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

[deconstruct60]

Apple Silicon is nothing like the trays in a Mac Pro. For Unified Memory to work, all GPUs and all CPUs in the system would need to use the same bank of RAM. Putting different RAM on different trays doesn't solve that. You're just putting multiple Mac Minis in a single case. Nothing makes that unified.

This a bit over the top of what Unified memory means or not. DIMM cards are RAM modules on different daughter logic boards . Using DIMMs doesn't necessarily "disallow" unified memory.

The irregularity that federated memory implementations brings constraints that a relatively high performance GPU probably doesn't want to have to deal with if out to maximize "frame rate refresh" and a few other GPU specific functionality.

Can still have unified memory if the nodes of the system are separated by distance. Non Uniforma Memory access (NUMA ) adds synchronization overhead to cache coherency and/or write updates it is still can be a "flat" uniform memory access if the memory mapping ( MMUs ) is all coherent across the nodes. It isn't maximum Perf/Watt though. All that "long distance" travel is going to soak up more power than a more physically compact system. ( Ryzen (with iGPU) can be Uniform but it isn't a Perf/Watt efficient. )


Unified goes back to how the bus(es) that carry the memory input/output are coordinated and "unified". A modern four package Xeon SP system still has unified memory across all the CPU cores even though there are four CPU sockets and an order of magnitude more DIMM slots. Each package has a UPI network between them and an internal ring networks to move memory requests and coherency information around so that all can access.

Basically it's adding a bunch of discrete SoCs into the same box, and then handwaving and going "and unification magic happens somehow."

The different nodes off on different "trays" isn't the important part. Lack of a bus to do requests and transfers on would be an issue.

Apple could use something like Infinity Fabric to link multiple SoCs together, like AMD is doing. But that's not true unified memory space, it just makes the CPUs and GPU's act like they're in a single unified space. Still interesting, but it's not the same performance outcome.

Again, Infinity Fabric isn't a "dis qualifier" in and of itself. Can lead to some NUMA impacts , but NUMA is tangential to "Unified". How the memory data traffic bus transparently routes requests is bigger factor.

A different performance outcome doesn't make something "unified". That is a tangent dimension of measure. Can be unified and slower performance. Both Unified and Performance have slightly different set of trade-offs. Go "too far" on one , then can start to loose the other.

It's also not really necessary. The rumored "quad" M1 Max chip will be plenty hot and plenty fast. And probably extremely expensive.

Likely collectively hot, but the components are likely going to be relatively low ( relation to the total ) so that it allows Apple to dense pack the components. Not the cheaper PCB mounting that AMD is doing on Ryzen non-iGPU packages, but much , much closer together. Part of that trade off is probably maximizing scale out to four ( or maybe just 2 for M1 if abandon Jade4C in the first M-series iteration. ).

 

[ADGrant]

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.

Maybe, but until we see a mobile version of Alder Lake in an actual mobile device leaked specs are meaningless.

 

[deconstruct60]

Maybe, but until we see a mobile version of Alder Lake in an actual mobile device leaked specs are meaningless.

The basic die is the same ( for highest end mobile part ) . Purportedly someone used the UEFI settings to turn off two P cores off and cap the base power to about 35W . If can do that in configuration on a desktop boards it effect is the mobile version. the P cores rurn off is believable ( anandtrch turn on VX-512 on theirs . Turns off the E cores as side effect ) . Dialing down the power that low would be odd minus some hackery at the power supply.
as long as the same die and power dropped down appropriately , the binned version isn’t going to be that different .

 

[ADGrant]

The basic die is the same ( for highest end mobile part ) . Purportedly someone used the UEFI settings to turn off two P cores off and cap the base power to about 35W . If can do that in configuration on a desktop boards it effect is the mobile version. the P cores rurn off is believable ( anandtrch turn on VX-512 on theirs . Turns off the E cores as side effect ) . Dialing down the power that low would be odd minus some hackery at the power supply.
as long as the same die and power dropped down appropriately , the binned version isn’t going to be that different .

I am not convinced. Given the Alder Lake reviews I have read, I would be very surprised if Intel could match the M1 Max at the same power draw. That said, comparing the desktop part to the M1 Max is more interesting anyway.

 

[Melbourne Park]

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.

OK I had a look at the pricing for Macbooks and also the mini.

The Mini is $350 cheaper than a similar as can be equipped Macbook Air. So the desktop format can be cheaper! Helleluiah!! Clap hands!! Screens, hinges, batteries, track pads cost money!

Interestingly too, I think the 14" Macbook Pro's base model is great value, but so too is the 10 core with its fast charger. The likely loss leading 14" Macbook Pro is just $300 more than the 13" Macbook Pro, which has a far inferior screen, processor and a far inferior GPU (although how much these powerful GPUs can be used is software dependent).

Since a Mini is $350 cheaper than a similar CPU Air, and since a 14" Pro is $300 more expensive than a similar spec 13" Macbook Pro ... and since the Macbook Air is $250 cheaper with the same processor as the Macbook Pro 13" - then a Mac Mini M "Pro" with the base Pro 8 core processor and 14 core GPU could be sold for $300 more than today's "M" Mac Mini, so it follows that pricing could be:

Mac Mini M Pro 8 Core 14 core GPU: $1,600, 16 GB Ram 1 TB SSD
Mac Mini M Pro 10 Core & 16 core GPU: $1,850, 16 GB Ram 1 TB SSD.
Mac Mini M Pro Max 10 Core & 32 core GPU - 32 GB memory (spec as M Pro Max notebooks): $2,800.
The $2,800 is a big leap isn't it? I cannot but wonder what two low spec M Pro processors would look like in a mini duel CPU desktop? And cost? I doubt Apple would sell that solution ... they'd want to sell the Max processors ... although ...

Duel ie two of M Pro Max Processors with only 24 core each GPU & total of only 64 GB Ram, mini tower with (with some kind - a couple of - expansion slots): $3,500.

Duel ie two of M Pro 10 core Processors (not "Max") with 16 core each GPU & total of only 32 GB Ram, mini tower with (with some kind - a couple of - expansion slots): $2,500. Hmm ... yeh I doubt it would make sense for Apple as they have a 32 core GPU in that single chip $2,800 no expansion bus Mini solution. And this twin CPU unit would have 20 CPU cores for less money ...

Duel ie two of M Pro only 8 core Processors (not "Max") with 14 core each GPU & total of only 32 GB Ram, mini tower with (with some kind - a couple of - expansion slots):a twin CPU with the 8 core CPU should be a saving of $300 ($150 each), so 16 GPU core & 28 GPU core: $2,500.

That one is cheaper than the proposed Mini Pro Max single CPU which has 4 more GPU cores but only 10 CPU cores compared to 16 in this el cheap twin CPU desktop.

I'm reminding myself here, that these figures are actually based on Apple retail Macbook Pro 14" pricing too ... hey Apple you could make money with duel processor machines with a couple of slots. Slots do have mass desktop appeal to serious people. Even unserious people. I am being serious here. And Apple why not make enable CPU slots and then people could buy more processors later on. Apple, since you make the processors, you'd make good money down the track too by selling more newer faster more memory etc. processors to your increasingly loyal customer base!

Apple talks too about sustainability and re-cycling - an Apple desktop with upgradeable CPUs would extend the life of the desktop and thereby save our planet. Apple should see this as a core issue.

Duel ie two of M Pro Max Processors with 32 cores each and 64 GB Ram each, mini tower with (with some kind of an expansion slots): $4,700. Apple might want to make this one $5k with with some extra Apple tax applied for buying a premium version.

There is a distinct premium on the "Max" processors with the Macbook Pros. Also the extra 32 GB RAM increasing the Macbook M Pro Max's to 64 GB RAM per processor is also premium cost IMO. The pricing of an extra slot etc was a total stab in the dark. I haven't view cooling as an extra cost because Mac Minis have had hotter power hungrier Intel processors in them.

My calculations are based on the current Mac pricing from Apple USA (dollar US therefore).

I have listed following the Apple Mac USA retail recommended prices. All have the same amount of RAM and SSD space, being spec'd at 16 GB & 1 TB for all models. This spec adds $200 + $200 = $400.

All these have headphone sound jacks so I have not mentioned them

Macbooks
Not base models - they are spec to 16 Memory and 1 TB SSD,

Air - $1,650.0 ( a 7 core 8 GB / 512 GB SSD should cost $999 but you only get a 256GB SSD)
30W Pw'r Adapter, 49.9‑watt‑hour battery, 13.3" 400 Nit display, F keys instead of touchbar
8-core CPU 4 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores (cheaper 7 core available saves $250)
Spec'd at: M1 16GB RAM & 1 TB SSD:

13" Macbook Pro - $1,900 (+$250)
61W Pw'r Adapter, 58.2‑watt‑hour battery 13.3" 500 Nit display, touchbar, internal fan
M1 16GB RAM & 1 GB SSD: 8-core CPU 4 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores

Macbook Pro 14" pricing summary - ( + $200 for 8 to 10 core CPU which includes 96W Pwr Adpt'r, + $100 for 14 to 16 core GPU, + $500 for 16 to 24 core GPU which includes 32GB Ram + $200 for 32 Core GPU). "Best" value might be 10 core @ $2400 but 8 core is the "loss leader". I thnk Apple pulls the 96W fast charger from the 8 core because its the loss leader)

14" Macbook Pro - $2,200
67W Pw'r Adapter, 70‑watt‑hour battery 14.2" 1,000 (to 1600) Nit display very high tech display
M1 Pro 16GB RAM & 1 GB SSD: 8-core CPU, 14-core GPU

Mac Mini M1 - $1,300
8-core CPU 4 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores
2 T-3/USB 4 ports, 2 USB A ports, gigabit ethernet (+$100 for 10 Gigabit), display port, HDMI

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

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.

yea, and I would make a nice toaster oven. It’s a 10nm at build, will have minimum 2x power draw and heat.

 

[mattspace]

The Mini is $350 cheaper than a similar as can be equipped Macbook Air. So the desktop format can be cheaper! Helleluiah!! Clap hands!! Screens, hinges, batteries, track pads cost money!

I'm not saying an Apple desktop can't be cheaper than a laptop, I'm suggesting that an Apple Mac Pro of any description won't be cheaper than the broad range of the upper end iMac.

An iMac, plus a second iMac-like standalone display, will cost roughly the same (or a little less) as any small Mac Pro, plus that single standalone display.

You're not going to get out of giving Apple money for a display, but get anything that an iMac doesn't have (which includes expandability).

What have people asked for for ever in the xMac? An iMac with no screen, and PCI graphics. That machine, with the exact same specs as an iMac, would be priced higher than the iMac, because it deprives Apple of a screen sale, and the more screens they sell, the cheaper the component is for all the iMacs.

How important is that to Apple? Well, if you look at the display market, all the 27" 5k displays have more or less vanished, even LG's who make the panels is out of stock everywhere. Could just be covid supply constraints, but my suspicion has always been that the LG displays only ever existed to soak up component overruns on iMac display production, and if the new "big" iMac is changing its display (hope you like the notch), there's no overruns while Apple builds stock.

Just like Porsche and all other car makers charge you more when you buy a stripped out model with a faster engine - lose the stereo, carpets and extra seats, and the car becomes $25k more expensive, Apple isn't going to let you get a faster computer from them, for less money, if you just bring your own display.

People have been banging on about a distinct "more pro" mac mini since the mini was first launched, and it's never happened. If you need more performance than a Mac Mini (or want 3 displays total) you buy an iMac, if you don't want the iMac's screen, you buy a Mac Pro. The Mac Pro has pushed higher in the price range, and left a gap between it and the most expensive iMac, that's where any Mac Pro Mini is going.

Apple talks too about sustainability and re-cycling - an Apple desktop with upgradeable CPUs would extend the life of the desktop and thereby save our planet. Apple should see this as a core issue.

And result in Apple selling desktops less frequently, and their new machines having to compete with secondhand machines. Apple doesn't want a secondhand market, Apple whats you to bring your machine back to them every few years, so they can give you the material scrap value for it as a giftcard, which you'll spend on a new machine.

Apple doesn't want to save the planet, Apple wants to make money for its shareholders. This is why Apple, like every other tech company, keeps offering technology as a solution to education "crises" - technology has no demonstrated educational benefit, but since they don't & can't sell teachers, they're all Lyle Langley-ing their way in with a song & dance about iPads.

 

[Melbourne Park]

Hey Matt,

Yeh OK. About Apple and the core issue - I was hoping that was a fruit joke. Clearly it was a rotten one.

The Porsche example is incorrect though - the reason why GT3 track cars etc. cost more with less, its because people need to drive their toys on a track, and they are fastest when new too. The premium is for two reasons - you can race them better, and that is worth paying for, while they are road registered and insurable as well (rarely on the track though). Strip it down yourself, its likely not registerable, plus its become devalued due to you mucking around with it. Also, their rarity costs the factory some R&D and mucking around, due to still having to be roadworthy and certified as well. And they really do need to go a decent bit quicker on the track, and that costs R&D (but the sort that Porsche employees must love). Some too are made to be able to be full time race cars as well. And because they are rare, they are a better investment. You should also know Porsche are a bit unusual - if you buy a new one, and have it serviced at Porsche - it continues to be warranted. That's different from Apple, eh!

That is not the story with a computer, and even Apple sells the mini for less.

Good point about Apple wanting to have buyers chuck their old units out ... but I haven't seen the statistics for that. A lot of Macs around are hand me downs and gifts from someone whose upgraded. Without the statistics on returns etc. I think you are guessing! At least, you haven't substantiated that argument with some stats. And you know, your 4,1 is still working I gather.

The cost accountants do know, that screens do cost money, and without them, Apple could make a higher margin. Note that word ... for Apple to make more profits, it requires either more volume of sales at the same profit margins - or it requires more profit margins.

Another issue though is cross selling. Sell more machines, your chances of cross selling products and services increases.

Selling a desktop without a screen, offers higher profit margins than a computer with a screen. Also, selling a desktop can increase sales, as it the sale would go do a different type of buyer. Increased sales results in more cross selling.

The real issue - what Apple will do - we don't know. I can imagine though, that the product hero for iMacs, would not like the Mac Mini. Or a bigger desktop. But Apple shareholders deserve the company has a go at tapping into a good market opportunity.

And one final point - that LG crowds you mentioned. Apple doesn't own them eh? That's another reason why Apple can make more selling non screen desktops. And also, all the world's OLED Tv panels are made by LG. Dell (XPS) etc, Lenovo, HP, etc etc all have OLED panel options for their 15" notebooks. It's interesting isn't it, that Apple don't have any OLED notebooks. With Toyota, Nippondesno make more money than does Toyota, and Nippondenso supply something like 25% of every Toyota. Apple doesn't seem to me to want to be like Toyota. Hence soon all their CPUs and perhaps all GPUs may be Apple made. Their might be some product heros at Apple who feel the same way about monitors?

 

[singhs.apps]

If iFixit’s screen cost ratio is accurate we are looking at about 833 USD for the screen (based on 16” m1 pro chip, 16 GB ram, 16 core GPU and 512 GB SSD).
Throw in another… say 367 USD ( to get a round figure) for the keyboard, the speakers, onboard Dac, battery, trackpad etc and we are looking at 1200 USD for the ‘laptop’ parts.

Deducting that amount from the top specced MBP ( m1 max, 64 gb ram, 32 GPU but 1 TB storage ) gives us 2700 USD (3900-1200) for the main system.

Multiply that by four and we are looking at 10,800 USD for a quad M1 max Soc. Add another 1000 USD for a 4 TB SSD (which will give us 8TB total) and we inch closer to the 12k mark.

My guess is that the Mac Pro will start with 2 x m1 max Soc at the very least. Anything lower and the 27” iMac or the Mac mini(pro?) can fulfill the desktop role (going as high as the top specced mbp respectively)

There might be 48, 64, 96 and 128 GPU core options, as well as possibly 512 GB ram options (provided apple also uses 32gb lpddr5 modules ), so cost may go even higher.

Entry level 20 core CPU, 48 core GPU, 2 TB SSD, 64 GB Ram Mac Pro may go as low as 5-6k.

That would be ..interesting.

 

[Boil]

Mac mini Pro

• M1 Max SoC
• 10-core CPU (8P/2E)
• 32-core GPU
• 16-core Neural Engine
• 64GB LPDDR5 RAM
• 400GB/s memory bandwidth
• 1TB NVMe SSD
• 10Gb Ethernet port
• (4) Thunderbolt 4 (USB-C) ports
• (2) USB 3.2 (USB-A) ports
• HDMI 2.1 port
• 3.5mm headphone jack (low/high impedance switching & optical audio out)
• Starlight or Space Black

$2999


Mac Pro Cube

• M1 Max Duo MCM
• 20-core CPU (16P/4E)
• 64-core GPU
• 32-core Neural Engine
• 128GB LPDDR5 RAM
• 800GB/s memory bandwidth
• 1TB NVMe SSD
• (2) 10Gb Ethernet (RJ-45) ports
• (6) Thunderbolt 4 (USB-C) ports
• (4) USB 3.2 (USB-A) ports
• HDMI 2.1 port
• 3.5mm headphone jack (low/high impedance switching & optical audio out)
• Starlight or Space Black

$4999


Mac Pro Tower

• M1 Max Quad MCM
• 40-core CPU (32P/8E)
• 128-core GPU
• 64-core Neural Engine
• 256GB LPDDR5 RAM
• 1.6TB/s memory bandwidth
• 1TB NVMe SSD
• (4) PCIe Gen5 expansion slots
• (2) 10Gb Ethernet (RJ-45) ports
• (6) Thunderbolt 4 (USB-C) ports
• (4) USB 3.2 (USB-A) ports
• HDMI 2.1 port
• 3.5mm headphone jack (low/high impedance switching & optical audio out)
• Starlight or Space Black

$9999

 

[Mac3Duser]

I want a trashcan with 2 x M1max inside, TH4.

 

[Boil]

I want a trashcan with 2 x M1max inside, TH4.

 

[Melbourne Park]

If iFixit’s screen cost ratio is accurate we are looking at about 833 USD for the screen (based on 16” m1 pro chip, 16 GB ram, 16 core GPU and 512 GB SSD).
Throw in another… say 367 USD ( to get a round figure) for the keyboard, the speakers, onboard Dac, battery, trackpad etc and we are looking at 1200 USD for the ‘laptop’ parts.

Deducting that amount from the top specced MBP ( m1 max, 64 gb ram, 32 GPU but 1 TB storage ) gives us 2700 USD (3900-1200) for the main system.

OK singha, I will follow your excellent approach.

But you've been cherry picking from the top of the tree. Or perhaps, picking Apples from way on top. Let's come down to my level, where the picking is easy.

Deducting that amount from the bottom specced MBP 14" ( m1 Pro, 16 gb ram, 14 Core GPU, 512GB SSD storage ) gives us $799 USD (1999-1200) for the main system.

Multiply that by four and we are looking at 3,196 USD for a quad Pro M1 Soc.

Would we need to add an SSD if we have a slot? Let's do that later, ourselves. Still, 4 x 512GB is still a 2 GB SSD. But Apple could ship that with 512 Gb if they had an SSD slot spare. Apple don't make SSDs, so why would they worry if we could add some more later?

This entry level Quad would have a 32 core CPU, 56 Core GPU, 64 core neural engine & 64GB Ram. For $100 less than the price of a 16" Macbook Pro with a 10 core CPU, 24 Core GPU, 16 Core neural engine, 32 GB Ram but with only a 1 TB SSD.

Profit wise, Apple is doing just as well with this desktop as with that Macbook Pro 14".

And you know, with such pricing, some Pros may buy themselves a Macbook for the road as well. Apple wins again. Plus it grows its user base.

Strategically, what tough companies do, is target where the profits are. Apple selling a well priced productive computer, not only grows their market share. It removes profits from their competition, who have to lower their prices.

Apple selling high priced desktops doesn't scare any competitor. It makes 'em chuckle. Selling value though, that makes Apple even stronger, because their competition gets weaker. Like those GPU companies. Intel as well. It's smart for Apple to be competitive, and still hugely increase their profits.

Heys, with Apple selling heaps of desktops, that company is doing good stuff. Maybe those watches are worth it. Do Apple phones really have the same power as those super fast desktops - I might go with Apple afterall.

 

[singhs.apps]

OK singha, I will follow your excellent approach.

But you've been cherry picking from the top of the tree. Or perhaps, picking Apples from way on top. Let's come down to my level, where the picking is easy.

Deducting that amount from the bottom specced MBP 14" ( m1 Pro, 16 gb ram, 14 Core GPU, 512GB SSD storage ) gives us $799 USD (1999-1200) for the main system.

Multiply that by four and we are looking at 3,196 USD for a quad Pro M1 Soc.

Would we need to add an SSD if we have a slot? Let's do that later, ourselves. Still, 4 x 512GB is still a 2 GB SSD. But Apple could ship that with 512 Gb if they had an SSD slot spare. Apple don't make SSDs, so why would they worry if we could add some more later?

This entry level Quad would have a 32 core CPU, 56 Core GPU, 64 core neural engine & 64GB Ram. For $100 less than the price of a 16" Macbook Pro with a 10 core CPU, 24 Core GPU, 16 Core neural engine, 32 GB Ram but with only a 1 TB SSD.

Profit wise, Apple is doing just as well with this desktop as with that Macbook Pro 14".

And you know, with such pricing, some Pros may buy themselves a Macbook for the road as well. Apple wins again. Plus it grows its user base.

Strategically, what tough companies do, is target where the profits are. Apple selling a well priced productive computer, not only grows their market share. It removes profits from their competition, who have to lower their prices.

Apple selling high priced desktops doesn't scare any competitor. It makes 'em chuckle. Selling value though, that makes Apple even stronger, because their competition gets weaker. Like those GPU companies. Intel as well. It's smart for Apple to be competitive, and still hugely increase their profits.

Heys, with Apple selling heaps of desktops, that company is doing good stuff. Maybe those watches are worth it. Do Apple phones really have the same power as those super fast desktops - I might go with Apple afterall.

You are right. I could have considered the lower entry levels, but my aim was to see how expensive a fully specced out Mac Pro ‘cube’ could get.
For example I didn’t remove the mbp chassis, the cooling solution etc from the ‘laptop’ cost, figuring 4x the chassis material or cooling cost for the Mac Pro.

That said we are comparing mbp’s cost spread over millions of units vs 100k tops for the Mac Pro. So expect to see higher prices in the Mac Pro instead of a straight up 2x/4x increase.

All in all I don’t expect the Mac Pro to cost beyond 20k at the extreme end (16tb SSD and 512GB/1 TBram)

Also for the iMac Pro and the Mac mini pros… I wonder if Apple will go for 2x m1 pro ? As a Mac Pro user I would hope not. This will spread the cost of the dual m1 max over three different segments instead of just one.

I don’t expect Apple will go beyond m1 max for the mini. An iMac Pro though may see dual m1 maxs with 256 GB ram

 

[mattspace]

Also for the iMac Pro and the Mac mini pros… I wonder if Apple will go for 2x m1 pro ? As a Mac Pro user I would hope not. This will spread the cost of the dual m1 max over three different segments instead of just one.

I don’t expect Apple will go beyond m1 max for the mini. An iMac Pro though may see dual m1 maxs with 256 GB ram

The cynic in me suggests the iMac Pro will just be the range-replacement for the current standard 27" iMac, with an Apple marketing message of "it turns out a lot of Pros were using our standard iMacs as Pro level machines, to do Pro level work, so we're renaming them to reflect their true role".

iMac: 24", iMac Pro: 27" 5k, (possibly) iMac Pro Max: 32" 6k (which reintroduces target display mode).

 

[Lammers]

Apple Silicon was unveiled after the Mac Pro. With the Apple Silicon, they can integration that they never could have done.

Imagine your iPhone will be also your Mac. You bring your iPhone close to your Mac, it becomes one. When you walk off, the iPhone has everything. Then go to your office Mac, everything is there.

Unveiled, yes. But that’s not the point. They surely knew when they were designing the Mac Pro that Apple Silicon was coming in the next 1-2 years.

The rest of your comments don’t have much to do with Apple Silicon. What you describe could largely be done in software. But in any case it’s pure speculation and not related to any of our currently observable reality.

 

[Lammers]

I think it’s very unlikely that Apple would introduce a third headless desktop Mac alongside the Mac mini and the Mac Pro. If the rumours of a smaller Mac Pro tower are true then I think it replaces the mini or the Pro, but frankly I don’t really see the point of that. I reckon we will stay as we are for a few years more at least (albeit with refreshed Apple Silicon-based versions).

 

[Lammers]

The cynic in me suggests the iMac Pro will just be the range-replacement for the current standard 27" iMac, with an Apple marketing message of "it turns out a lot of Pros were using our standard iMacs as Pro level machines, to do Pro level work, so we're renaming them to reflect their true role".

iMac: 24", iMac Pro: 27" 5k, (possibly) iMac Pro Max: 32" 6k (which reintroduces target display mode).

Mostly agree, but I think there will just be two sizes of iMac. Simpler and easier to understand. And sadly I think Target Display Mode is very unlikely.

 

[Boil]

Would we need to add an SSD if we have a slot? Let's do that later, ourselves. Still, 4 x 512GB is still a 2 GB SSD. But Apple could ship that with 512 Gb if they had an SSD slot spare. Apple don't make SSDs, so why would they worry if we could add some more later?

The SSD is not part of the SoC package, it is on the motherboard; so a quad Mn Pro/Max would not have four times the SSD...?

 

[Melbourne Park]

...

Also for the iMac Pro and the Mac mini pros… I wonder if Apple will go for 2x m1 pro ? As a Mac Pro user I would hope not. This will spread the cost of the dual m1 max over three different segments instead of just one.
...

Having more volume of 2 xm1 pro computers would lower the cost of the Mac Pro IMO.

What confuses me about the Mac Pro, is that a main part of its cost for many users, are its GPU options. For instance the RRP (although Mac Pros are now being discounted for 15% via Refurbishments) one pays $6,000 for a 16 core Mac Pro, but can then add two Radeon Pro W6800X Duos with 64GB of GDDR6 memory each, for $9,600 for those two dual GPUs alone. I think initially that card combination cost more. Game non Pro cards are cheaper (when supply is not short). From a brief net crawl, reviews said that 6900XT followed Nvidia's model with its 3090 - double the price (versus their 3080), and you get 20% more performance. The 6900XT Duo evidently followed much the same path - spend a lot more, but get some better performance. Although I think the Pro cards seem to be had with a lot of very fast memory.

So in Australia, a single 16 GB 6900XT games style card can be bought today for $US1,800. So with two of them, that would be $US3,600 - but those cards have less memory than the Pro $US4,800 card bought via Apple USA. In Australia currently, 25 GB 3090 Nvidia cards can be bought for $US3150, and some for a bit over $US3000. Such purchases are limited to just one card.

Apple charges $US 2,000 for it's afterburner card. For Apples 64 GB W6800X duo, they are $4,800 from Apple, and they are Pro spec cards.

So with today's Mac Pros, its seems many would spend $2,000 on the afterburner, and I suspect many would spend thousands on GPUs with lots of video memory.

IMO Apple either have to allow video cards to work with the M processor, or alternatively they have to sell multiple M processor computers. And if they allow such 3rd party Video cards, they are looking at the majority of the revenue going to currently, AMD or their licensed builders. So most of the revenue of the Mac Pro, is right now, going to 3rd party suppliers. I question the sense in that.

I have what is probably an illogical desire that Apple will treat CPUs like GPUs. Afterall Apples CPU/GPUs cost less than most high end GPUs. Even 3rd party gaming ones. I'll look at what I said before about the pricing.

Macbook Pro 14" pricing summary - ( + $200 for 8 to 10 core CPU which includes 96W Pwr Adpt'r, + $100 for 14 to 16 core GPU, + $500 for 16 to 24 core GPU which includes 32GB Ram + $200 for 32 Core GPU).

To sum that up, the difference between the base 14" Pro processor, and the top version Max without the extra 32 GB RAM, is $750 (I took $50 off for the 96 what charger). If one buys the 64 GB RAM version of the Max, the cost of that extra 32 GB, is $400. So the premium processor setup costs $US 1,150 more. But Apple is charging $400 for 32 GB memory. So if we take 64 GB or memory away (I'll presume the Pro will have user ugradable) then the cost of the top Max processor is $350 ($US1,150 - $800). OK Apple is applying their tax on memory. But if we half the real cost of the memory to $400 for 64 GB, then the price of the top M Pro Max processor is $US750. Add on to that the cost of the M processor itself (my costs have been based upon differential Apple retail pricing). So lets say the M processor costs $200. So add that to the M Pro Max Soc price of $750, one gets $950 per highest end processor.

That is still cheaper than high end GPUs. Plus users get CPU cores and processing thrown in for nothing.

IMO if Apple sold a multi-core user replaceable motherboard for a low price - Apple can make all their money on the Soc sales. And users will be happy because they can buy what they need with the option later to upgrade. And since Apple is the only one able to supply the Soc, they can't loose with a low cost multi-coc motherboard.

Of course, I am probably delusional. But my view does make complete business sense. From both Apple's and also the user's point of view.


All Apple has to do is enable multiple sockets to allow users to buy the Soc number that meets their current budget, and be able to upgrade later via buying higher range or more Socs etc.

That is the model all Mac Pros - even the 6,1 - followed (OK video card development never much happened there). All Mac Pros have had multiple GPU choices. Hopefully Apple will stick to that model, remove outside GPUs, and have socket based M Pro processors that can be user interchanged and upgraded when they choose. Apple could not loose IMO because now their Socs can compete with even gaming GPUs, and for less money. And Apple will be making the revenue from their own Socs.

IMO the success of doing so will not be the price Apple sells the Socs for. It will be if Apple can put in a socket based (hence easy to upgrade) multiple processor motherboard for a low price. Apple needs to make the money on the Socs, not on the motherboards.

 

[Melbourne Park]

The SSD is not part of the SoC package, it is on the motherboard; so a quad Mn Pro/Max would not have four times the SSD...?

Yes, but we were multiplying supply of hardware, which included the SSD. But with an open SSD slot, it doesn't really matter.

 

[singhs.apps]

IMO Apple either have to allow video cards to work with the M processor, or alternatively they have to sell multiple M processor computers. And if they allow such 3rd party Video cards, they are looking at the majority of the revenue going to currently, AMD or their licensed builders. So most of the revenue of the Mac Pro, is right now, going to 3rd party suppliers. I question the sense in that.

If Apple isn’t releasing a new intel tower, it doesn’t make sense for them to offer AMD GPU modules for an AS Mac Pro.
It doesn’t matter if Apple will offer expansion based Mac Pro or a closed AIO minus monitor system.

In the latter scenario, a module simply won’t exist.
In the former, I would prefer Apple offers its own GPU modules (which would take care of your concern viz Apple leaving money on the table ).
It would also be easier for developers to target one class of GPUs in the entire Mac lineup (whether discreet or SOC based)

Besides, in the current setup, Apple is definitely making a margin on 3rd party GPUs (hence the higher than market prices in these modules)

AMD pro cards are good but I wouldn’t pay more than 3k for the w6800x duo (the single GPU consumer variety should retail for 650 usd. Even if you double that+add so called ‘workstation’ enhancements and the Apple margin )

But as an Apple user, you are stuck with what Apple offers.

 

[Melbourne Park]

Besides, in the current setup, Apple is definitely making a margin on 3rd party GPUs (hence the higher than market prices in these modules)

You would know more than me about the 3rd GPU margins. However I thought that Apple's prices for Pro cards was typical of the prices paid for Pro (rather than non vector targetted) game video cards.

But ... there is a difference between making a margin on someone else's good, and selling one's own good. The difference is that the operation that produced your own good - it's design and development, its real estate, its manufacturing plant (or the contract for that operation in Taiwan) is a SUNK Cost. So, the major part of the cost of the M processors, has already been spent. When Apple sells their own processors - which in the Max are primarily GPU processors - the only cost that counts is the variable costs - of manufacture and shipping. Basically, transport raw materials, power and wages.

The real margin therefor when Apple sells its own processor, are its variable costs. But with 3rd party, the margin is mostly the difference between buying and selling.

That is why having a platform that can increase Soc sales will increase Apple's profits greatly. But having an Apple Vice President who wants his desktop chassis operation to make big profits - that goal is a disaster for Apple, now that they are making their own CPU and GPU (one the one Soc).

 

[archimacpro]

I want a trashcan with 2 x M1max inside, TH4.

Seconded.

 

[archimacpro]

O 2nd thoughts,
I want a trashcan with 2 x M1max inside, TH4.

Seconded.v few more ports please.