MP 7,1 Mac Pro Apple Silicon is going to eat our lunch

[mattspace]

Never said it was, but not everyone needs all the expansion the current (massive) Mac Pro provides...!

See above, a smaller Mac Pro without SO many expansion slots would serve many...!

And if it's priced as a disposable consumer electronics product, that's fair enough - with a Macbook, you're paying a lot for a screen, a webcam, batteries, trackpad, keyboard, touchid, and portability.

But Apple has form for building disposable consumer electronics appliances, and then pricing them equivalently to other companies' upgradable capital plant equipment.

Bets on the entrypoint M1 Mac Pro, if it has no slots and is just a more powerful Mac Mini, will have a starting price above the equivalent performance Macbook.

 

[Boil]

And if it's priced as a disposable consumer electronics product, that's fair enough - with a Macbook, you're paying a lot for a screen, a webcam, batteries, trackpad, keyboard, touchid, and portability.

But Apple has form for building disposable consumer electronics appliances, and then pricing them equivalently to other companies' upgradable capital plant equipment.

Bets on the entrypoint M1 Mac Pro, if it has no slots and is just a more powerful Mac Mini, will have a starting price above the equivalent performance Macbook.

Mac mini has a M1 SoC, low-to-mid end product...

Rumor has M1 Pro / Max SoCs in a high-end Mac mini (Pro), I would say $3k for M1 Max/32-core GPU/64GB RAM/1TB SSD/10Gb Ethernet...

But for the smaller Mac Pro (aka Mac Pro Cube Gen 3), I would expect at least dual M1 Max SoCs, so starting at $5k (for a dual SoC model, more for the quad SoC model)...?

 

[singhs.apps]

get a new machine & the old machine becomes a render node...

In essence move in system expansion to outside the system ?

See above, a smaller Mac Pro without SO many expansion slots would serve many...!

And yet Apple abandoned the cylinder back in favour of a ‘tower’ ? Btw according to Apple’s own Exec, a Mac Pro is by definition ‘modular’.
A Mac Pro with expansion slots would serve a lot more along with your ‘many’

 

[Boil]

Not everyone needs those eight PCIe expansion slots, a smaller model with two or three slots would be fine for a lot of end users; I know, the mythical xMac...?

I, personally, need no slots, but would like as much CPU/GPU horsepower as possible...!

I am also a SFF (Small Form Factor) chassis kinda guy; SFF is usually defined as 20 liters total (bounding box) volume or less; many SFF go for smaller, hence why I would LOVE to see a 10 liter Mac Pro Cube...!!!

 

[richinaus]

Not everyone needs those eight PCIe expansion slots, a smaller model with two or three slots would be fine for a lot of end users; I know, the mythical xMac...?

I, personally, need no slots, but would like as much CPU/GPU horsepower as possible...!

I am also a SFF (Small Form Factor) chassis kinda guy; SFF is usually defined as 20 liters total (bounding box) volume or less; many SFF go for smaller, hence why I would LOVE to see a 10 liter Mac Pro Cube...!!!

yes this is what I want also. Have waited a long time for it.

 

[mattspace]

Mac mini has a M1 SoC, low-to-mid end product...

Rumor has M1 Pro / Max SoCs in a high-end Mac mini (Pro), I would say $3k for M1 Max/32-core GPU/64GB RAM/1TB SSD/10Gb Ethernet...

But for the smaller Mac Pro (aka Mac Pro Cube Gen 3), I would expect at least dual M1 Max SoCs, so starting at $5k (for a dual SoC model, more for the quad SoC model)...?

The G4 cube was the product you want. It failed from a sales perspective, and it failed from an engineering perspective.

The 2013 Cylinder was the product you want. It failed from a sales perspective, and it failed from an enginering perspective.

The definition of insanity is...?

The G4 Cube had the same processors and capabilities as the G4 tower - it was just their pro machine, in a small form factor, and customer reaction was near universal - no one cared that it was smaller. The overwhelming sentiment was "why isn't this radically cheaper than the tower since it doesn't have all the PCI / drive bay expansion".

Apple thought it would appeal to professionals who valued compactness, it actually sold poorly and overwhelmingly to corporate nobs who wanted decorative desk ornaments.

Same for the trashcan - no one cared that it had 2 "pro" cards (which Apple lied about, because they were gaming cards, but Apple being a customer-gaslighting pathological liar is something you just have to accept). Everyone's attitude was "why isn't this radically cheaper than a slotbox, because it doesn't give me expansion flexibility", and HP had a freaking field day over that in the Z-Series marketing.

Small is not a sales point for professional workstations. Small is a sales point for inexpensive workstations.

Compactness on a desktop system is something that is only import to people who fetishise compactness, for the sake of compactness, more importantly, it's of absolutely no interest to the market who are interested in paying workstation prices, if it costs them workstation flexibility.

"oh but they can just (kludge)" no one wants to (kludge) for the benefit of a smaller workstation.

The compact, non-expandable, non-upgradable expensive computer is the ultimate edge case. "what if we took the expense of a Mac Pro, but combined it with the built-in obsolescence of the Mac Mini..."

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I would be alright with current Mac mini chassis, Silver (or Starlight...?) for Mn-series models & Space Gray (or Space Black...?) for the Mn Pro/Max-series models...

Well it would be nice with more colors

Just a single example, but a 3D artist (modeling/shading/lighting/etc.) could use "this much power" and not need a single PCIe slot (assuming dual 10Gb Ethernet)...?

Gotta have that Quad ASi Cube...! ;^p

Well it would just be the Mac mini with a bigger cpu. It have zero reasons to be that big. It would only be as big to accommodate the cooling needed. Other wise a bare bone Mac pro is better. Hey, simple as audio cards, capture cards, extra thunderbolt ports etc is a good reason to have all pcie slots available.

Exactly, I (personally) do not need expansion slots; a Mn Max-powered Mac mini would be good, but a dual or quad Mn Max-powered Mac Pro Cube would be better...!

Just get a Mac mini pro when it comes, likely the same size, maximum equivalent to two Mac mini’s

But I plan to get a M1 Max (32-core GPU/64GB RAM/1TB SSD/10Gb Ethernet) Mac mini (Pro) when they become available (fingers crossed)...!



Never said it was, but not everyone needs all the expansion the current (massive) Mac Pro provides...!

That is why the Mac mini exist. Mac Pro cube have zero purpose that existing option don’t provide

See above, a smaller Mac Pro without SO many expansion slots would serve many...!

As before, that’s just a Mac mini with a bigger cpu. They could easily have 300w system

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Not everyone needs those eight PCIe expansion slots, a smaller model with two or three slots would be fine for a lot of end users; I know, the mythical xMac...?

I, personally, need no slots, but would like as much CPU/GPU horsepower as possible...!

I am also a SFF (Small Form Factor) chassis kinda guy; SFF is usually defined as 20 liters total (bounding box) volume or less; many SFF go for smaller, hence why I would LOVE to see a 10 liter Mac Pro Cube...!!!

And why would you not just buy an Mac mini? It has technical reasons not have a quad m1max pro

 

[mattspace]

After 10+ years of slow pace with minor improvements year-over-year, I would be nice to see some shakeup.

I don't have my hopes up, that leaked Alder Lake benchmark was a classic Intel FUD.

Official benchmarks are out of embargo today, and it looks to be legit.

The 12900K, which is presumably the desktop version of the 12900HK from the earlier leak, absolutely monsters the M1 Max on Geekbench in both Single, and multi core, just as the HK leak showed. The 12600K Core i5 version kills the M1 Max on single core, and is a little behind on Multi-Core.

 

[Boil]

But I plan to get a M1 Max (32-core GPU/64GB RAM/1TB SSD/10Gb Ethernet) Mac mini (Pro) when they become available (fingers crossed)...!

Small is not a sales point for professional workstations. Small is a sales point for inexpensive workstations.

Like a Mac mini with a Mn Max-series SoC...?

Well it would be nice with more colors

Well it would just be the Mac mini with a bigger cpu. It have zero reasons to be that big. It would only be as big to accommodate the cooling needed.

Just get a Mac mini pro when it comes, likely the same size, maximum equivalent to two Mac mini’s

That is why the Mac mini exist. Mac Pro cube have zero purpose that existing option don’t provide

As before, that’s just a Mac mini with a bigger cpu. They could easily have 300w system

Look at the teardown videos of the 2018 Mac mini, the 2020 Mac mini, & the 14"/16" MacBook Pro laptops...

The 150W PSU currently in the Mac mini will also be fine for a M1 Pro / Max SoCs, but more space is needed for both the mobo & the cooling for dual & quad M1 Pro / Max SiPs; Apple won't increase the 7.7" x 7.7" footprint of the Mac mini for this, so the only option is to increase the vertical dimension, hence a Cube...

Same PSU form factor as the current Mac mini, just taller & more power, 420W...?

Vertically oriented mobo, PSU behind mobo, front-to-back airflow with 180mm fan intaking from front, 2019 Mac Pro-style heatsink on SoC...

And why would you not just buy an Mac mini? It has technical reasons not have a quad m1max pro

I already stated I planned to purchase a M1 Max Mac mini...?

 

[Boil]

Official benchmarks are out of embargo today, and it looks to be legit.

The 12900K, which is presumably the desktop version of the 12900HK from the earlier leak, absolutely monsters the M1 Max on Geekbench in both Single, and multi core, just as the HK leak showed. The 12600K Core i5 version kills the M1 Max on single core, and is a little behind on Multi-Core.

I believe I saw a quote of that chip drawing nearly 240W loaded up...?

 

[mattspace]

I believe I saw a quote of that chip drawing nearly 240W loaded up...?

Largely irrelevant for a desktop system, utterly irrelevant for a professional system, and the original leak was for a slightly lower performance mobile CPU, so it's probably safe to assume it's within the acceptable power envelope for portable machines?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Like a Mac mini with a Mn Max-series SoC...?

Look at the teardown videos of the 2018 Mac mini, the 2020 Mac mini, & the 14"/16" MacBook Pro laptops...

The 150W PSU currently in the Mac mini will also be fine for a M1 Pro / Max SoCs, but more space is needed for both the mobo & the cooling for dual & quad M1 Pro / Max SiPs; Apple won't increase the 7.7" x 7.7" footprint of the Mac mini for this, so the only option is to increase the vertical dimension, hence a Cube...

Lol, no cube will be needed

this is the Mac mini from 2009 just a little ticker than our Mac mini of today

Same PSU form factor as the current Mac mini, just taller & more power, 420W...?

Vertically oriented mobo, PSU behind mobo, front-to-back airflow with 180mm fan intaking from front, 2019 Mac Pro-style heatsink on SoC...

Yea dream on… the Mac Pro 2019 have 900W power draw. This Mac mini pro won’t have more than 400W
How about this? Perfect for 300W envelope.

 

[tsialex]

Official benchmarks are out of embargo today, and it looks to be legit.

The 12900K, which is presumably the desktop version of the 12900HK from the earlier leak, absolutely monsters the M1 Max on Geekbench in both Single, and multi core, just as the HK leak showed. The 12600K Core i5 version kills the M1 Max on single core, and is a little behind on Multi-Core.

I've read the AnandTech review of i9-12900K.

The Intel 12th Gen Core i9-12900K Review: Hybrid Performance Brings Hybrid Complexity

www.anandtech.com

Yep, a 240W desktop processor is needed to beat a mobile processor. Anyway, good for Intel to regain the crown.
Even with the extremely dumb choice of running the background processes on the E cores and the botched AVX-512.

Now when you are rendering/compiling and you want to multitask, the P-cores run your foreground processes and the background go to the E-cores. This is utterly dumb:

I saw Intel today getting a lot of flak because of the bad choices - even from people that like/praise Intel.

 

[kvic]

I am also a SFF (Small Form Factor) chassis kinda guy; SFF is usually defined as 20 liters total (bounding box) volume or less; many SFF go for smaller, hence why I would LOVE to see a 10 liter Mac Pro Cube...!!!

SFF boxes look sexy. From my observations, most SFF builders are gamers who also want portability. So they could join LAN party (if it's still a thing..) or bring the machine to game at friends' place.

I realised.. what I like about SFF is its small footprint but not necessarily the tiny volume. So if I'm going to build a PC, I would rather go with compact mATX than SFF. Roughly similar footprint yet more volume to work with. I'm sure Apple could squeeze a compact mATX-like box down to below 20L..technically a SFF with ample internal expansions.

Yep, a 240W desktop processor is needed to beat a mobile processor. Anyway, good for Intel to regain the crown.
Even with the extremely dumb choice of running the background processes on the E cores and the botched AVX-512.

Still too early to tell about its mobile counterparts... But surprise surprise! Intel's 12th gen desktop parts are surprisingly more power efficient than Zen3 when performing real-world work loads. For example, take a look at this one: https://www.igorslab.de/intel-core-...in-ganz-schnell-und-richtig-sparsam-teil-1/7/

 

[Melbourne Park]

And if it's priced as a disposable consumer electronics product, that's fair enough - with a Macbook, you're paying a lot for a screen, a webcam, batteries, trackpad, keyboard, touchid, and portability.

But Apple has form for building disposable consumer electronics appliances, and then pricing them equivalently to other companies' upgradable capital plant equipment.

Bets on the entrypoint M1 Mac Pro, if it has no slots and is just a more powerful Mac Mini, will have a starting price above the equivalent performance Macbook.

iFixit did a tear down on the M 16" MBP and reckoned that the screen would have cost one third of it's cost. I hope you're wrong. And if the pricing meets your unhappy predictions, then I'll buy a laptop instead.

 

[sn1p3r845]

I just did a "real world test" with my new M1 Max Macbook Pro vs my home gaming PC with a 6800xt.

PC w/ 6800xt: 40mins
M1 Max: 80mins

My PC specs aren't amazing, but I am a little shocked to be honest.

 

[MisterAndrew]

I'd like to see upgradeable internal storage on the Apple Silicon Mac Pro. That's what has turned me off on the M1 mini, besides that it's also bottom of the barrel for Apple Silicon. The 2 TB storage option on the M1 mini is $800. A 2TB NVMe SSD is about $200. And if the storage dies, the whole computer is toast.

 

[Melbourne Park]

I just did a "real world test" with my new M1 Max Macbook Pro vs my home gaming PC with a 6800xt.

PC w/ 6800xt: 40mins
M1 Max: 80mins

My PC specs aren't amazing, but I am a little shocked to be honest.

Are you saying the m1 Max took twice as long? And doing what?

 

[mattspace]

iFixit did a tear down on the M 16" MBP and reckoned that the screen would have cost one third of it's cost. I hope you're wrong. And if the pricing meets your unhappy predictions, then I'll buy a laptop instead.

The Mac Pro started effectively above the iMac Pro - because Apple viewed that machine as a "Xeon Workstation with a free display", whereas the Mac Pro is a "Xeon workstation, AND a paid modular upgrade system".

 

[Melbourne Park]

The Mac Pro started effectively above the iMac Pro - because Apple viewed that machine as a "Xeon Workstation with a free display", whereas the Mac Pro is a "Xeon workstation, AND a paid modular upgrade system".

For sure. The Mac Pro also has more memory channels, and various easy to do speed and capacity upgrades.

I expect that a small form factor desktop with similar performance to today's Macbook Pro 16" with for instance a current M Pro or an M Max processor - but operating quicker due to using more power - that such a computer would be a fair bit cheaper than the notebook. Because it would not have a costly screen (one third the cost of the Macbook Pro) and also would not have a battery or a track pad, or fancy speakers and costly fans, etc.

If it had internal expansion capabilities, then that would change the value to the customer quite a bit and I'd expect it to have a fair step up in price.

 

[mattspace]

I expect that a small form factor desktop with similar performance to today's Macbook Pro 16" with for instance a current M Pro or an M Max processor - but operating quicker due to using more power - that such a computer would be a fair bit cheaper than the notebook. Because it would not have a costly screen (one third the cost of the Macbook Pro) and also would not have a battery or a track pad, or fancy speakers and costly fans, etc.

Yeah no. Bets on, it's going to go between the upper limit of the laptops and the lower limit of the Mac Pro (and probably above the 'big" AS iMac).

If you're expecting a machine that trades off the cost of the screen etc for better processors, to get even a similar price, I think you're going to be disapppointed.

The iMac Pro, with its "free" display had no appreciable expandability, so that's a good guide for where the price could be.

I could easily see the (largely non-overlapping) pricing bands ending up something like:

• Mac Mini
• Macbook Air / iMac 24"
• Macbook Pro / iMac 27"
• Mac Pro (small)
• Mac Pro Max (replacing 2019)

I'd love to be wrong on that, but I don't think I will be.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Official benchmarks are out of embargo today, and it looks to be legit.

The 12900K, which is presumably the desktop version of the 12900HK from the earlier leak, absolutely monsters the M1 Max on Geekbench in both Single, and multi core, just as the HK leak showed. The 12600K Core i5 version kills the M1 Max on single core, and is a little behind on Multi-Core.

Also it comes with a built in space heater and is way better at burning 3x the energy, so you know, totally winning.

 

[ADGrant]

Pointing out again, that Alder Lake, Intel's next laptop chip is already posting benchmarks exceeding the M1 Max, which would seem to bode well for Desktop versions.

The current Alder Lake numbers are for Desktop CPUs consuming a lot of power and generating a lot of heat. There are no laptop Alder Lake CPUs announced yet.

 

[mattspace]

The current Alder Lake numbers are for Desktop CPUs consuming a lot of power and generating a lot of heat. There are no laptop Alder Lake CPUs announced yet.

There are what appear to be leaked performance specs for an HK mobile version of Alder Lake, which I referred to earlier in the thread.