It would be great if your post here could put the whole "who is a pro user?" discussions to rest finally. I'm old enough to have gone thru a series of Power Macs before the Mac Pro arrived. It really is all about who needs the *power* to do what they want or need to do (along with reliability and flexibility) so they can be productive and achieve their goals. Who cares if they get paid to do it, or if they have some kind of institutional credential?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP 7,1 Mac Pro Apple Silicon is going to eat our lunch
- Thread starter rondocap
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, it essentially boils down to: is the computer the limiting factor, or you?
If you're regularly waiting for the computer to finish tasks (even if momentarily, but constantly), then you'd benefit from a more powerful computer. This may be a Mac Pro, or just a specced up iMac or MBP. If you're using it to generate income, it may even pay for itself if it allows you / your company to complete more jobs per month.
If the computer is generally waiting on you, you're probably fine with what you have. This includes professionals who work in areas (e.g. music composition) that require a lot of skill, but not a great deal of processing power. That's not to say of course that people shouldn't spend money on whatever they feel like.
If you're regularly waiting for the computer to finish tasks (even if momentarily, but constantly), then you'd benefit from a more powerful computer. This may be a Mac Pro, or just a specced up iMac or MBP. If you're using it to generate income, it may even pay for itself if it allows you / your company to complete more jobs per month.
If the computer is generally waiting on you, you're probably fine with what you have. This includes professionals who work in areas (e.g. music composition) that require a lot of skill, but not a great deal of processing power. That's not to say of course that people shouldn't spend money on whatever they feel like.
The question of whether "Professional" is defined merely by whether someone gets paid or not is important, because it's the core of an argument that goes along the lines of "you shouldn't need an upgradable computer, you should just buy a whole new ~10k computer every 3 years, because it'a a 'professional' computer, and if you're a 'professional', you're using it to make money, and therefore it's just a cost of business so you should just afford it".
Whereas the small-computer fetishists can get everything apart from their cosmetic jollies from a larger slot-based machine that they can choose not to upgrade, the non-upgrade brigade are literally arguing in favour of a machine that excludes those who need to be able to reconfigure their systems post-purchase.
We've seen what happens when Apple makes those non-upgradable appliance machines - they cost just as much, if not more than the bigger slotboxes, because Apple culturally considers smallness a premium feature on which to charge customers, and it destroys their presence in the industries they're supposed to target, because Professional Practice values customisation, serviceability, and reconfigurability as a safety feature against unforeseen industry and technology changes in desktop hardware, and that isn't something that Apple can change, because it's a platonic ideal that said industries like, not some burden they labour under.
Last edited:
M1 for the iMac for sure. I expect the only reason the 27 hasn't been released yet is that there's supply chain restrictions and Apple are prioritising the M1 Pro / Max chips for their laptops. This is their volume market, and possibly has higher margins. It's also possible the iMac is getting a new 30" LCD with FaceID or something, and there's delays with that as well / instead.
Whether the Mac Pro gets M1 or M2 depends when it actually comes out. If soon, M1, if 2023, M2. The iPhone will always be the priority, so the MP's 'mega chip' derivative will likely be the last to emerge in each generation, as it is furthest removed from the source.
Yeah, the argument that just because a company can afford something means they don't care about value for money is a bit silly. Fair enough if it's ILM, but if a freelancer wishes to sell a machine after 3 years, they want a good resale value; alternatively, if it could be put to good use as e.g. a rendering box, then things like GPU upgrades are relevant. Sure, the entire platform ages technologically, but upgrading a 3 year old GPU can still provide a big boost.
Not being able to reconfigure a machine later typically also means a higher up-front cost, as you can't take advantage of prices falling over time. Like many companies, Apple love to rinse customers with RAM, SSD etc. prices; they just have greater opportunity to do so when the parts are proprietary.
Yes, please, no more SSF Mac Pro machines. And I say that as someone with a G4 Cube on my shelf (and a space waiting for a 6,1 some day).
No more SFF Pros for me either. I wouldn't buy any of those never anymore..
Seriously, the best I can hope for from Apple at this time is a "Beast Canyon" alike (mentioned quite a few times already earlier by some insightful members).
A Mac Cube Tube it would be. All SoC and all soldered in, but one PCIe slot for a real GPU.
It probably will be called a Mac Cube Tube Pro Max.
At a second thought though, I will predict they will ruin it by making it a proprietary only slot. Maybe a derivative of a MPX or something. Tinier, slimmer, notcompatiblier.
A Mac Cube Tube it would be. All SoC and all soldered in, but one PCIe slot for a real GPU.
It probably will be called a Mac Cube Tube Pro Max.
At a second thought though, I will predict they will ruin it by making it a proprietary only slot. Maybe a derivative of a MPX or something. Tinier, slimmer, notcompatiblier.
M1 Max 16 versus Intel 16
real world speed test results for performance minded Macintosh users
barefeats.com
Lou
Unified memory and an SoC design comes with thermal constraints. They'd loose the unified memory boost, but gain a much higher thermal ceiling they could use to produce really big and hot GPUs. Big and hot GPUs aren't what you want in a laptop, but in a desktop workstation it's not a big deal.
That said - you're also right that it's probably going to be hard to compete with AMD and especially Nvidia even with a higher thermal ceiling. So they could just keep selling AMD (and maybe maybe even Nvidia) MPX modules coupled with an ARM CPU. If they can't beat them in the dGPU case, there is no reason to compete.
And like the Barefeats benchmarks above show, there are plenty of reasons to support AMD eGPUs even on existing hardware. Even the Radeon 6900 makes a pretty compelling case as an eGPU on M1 Max hardware. Apple seems to be trying to pretend their mobile GPUs are so fast they make for great desktop class performers. But that is clearly not true.
I predict that a compact AS MP, should it exist, will have no PCIe slots whatsoever. Does seem dangerously close to a 6,1 though, a machine they loudly proclaimed they'd learned their lessons from not that long ago. I suppose a compact AS machine wouldn't lead to the 'thermal corner' they were in before, as it essentially has a single heat source for a large heatsink / fan to deal with, plus a CPU / GPU roadmap that is now under their control (hopefully).
I really can't see them making multiple MP form factors though. If the rumours do pan out, it looks like the AS MP will be a compact desktop-based machine that relies on multiple M1 Max SoCs with 'sufficient' GPU grunt. If there is an Intel MP revision, it may be because the first AS MP can't quite get there GPU-wise. This would be a bit worrying; the discrete GPU competition isn't standing still - at what point will they be competitive?
That's the thing though - the M1 Max doesn't support eGPUs. The RX6900XT results were using an Intel MBP.
Edit - I assume you were saying that reading between the lines, the ability to use a big Radeon with an AS SoC would be well worth it (if future designs have this capability).
The thing is, all other AS chips are essentially expansions of the SoC in the iPhone (their core product). A version of AS with a lot of PCIe lanes is a bit of a departure from this, which further raises costs on a niche product. Obviously, Apple can afford it, but they may not want to.
Last edited:
Right. An M1 Mac MacBook Pro still has a lot to gain by pairing with an eGPU like the 6900. And will get even more out of the eventual 7900 or 7800. The narrative has been that M1 Max is so fast you don't need eGPU anymore. But that doesn't seem like thats true.
Probably one thing Apple is considering is that eGPU adoption was rather low. But it does seem like between desktops and laptops we're headed for a GPU performance wall again. And Apples blockading of Nvidia probably didn't help with eGPUs (nor did the rush on GPUs.)
Not surprising. The eGPU boxes themselves cost hundreds of pounds / dollars, before you've put a card in. If you're doing it for gaming, you may as well spend a bit more and build a PC - games run much faster on Windows anyway.
For professional uses, using a Mac mini or MBP as the CPU isn't ideal if performance is key.
The later 27" iMacs and the iMac Pro have pretty powerful CPUs. I believe there's a performance penalty for routing the display traffic back to the host machine (rather than connecting a monitor directly to the eGPU), which means their 5K screens couldn't take advantage. That wouldn't be a problem if just using the eGPUs for Redshift or Resolve though.
The 6,1 didn't support eGPUs without hacks, and only had TB2 in any case.
Basically, eGPUs are an expensive and compromised workaround - the proper solution is a tower with space for expansion, as made by everyone else. No need to reinvent the wheel, just because Apple really didn't want to make that type of machine.
Last edited:
I hinted at it in my original reply, but it's also not helpful when Apple is blocking the largest GPU vendor with the fastest GPUs from entering the platform. Because of that, Apple has to debut eGPU with the Radeon 580, which is not the most compelling.
If Apple allowed their laptops to be paired with a 3080 or 3090, current GPU prices aside, that would get a lot more people excited. AMD has been catching up, but it's been slow. Apple hitching their wagon to AMD seems like a clear part of the problem here.
Even for the Mac Pro, AMD's options aren't stellar for some configurations and they would have been helped by having Nvidia options. (Although Apple's pricing doesn't help either.)
In a way, Apple has solved the AMD problem by hitching their wagon to no one. But that may not be sustainable either.
OK, let me state this more clearly - Will an M CPU in an expandable machine (like a real Mac Pro) with PCI slots support an external GPU in a PCI slot or any other card in a PCI slot❓
Lou
State it as clearly as you like, but until Apple themselves make a clear statement on discrete GPUs (whether first-party from Apple or third-party from AMD / Nvidia), no one can say; but I would expect the full spectrum of the Mac Pro lineup to be previewed and highlighted at WWDC 2022...
As to "any other card in a PCI slot"; obviously there will still be audio I/O cards, video I/O cards, network cards, RAID cards, etc....
I wouldn't bet on Apple Silicon supporting AMD GPUs. It's possible. The Metal APIs allow it in theory. The platform APIs still have all the hooks for discrete GPUs and eGPUs. So Apple could do it if they want. So they've left the door open. But it doesn't seem like they're very cozy with AMD or Nvidia right now.
The only thing I've noticed that could be a possible explanation is that Apple Silicon Macs use the iPad frame buffer, and not the traditional Mac framebuffer. The best explanation would be that the iPad frame buffer doesn't support anything but Apple integrated GPUs. Could change in the future. But for now it is what it is.
The rumored M1 Max Quad would have about twice the CPU performance of the current Mac Pros, but at 40TFLOPS less than the highest configuration of current Mac Pros, at 45TFLOPS with two Radeon Pro W6900X. Having a lower graphics performance than the Intel predecessor won't be acceptable.
So, either Apple steps up their GPU game, or they will have to use a SoC GPUs + (optional) dedicated GPUs solution.
Were'd you put your Newton?
That review is unbalanced IMO.
Firstly, the 6900 eGPU test doesn't perform much better than the M in the software speed tests, of which there are only a couple. Then it pitches the M against games - and the games are far from native to the Mac. And then there is the only actual piece of productivity software tested - the new version of DaVinci Resolve, version 17. That test would have mean't more if they'd used 17.1, which was designed to work on the M. 17 isn't, and 17.1 wasn't initially available. 17 is very far from having any native capability on the M. Just like the games that were played.
Multi-core intel CPUs often throttle back too - did the review test for that? It happens in iMacs with large numbers of intel cores - and its worse in notebooks. There's no evidence given here of how long these tests were run for. Real Mac users have found under heavy CPU loads, their promised Intel CPU performance didn't last long. Perhaps not surprising when those Intel processors were still 14 nm wafer processors. Apple's M ones are 5 nm. Thinner means cooler which means less throttling back due to overheating.
And then there is the cost of the 6900 - which is half the cost of the entire Powerbook M Max. And with that Powerbook - heck - what about size and battery performance? eGPU's are huge. Next test, why not run native software and test the battery life, including powering he eGPU. Testers can manipulate things at their discretion. It's important for us to see through that.
If Apple saw this test, they'd likely drop any inclination to put in graphic card acceleration slots - why have a platform where adding a GPU is going to rob Apple of so much profit? The GPU companies have now learnt they can simply limit production, and get increased profits. What makes people think GPU companies will change their new profit making oligopolies? The only way for computer makers is to do it themselves - make fast GPU performance themselves. And Apple is now doing that. Intel may eventually follow too. Then GPU prices will come down I guess.
While it would be nice to have spare slots in a Mac Pro M powered - its also quite possible the cost and performance benefits might be quite limited.
Last edited:
I tend to agree with this, and fully expect Apple to release something like the Cube / trashcan. It’s all they [Apple] have ever wanted in a desktop and now have the ability to do so without relying on others.
Yes the power may not be as good as with duel 6900 but I think they will get to a point where it is good enough for 99.5% of users. That .5% will just have to go with PC’s.
In addition I believe that they will actually gain more pro desktop users going this route rather than the current designs, because for studios like mine [and many other small design studios] the current Mac Pro is overkill. Whereas the 14” MBP I have [maxed] is about 20 - 30% off where I need it to be. Obviously this is my use case, but I do push the computers reasonably hard, so can imagine others in a similar position.
A quiet, cool desktop that has double the max pro M1 would be the absolute perfection in a desktop for my studio. As long as the RAM and SSD can be updated, we would be all good.
It's something Barefeats should clarify, but - Black Magic themselves refer to the product as a whole as DaVinci Resolve 17. The review doesn't state which exact version was used. But the name of all versions of the product is "DaVinci Resolve 17." For example, the official product name for Resolve 17.4 is still "DaVinci Resolve 17." It's like how Mac OS X's name didn't mean you were literally running Mac OS 10.0.
They didn't explicitly state it was 17.0 specifically, and it doesn't preclude 17.1 from being the version. But they do need to clarify that. 17.0 is so old though I'd be kind of surprised if for some reason they specifically downloaded that version instead of the latest.
The games he tested were Mac native. Both are Metal optimized. They weren't M1 native... but....
Rosetta doesn't seem like it's completely the issue here. You can tell that because M1 Max completely trounces the Intel MacBook Pro with it's built in GPU. So even with Rosetta, Apple Silicon can still do pretty well. It's only when the Radeon 6900 shows up that the tables flip. It's possible the M1 Max is CPU constrained because of Rosetta. But clearly it's not as simple as games-bad.
And honestly? If M1 Max has trouble performing with games that is still perfectly valid performance data. Just maybe for something not everyone cares about. But still a valid test.
Last edited:
All good points.
However it's known that the M can play some games very well. I've read the thread on the failure for Apple to have a games notebook with the M machines. Having read the whole thread, it appears that the economic case for software vendors with major PC based games to effectively port to the M processor is highly marginal. Basically Apple can't handle AAA gaming. the thread stopped in early November ...
So games are a real test for the M IMO. And if one wants to test games performance, then use one of the few that can run on the M platform. And Apple makes heaps of money from the simple games sold for iPhones and iPads. But the big games that people buy costly hardware for, very few will run on an M processor, and that situation is unlikely to change.
Using games on an M Mac as a performance comparison is a setup against the M processor.
I'll quote the second last post of the thread, but one key line from the second last post:
"Apple can‘t do AAA gaming because they don’t have the people to make Macs do AAA gaming"
The thread:
So did Apple give up on gaming?
Question and answer from Apple Financial 4th Quarter 2021: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/10/28/apple-4q-2021-earnings/ 2:45 pm: Q: On mobile gaming and App Store, governments limit game time... how does that affect your business? A: Governments limiting the time on games? It's very...
forums.macrumors.com
And there is some software that runs quickly on the M processor and also runs on Intel. Why not include such software in such a comparison?
Last edited: