leave to PCIe cards.

Again, unless you need internal expansion or seriously powerful CPU/GPU horsepower (and mind you, the M1 Max and M1 Ultra DO outperform most Mac Pro configurations in this arena), you do not need a Mac Pro.

The whole Mac AS range has great CPUs. The issue is the GPUs. Single high-end PC GPU's have significantly more horsepower than anything in Apple's AS range so far.

Uh...the iMac Pro was literally made as a stopgap for the 7,1; designed for folks that begrudgingly switched to standard 27-inch iMacs because the trash can aged without updates. The 7,1 was literally the entire point of the iMac Pro's timeline. If that's what you were trying to say, then you went about it sorta roundabout.

With mattspace on that one. The iMac Pro was almost ready for release at the time Apple very uncharacteristically both admitted fault and pre-announced a product that wouldn't come out for a further 2.5 years. They clearly started work from scratch, that morning, having likely disbanded the whole Mac Pro team some time before.

Did you have a tcMP on your desk? It was actually very nice. Small, silent at more powerful than a MacBook Pro. Was a modular Mac to compete with HP Z series - (well the high end) no. Did it do the job for what it was intended for - yes. Wrong for you but it did the job for others (just like the iMac Pro and Mac Studio). Why is that difficult to accept?

Any design is going to please someone out there. Why can't you accept Apple's assessment that it was a mistake?

Eh, I don't think flexibility for all scenarios is always the overriding goal, nor should it be. Apple's guess in 2013 was a reasonable one; that it was wrong is partly down to their own failures to support it (OpenCL) as well as the outside environment.

Are you referring to guessing that the future was dual-GPU? Why would they be so convinced that, and even if so, why not two really big GPUs, rather than two small ones? I think it's pretty obvious they fell in love with the form factor, then needed a way of spreading heat sources around a triangular heatsink. It was a completely unforced error, borne from trying too hard to show the world they still had design chops after Steve passed - "Can't innovate my ass".

I'm sure they also wanted to significantly reduce the physical size, so they took up less space / weight in shipping and were cheaper to make.

But really the big issue was their refusal to either admit they were wrong (like they did with the G4 Cube) and pivot immediately, or make meaningful iterative improvements (like the iMac or the iPhone, which rapidly revised the original's weaknesses.) Nothing was stopping Apple from using the same principles of a thermal core and compact enclosure and adjusting it to use a single more powerful GPU. And, as I've said for years, whether or not the tube Mac Pro could have succeeded in an alternate universe where they actually supported the thing is an unknown. I was disappointed with aspects of the 6,1, but I would have been happy to buy a Broadwell model. Instead... they did nothing. Why would anyone buy into a product line they weren't supporting themselves with upgrades or new revisions?

I agree. There's no reason they couldn't have fitted updated Xeons / Radeons within the thermal envelope, faster SSDs, TB3 etc. I think Apple have long wanted to kill off the Mac Pro. They tried to reposition it as a high powered compact appliance, then took a second stab at that with the iMac Pro. They doubtless hoped Apple pros would cave eventually, then when they didn't, reluctantly conceded defeat and made the 7,1. Even now, the consensus here seems to be that if the 8,1 has PCIe slots, they definitely won't support GPUs. I have no doubt that in an ideal world, Apple would cap the range with the Studio Ultra.

I would go so far as to say that the Studio effectively is a continuation of the tube Mac Pro. They just had to distance it a bit because of the negative reputation.

I'm sure Apple are loathe to make another slotbox. It would just seem odd that having very uncharacteristically admitted fault, that they would U-turn again so soon.

 

[maikerukun]

Use octane extensively on pc but since I am a Houdini user there has not been plugins available for mac that matched the production builds. And that made it not a viable move to invest in the 7.1 so I am still waiting for a Desktop mac that solves my 3d needs. Love my 16 m1max as a good laptop but can’t be compared to a proper workstation when it comes to 3d.

I 100% agree and I understand now that I know you're heavily using Houdini. That makes complete sense. It sucks that if you want the latest build on your Mac Pro you have to pay for OctaneX "which I don't mind doing" however...it limits you to 2 GPU's, which is a no go for someone like me "having 2 w6800x duo's", it completely gimps my system so I also unfortunately do all my client work in C4D R25.

Here's hoping 8.1 is a true solution...

 

[enc0re]

Has Apple even offered any rackmount capabilities to any Mac Pro besides the 2019 Intel Mac Pro 7,1 model...?

I know there have been third-party options for the "Trashcan" Mac Pro 6,1 model, but I believe the 5,1 & earlier Mac Pro models were too tall for any rackmount solution unless the handles were cut off...?

2002-2011 Apple had 2 generations of rackmountable Power Macs followed by two generations of Xeons under the brand name xServe. Then nothing until the rackmountable option of the 2019 Mac Pro.

But I would say that with Apple Silicon this is the first time it would really make sense for Apple to design server hardware for its own use. The cloud is all about performance per watt.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

2002-2011 Apple had 2 generations of rackmountable Power Macs followed by two generations of Xeons under the brand name xServe. Then nothing until the rackmountable option of the 2019 Mac Pro.

But I would say that with Apple Silicon this is the first time it would really make sense for Apple to design server hardware for its own use. The cloud is all about performance per watt.

server hardware will need hot swap storage and IPMI (with able to reset / load the os in full DFU setup for apple)

 

[Boil]

2002-2011 Apple had 2 generations of rackmountable Power Macs followed by two generations of Xeons under the brand name xServe. Then nothing until the rackmountable option of the 2019 Mac Pro.

But I would say that with Apple Silicon this is the first time it would really make sense for Apple to design server hardware for its own use. The cloud is all about performance per watt.

Xserve was not a Mac Pro workstation, it was a rackmount corporate server; the discussion was in regards to Apple rackmount Mac Pro workstations...

 

[Mac3Duser]

the ASI mac pro mainly needs an nvidia graphics card, one especially designed for apple would not be a problem for me, if it is to contain thermal and consumption in a mpx module, as long as we can do Instant Nerf, AI, 3D, machine learning etc on a apple machine, something like a RTX A6000 or even more...
Apple would be smart to design for consumers. It would be a real commercial success, in my opinion.

 

[maikerukun]

the ASI mac pro mainly needs an nvidia graphics card, one especially designed for apple would not be a problem for me, if it is to contain thermal and consumption in a mpx module, as long as we can do Instant Nerf, AI, 3D, machine learning etc on a apple machine, something like a RTX A6000 or even more...
Apple would be smart to design for consumers. It would be a real commercial success, in my opinion.

I 100% agree with this, and hope it comes to fruition.

 

[mode11]

I think Apple are very keen to keep CUDA off the Mac platform, since so many pro apps use it. Developers porting PC software would undoubtedly just stick with that rather than bothering with Metal. The last thing Apple want is for their pro users to demand Nvidia hardware in their machines, in perpetuity; they'd be over a barrel.

 

[innerproduct]

Yeah, let's remember that last push they did for OpenCL since 2009 and forward, going open source with it and all. In the end, people chose Cuda anyway since it as way easier to use, and perf on nvidia was far ahead. Tbh, nvidia has been a trailblazer in 3D graphics since the 90s and AMD or ATI was always second rate **** except for brief moments. For gaming AMD is ok it seems, but they really how no clue when it comes to providing a solid ecosystem or even drivers for that matter. It is slowly getting better, but I think, that maybe, dropping AMD for graphics was really the right thing to do. The short period where Mac used nvidia cards where to me the best era! Solid continuation of the NeXT legacy with all it's ups. Sad that we had the all to well known fallout happen between Apple and nvidia and that Steve died thereabouts. Anyway, here we are hoping and complaining and nagging and "internet-wrestling" like little kids. But from the comments it looks more likely that people are actually old folks, 40+ at least. And that we still is in love with the Apple of the "prodigal son" era 1998-2011, still hoping for things that has not been true for a while. It also seems to me that we are a passionate bunch with some serious machine love going on. I really hope we all will have systems next year that finally makes it possible to be Mac professionals. And that we won't have to hang around on this forum and wish for machines that made it easy to champion the platform and produce the best works of our lives, but rather, that that was undeniably and unapologetically true. Even for 3D

 

[maikerukun]

Yeah, let's remember that last push they did for OpenCL since 2009 and forward, going open source with it and all. In the end, people chose Cuda anyway since it as way easier to use, and perf on nvidia was far ahead. Tbh, nvidia has been a trailblazer in 3D graphics since the 90s and AMD or ATI was always second rate **** except for brief moments. For gaming AMD is ok it seems, but they really how no clue when it comes to providing a solid ecosystem or even drivers for that matter. It is slowly getting better, but I think, that maybe, dropping AMD for graphics was really the right thing to do. The short period where Mac used nvidia cards where to me the best era! Solid continuation of the NeXT legacy with all it's ups. Sad that we had the all to well known fallout happen between Apple and nvidia and that Steve died thereabouts. Anyway, here we are hoping and complaining and nagging and "internet-wrestling" like little kids. But from the comments it looks more likely that people are actually old folks, 40+ at least. And that we still is in love with the Apple of the "prodigal son" era 1998-2011, still hoping for things that has not been true for a while. It also seems to me that we are a passionate bunch with some serious machine love going on. I really hope we all will have systems next year that finally makes it possible to be Mac professionals. And that we won't have to hang around on this forum and wish for machines that made it easy to champion the platform and produce the best works of our lives, but rather, that that was undeniably and unapologetically true. Even for 3D

Yep. This 100%

Because of the convo here on this thread, I actually ended up on Puget's website contemplating a home system. They have a really nice 3D workstation with 2 RTX 4090's in it for $11,000 and quite frankly, that was the cost of my 2 w6800x duo's in my 2019 Mac Pro all by themselves LOLOL.

I may just grab one of these to use at home. I do admittedly enjoy running Unreal on it as well as motion capture at the studio, so might as well run one here at home. I've been stubborn because I only want the Apple Ecosystem at home "hell even my studio was 100% pure Mac until Virtual Sets and Motion Capture and photogrammetry became a part of my steady workflow because alot of the best programs for those particular things were exclusively "or at least not natively" only on PC.

I've made a lot of crazy choices to protect my walled garden. A garden I've put at least $800k into or so between my actual studio and my home studio. And with a couple dozen iMacs from between 2017 and 2020 that once costed me $5k a piece that are all worth like $400 now...becuase they can't be upgraded and they run extremely slow and they can't all be networked properly as a render farm "I really should've just bought 25 or so Mac mini's for that", I've been selling them to local businesses and individuals...I've only got a couple left. The studio mainly runs on 2019 Mac Pro's, M1 iMacs, and soon I'll be picking up maybe 6 or so Mac Studios to install there. Here at home it's just my 2019 Mac Pro, my M1 Max MacBook Pro, an M1 iPad Pro 13 inch, and a Mac Studio, oh and a 2019 iMac still going strong upstairs in my home music studio...and sadly, maybe as of today, a Puget System with 2 RTX 4090's...it's sitting in the cart...just gotta let the finger fly lololol.

That thing is just gonna be so...strange, in a Mac house...but Apple is forcing this choice on me...and I will never understand why they would do that. Why they would happily just give my money to other companies when I literally want to give it to them. What a strange time to be alive...

 

[exoticSpice]

B

Yep. This 100%

Because of the convo here on this thread, I actually ended up on Puget's website contemplating a home system. They have a really nice 3D workstation with 2 RTX 4090's in it for $11,000 and quite frankly, that was the cost of my 2 w6800x duo's in my 2019 Mac Pro all by themselves LOLOL.

I may just grab one of these to use at home. I do admittedly enjoy running Unreal on it as well as motion capture at the studio, so might as well run one here at home. I've been stubborn because I only want the Apple Ecosystem at home "hell even my studio was 100% pure Mac until Virtual Sets and Motion Capture and photogrammetry became a part of my steady workflow because alot of the best programs for those particular things were exclusively "or at least not natively" only on PC.

I've made a lot of crazy choices to protect my walled garden. A garden I've put at least $800k into or so between my actual studio and my home studio. And with a couple dozen iMacs from between 2017 and 2020 that once costed me $5k a piece that are all worth like $400 now...becuase they can't be upgraded and they run extremely slow and they can't all be networked properly as a render farm "I really should've just bought 25 or so Mac mini's for that", I've been selling them to local businesses and individuals...I've only got a couple left. The studio mainly runs on 2019 Mac Pro's, M1 iMacs, and soon I'll be picking up maybe 6 or so Mac Studios to install there. Here at home it's just my 2019 Mac Pro, my M1 Max MacBook Pro, an M1 iPad Pro 13 inch, and a Mac Studio, oh and a 2019 iMac still going strong upstairs in my home music studio...and sadly, maybe as of today, a Puget System with 2 RTX 4090's...it's sitting in the cart...just gotta let the finger fly lololol.

That thing is just gonna be so...strange, in a Mac house...but Apple is forcing this choice on me...and I will never understand why they would do that. Why they would happily just give my money to other companies when I literally want to give it to them. What a strange time to be alive...

Because the Mac Pro makes them little money. Apple main focus is mobile these days. There is nothing wrong with getting a PC. It will be a long time before Apple can even come close a RTX 4090.

 

[innerproduct]

, a Puget System with 2 RTX 4090's...it's sitting in the cart...just gotta let the finger fly lololol.

Actually had a personal workstation shop-built using last gen of the components puget have chosen. Asus wrx80 sage mb, tr pro 3975wx and nvidia 3090. Solid, and massive beast. But I had the bad luck of having the Motherboard die on me after a year. It will be solved by warranty but inconvenient. Don’t now how solid the 2019 mp has been for people, but I naively assume that those are of higher quality. For our real rendering needs we use special built things in racks packed with air cooled 3090s and we hired a guy to handle that. Way to complex for someone like me hehe. I am happy if my personal workstation can be a mac since I am tbh not that you important in the day to day production anymore, rather manage things and fool around. Seems you have a quite impressive studio there and I am surprised that you actually got mileage out of the octane PR releases for real work.

 

[maikerukun]

B

Because the Mac Pro makes them little money. Apple main focus is mobile these days. There is nothing wrong with getting a PC. It will be a long time before Apple can even come close a RTX 4090.

That's not true. My current 2019 Mac Pro is literally equivalent to an RTX 4090...the problem is My current Mac Pro is running FOUR GPU's...2 w6800x Duo's...it should NOT require 4 GPUs on one system to equate to one GPU elsewhere. The system I am buying today has 2 and as such will be twice as fast as my 2019 Mac Pro "sadly"...and since w7800x duo's will not be created more than likely since AMD is probably not going to be allowed to make them for the Mac Pro...I have no choice it seems

 

[maikerukun]

Actually had a personal workstation shop-built using last gen of the components puget have chosen. Asus wrx80 sage mb, tr pro 3975wx and nvidia 3090. Solid, and massive beast. But I had the bad luck of having the Motherboard die on me after a year. It will be solved by warranty but inconvenient. Don’t now how solid the 2019 mp has been for people, but I naively assume that those are of higher quality. For our real rendering needs we use special built things in racks packed with air cooled 3090s and we hired a guy to handle that. Way to complex for someone like me hehe. I am happy if my personal workstation can be a mac since I am tbh not that you important in the day to day production anymore, rather manage things and fool around. Seems you have a quite impressive studio there and I am surprised that you actually got mileage out of the octane PR releases for real work.

You've inspired me. I'd love to see everyones setups. I think I'll make a thread about that...but in the meantime, here's some pics from my home studio. My music studio upstairs on the 3rd floor "still rocking the 2019 iMac" and my home production studio down on the 1st floor. Out in the garage I've got my Greenscreen studio and behind this setup in this pic is where I shoot a lot of brand commercials "on a black table and mini cyc with a lazy suzan and a lot of vfx lol.

I also have an UST 4k dolby projector with a 120 inch screen over in the screening room portion of my home so that when clients come over to see their film "color, vfx, etc" I can show them what it's gonna actually look like as an end product in a theater environment. That said, my screen was damaged last month and waiting for the replacement to be sent out from Vividstorm.

As for your thoughts on the Mac Pro, you're not wrong. I rarely have issues with it and while I've put around $50k into it, it has easily produced around $300k over the past year. "My studio does the bigger collaborative clients, while I personally do anything I can keep to myself LOL...allows me bigger budgets to myself as well as far more control over the project, and I just oversee what's happening at my studio as it's basically on autopilot at this point". I don't have racks or anything like that and I'll be honest, due to the speed of the Mac Pros, rarely are we in need of render farms...these thing kick out everything needed fairly quickly.

that first pic is what it looks like clean...that last pick is how it looks literally right now as I'm responding on the thread lol...aka an absolute mess...