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

[arche3]

Thank you so much for these tests. It helps me immensely as the most of the YouTube people are all idiots regarding their testing.

It looks like my new 16 w 32 gpu will rival or best my 7.1 w 5700 gpu. Damn.

I'm usually shooting red komodo these days.

I've been trancoding to prores 4444 though because it feels like the macs like that better. Maybe I should shoot Ari and have it prores in camera. But my DP is all about red. Meh... everytime I bring it up he talks me out of it. Lol. Probably because he owns all the red cameras and he bills for the rental.

 

[PowerMike G5]

Thank you so much for these tests. It helps me immensely as the most of the YouTube people are all idiots regarding their testing.

It looks like my new 16 w 32 gpu will rival or best my 7.1 w 5700 gpu. Damn.

I'm usually shooting red komodo these days.

I've been trancoding to prores 4444 though because it feels like the macs like that better. Maybe I should shoot Ari and have it prores in camera. But my DP is all about red. Meh... everytime I bring it up he talks me out of it. Lol. Probably because he owns all the red cameras and he bills for the rental.

Sounds about right... other options are wrong when it eats away your bottom line! lol.

I'd be curious the transcoding time difference between this new MBP and the 7,1. ProRes editing on Macs is generally a very smooth, seamless experience, especially when compared to other non-optimized codecs.

I love my 7,1 and plan to use it for many, many years to come with my editing work. It'd be strange though to use this new MBP to do transcodes to then port to the 7,1 for editing, if the encoder/decoders prove to be amazing. I wish Apple would re-program the Afterburner for encode/decode capabilities too, especially now that this M1 Max is out.

 

[rondocap]

Hey, rondocap....

if you're in benchmark mode and don't mind: could you post some numbers from the RocketScience test in DaVinci?

Thanks!

Here Is a maxed out M1 Max 32 core/64gb vs a maxed out Mac Pro, 28 core, quad W6800x

Big price difference, but the Mac Pro still is multiple times better at these more difficult tests by a huge margin

Middle Test, UHD Pro res	Middle Test, UHD Pro res
M1 Max 32 Core 64GB	W6800x Duo (Quad)
09 Blur: 32 fps	09 Blur: 120 fps
18 Blur: 16 fps	18 Blur: 73 fps
30 Blur: 10 fps	30 Blur: 46 fps
66 Blur: 5 fps	66 Blur: 21 fps
1 TNR: 49 fps	1 TNR: 109 fps
2 TNR: 24 fps	2 TNR: 53 fps
4 TNR: 12 fps	4 TNR: 28 fps
6 TNR: 8 fps	6 TNR: 19 fps

 

[rondocap]

Sounds about right... other options are wrong when it eats away your bottom line! lol.

I'd be curious the transcoding time difference between this new MBP and the 7,1. ProRes editing on Macs is generally a very smooth, seamless experience, especially when compared to other non-optimized codecs.

I love my 7,1 and plan to use it for many, many years to come with my editing work. It'd be strange though to use this new MBP to do transcodes to then port to the 7,1 for editing, if the encoder/decoders prove to be amazing. I wish Apple would re-program the Afterburner for encode/decode capabilities too, especially now that this M1 Max is out.

The M1 32 core 64gb MacBook beats the 28 core Mac Pro with afterburner in Pro Res, it's just much faster because of the encoders - I was surprised at the results. R3d Raw is in the favor of Mac Pro, but Pro Res makes the afterburner card seem a bit weak vs the m1

 

[AndreeOnline]

Here Is a maxed out M1 Max 32 core/64gb vs a maxed out Mac Pro, 28 core, quad W6800x...

Like a Rock Star.

Thanks for helping out providing some niche information!

 

[mikas]

Googling "+LuxMark +LuxBall +M1 Max +M1 Pro" for a couple of days, I already thought LuxBall somehow couldn't be run on newest M1s, but I found the first google result just couple of hours ago about M1 Pro 16c. It'll show the BMW here too in the screenshot..

LuxMark 3.1, grabbed some LuxBall points to compare from my own hardware and some from LuxMark.info and a couple of other google results:

Iris Pro (MBP 2015): 2342
M1 Pro 16c: 18201 (from blenderartists, yfile)
Vega 64 :24600
RX 5700 XT: 29800
M1 Max 32c, extrapolated: 36000
Radeon VII: 55000
Radeon RX 6800XT (eGPU): 52000
Radeon RX 6800XT: 55504
RX 6900 XT: 57122
RTX 3090: 86500

I did an estimate of M1 Max 32c GPU, in bold and italics above. It is still to be confirmed.
Overall this is the same ballparks as with other tests and benchmarks. It is a really good mobile GPU. With up to a lot of VRAM (maybe close to the RAM size even, don't know) and performance like this, it would be capable of remote and on the road work too,. Even like with the most demanding visualisíng work, and certainly showing the project realtime rendered to clients too.

ps. I know OpenCL is deprecated on Mac, but I think it is used still a lot, just like OpenGL is.

 

[AndreeOnline]

It'll show the BMW here too in the screenshot..

ps. I know OpenCL is deprecated on Mac, but I think it is used still a lot, just like OpenGL is.

As a Blender-user (and loving it lately), it's been a bit of a bummer that Macs have been shut out of GPU accelerated rendering in Cycles (and other renderers—ProRender being a notable exception).

But, after having seemingly dragged their feet forever, Apple did join the Blender Developer Fund 1-2 weeks ago, or whenever it was.

Prior to this, the Blender guy/gal that was tinkering with a Metal-port of the code had trouble even keeping a Mac Pro-loaner for any amount of time. Admittedly, this is falls firmly in the "I read it on the internet" category.

But now they're in. I can't help thinking—and hoping—that they'll offer more active participation, like they've done with some game developers, to port Blender properly to Mac and make both viewport and rendering accelerated according to best practices. And while it might only be wishful thinking, them joining the fund now makes sense if they want to have something by the end of 2022, when new Apple Silicon Mac Pros might come.

I can wait a year if it means that Apple is actively helping, instead of having just one or two lone coding heros trying to do it in their spare time. Fingers crossed!

 

[rondocap]

I’d lie your opinions on interpreting these results, very interesting and I want to see if you agree on the technical side.

Mac Pro 28 core, 192gb ram, quad w6800x (two duos) vs m1 max, 32 core and 64gb ram

I took 6k 60p r3d raw from a helium, and put it in a 4K timeline in Final Cut.

With back round render off, exporting a 5 min clip with just a lut has a quad w6800x at 2 min 10 sec vs 5 min 44 of the m1 max.

So far, makes sense. If I turn background render on in fcp, it takes roughly the same time as the export to render to pro res 4444.

Then, split it up in 5 sections of 1 minute each, and did stabilize in fcp.

Mac Pro 4 min 13 sec, vs m1 max 11 min 58. Seems about right so far.


This is where it gets interesting: noise reduction. 1 minute section, Mac Pro took 6 min 50, m1 did it in just 2 min 45.

Obviously the gpu brute force is no longer at play here, so is denoise faster because it’s using the pro res media engines on the m1 max? I guess stabilize still uses gpu even if it’s rendered to pro res 4444.

And finally, after all those items are applied, the m1 max beats the Mac Pro in export time to pro res 422 HQ from its rendered 4444 form 7 min 15 sec vs 8 min 17 sec.

I’m using the pro res media engine is a big help here if you let it background render to pro res, because otherwise a quad w6800x Mac Pro wins by a larger margin if it’s just gpu force.

Interesting, do you guys agree? I’m going to test a third setup with afterburner and see how the Mac Pro does.

Oh, I have pro res raw 6k results too. M1 max wins every time even vs afterburner + 28 core.

 

[arche3]

I’d lie your opinions on interpreting these results, very interesting and I want to see if you agree on the technical side.

Mac Pro 28 core, 192gb ram, quad w6800x (two duos) vs m1 max, 32 core and 64gb ram

I took 6k 60p r3d raw from a helium, and put it in a 4K timeline in Final Cut.

With back round render off, exporting a 5 min clip with just a lut has a quad w6800x at 2 min 10 sec vs 5 min 44 of the m1 max.

So far, makes sense. If I turn background render on in fcp, it takes roughly the same time as the export to render to pro res 4444.

Then, split it up in 5 sections of 1 minute each, and did stabilize in fcp.

Mac Pro 4 min 13 sec, vs m1 max 11 min 58. Seems about right so far.


This is where it gets interesting: noise reduction. 1 minute section, Mac Pro took 6 min 50, m1 did it in just 2 min 45.

Obviously the gpu brute force is no longer at play here, so is denoise faster because it’s using the pro res media engines on the m1 max? I guess stabilize still uses gpu even if it’s rendered to pro res 4444.

And finally, after all those items are applied, the m1 max beats the Mac Pro in export time to pro res 422 HQ from its rendered 4444 form 7 min 15 sec vs 8 min 17 sec.

I’m using the pro res media engine is a big help here if you let it background render to pro res, because otherwise a quad w6800x Mac Pro wins by a larger margin if it’s just gpu force.

Interesting, do you guys agree? I’m going to test a third setup with afterburner and see how the Mac Pro does.

Oh, I have pro res raw 6k results too. M1 max wins every time even vs afterburner + 28 core.

View attachment 1881884

I think you are correct. Apple obviously favors prores. and the newer tech in the m1x machines pushed it even further. I'm excited. My 16 m1max machine is coming in a couple weeks.

This makes a strong case to transpose all formats to prores for a Mac shop.

The m1x Mac pro is going to be a beast with 128 gpu cores.

 

[strangerthanlight]

It is of course amazing what the M1 chips can achieve for such a small form factor. But Mac Pro is far from obsolete. My Mac Pro 28 core can run Cinebench 24/7 with 100% CPU temp maxed at 63C and fans not audible at 650rpm. Yep.

 

[resonate]

It is of course amazing what the M1 chips can achieve for such a small form factor. But Mac Pro is far from obsolete. My Mac Pro 28 core can run Cinebench 24/7 with 100% CPU temp maxed at 63C and fans not audible at 650rpm. Yep.

Just imagine what C the Mx chipset would be at, with this amount of airflow.

 

[th0masp]

But now they're in. I can't help thinking—and hoping—that they'll offer more active participation, like they've done with some game developers, to port Blender properly to Mac and make both viewport and rendering accelerated according to best practices. And while it might only be wishful thinking, them joining the fund now makes sense if they want to have something by the end of 2022, when new Apple Silicon Mac Pros might come.

I hope it works out for you but you are probably aware that Blender dev moves at a blistering pace at times and they don't worry too much about throwing code out. Having a few Apple engineers contribute here and there will only lead to a short-lived success story. I don't think that company has the attention span needed to keep the Mac port on par.

Compare with e.g. Mari - the 3d painter they supported back at the Trashcan launch, had it as a demo on stage at WWDC and all. Mac version was long lagging way behind, now discontinued. ?

 

[AndreeOnline]

I hope it works out for you but you are probably aware that Blender dev moves at a blistering pace at times and they don't worry too much about throwing code out. Having a few Apple engineers contribute here and there will only lead to a short-lived success story.

I dare to say that it's moving along much better than I had hoped!

Apple sits in on Blender devs Render meetings now and the timeline has got a skip in its step for sure.

This Jason Fielder from Apple, 17 days ago:

We’re really excited to work with the Community on enabling Cycles on Metal. Cycles works great on macOS, and we want to ensure you experience it as such also.

Any questions or feedback on the work as it lands over the coming weeks is both welcome and encouraged, and we’d certainly like to hear from those looking to early adopt and try out Cycles on Metal in your workflows.

We’ll bring a feature branch up with a fully Metal-enabled version over the coming weeks, as we tidy up the code and break it up into atomic commits that make sense for code review.

The first commit was the most invasive, touching all function signatures that took an undecorated pointer.

I expect our next commits will add the metal_compat.h and they remainder of the kernel changes needed to compile as MSL, along with the main kernel entry point wrappers. Then we’ll add the host side device.

and a day later (after people unsurprisingly showing their enthusiasm for this):

Thanks for the feedback - we are certainly intending to support Blender as a whole, and our teams are focused on the overall workflow experience of using Blender on Mac and how that can be improved.

On the technical side, we’re ready to talk about Cycles on Metal, and get that tech contributed back smoothly for the 3.1 release.

This is great in so many ways. As many know, Blender is free to download and use. It's extremely powerful nowadays and there is a wealth of tutorials on YouTube on how to get started. Blender can be very deep for those skilled enough, but it's also easy to get going with zero experience.
I think Blender is a good match for Apple. It's creative and fun. Apple can push it in marketing as it's available to anyone.
I think an optimised, modern code base would be extremely great for Mac users. And ironically, I also think it would breathe a bit of life into 7.1 systems, that in a few years, might still be 'current' if the powerful GPUs can be had for 'reasonable' money and they turn out to pull their weight in Blender rendering.

I think it's going to take a minute before Apple Silicon gets its GPU performance up to 'dual duo' levels in terms of brute force.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

As for my thermal chimney; yes, it is a thermal chimney...

BUT IT HAS FANS, REAL MOVE SOME AIR NOW FANS...!!! Pretty sure a 140mm fan intaking cool air from under the chassis, forcing it thru a massive heat sink (like the one in the 2019 Mac Pro), and having a SECOND 140mm FAN to exhaust out the top; pretty sure that can cool two or more M1 Max SoCs just fine...?

Get over your hate for the "Thermal Chimney", it can work just fine...!

And another thing Apple could do would be to mate a 2019 Mac Pro style heat sink to a proper vapor chamber, both for the new Mac Pro Cube & for the new Mac mini (smaller heat sink here, of course)...!

A Thermal chimney is a dead, there is no advantage of going that route and no ability to upgrade it with expansion cards etc. only possibility to have it is with water cooling. And apple will never use it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Counterpoint - is anyone actually upgrading any of the components inside the 2019 Mac Pro, beyond installing extra ram?

Everyone is upgrading it. Especially when AMD releases new GPUs sue h as RDNA 3. Extra RAM if the new workflow needs it, new afterburner cards, PCIE 4 to PCIE 5 m.2 storage etc etc.

The 2013 Trash Can Mac Pro failed not simply because it couldn't be readily upgraded, but because Apple gambled wrongly on a dual-GPU setup (partly to accommodate the inadequate cooling of the smaller form factor) while the industry would go on to consolidate around a single, more powerful GPU.

It was both, as instead of having everything on the inside you suddenly had everything on the outside for no benefit at all

Second, how is upgrading the M1 chip even supposed to work? The whole idea is that it is as efficient as it is precisely because all the parts are integrated together (as opposed to slotting individual computer parts into a case). Are we going to see expandable ram / SSD / modules for a hypothetical M1 Mac Pro in the future?

We can hope, because why should we be stuck with the Mac Pro from 2022 with the M1 in the year 2030? Soldered memory, soldered storage and 0 PCIe expansion capability? And no ability to use ether Nvidia or AMD cards for their specialty or nwerer apple GPU.

I agree that an expandable M1 Mac Pro more powerful than the most powerful iMac would be nice, to handle that 1% of edge cases, and I hope it happens as well. I just wonder how Apple would implement it.

It’s not an edge case, it’s the only reason why you have a tower computer because of expandability.
You want power but zero upgradability.

• Mac mini pro
• iMac Pro

You want upgradability and expandability

• Mac Pro

 

[HDFan]

There is no market for a computer that costs as much as a fully-reconfigurable, upgradable slotbox, but which has no reconfigurability or upgradability,

My older generation iMac Pro 18 cpu 4 TB SSD has performance similar to a current generation 12 cpu MacPro and it costs less since the monitor is included. There are some of us who have no interest in reconfigurability or upgradability. We buy a configuration that meets our needs. If our requirements change we upgrade. Our time is spent doing productive work, it isn't wasted in mucking around with computer innards. There is a market for closed machines.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

My older generation iMac Pro 18 cpu 4 TB SSD has performance similar to a current generation 12 cpu MacPro and it costs less since the monitor is included. There are some of us who have no interest in reconfigurability or upgradability. We buy a configuration that meets our needs.

Luckily your in the minority, and your iMac is more expensive if you already have screens or need any expansion down the line you can’t buy because you have a non upgradable computer.
With a Mac Pro:
A new GPU is released, just put it in.
Faster storage is invented, just put it in.
Afterburner cards exist, just put it in.
Need 40Gbps Ethernet, just put it in.
I had 500Gb DDR4 memory and need 1Tb I can just chuck it in.

If our requirements change we upgrade. Our time is spent doing productive work, it isn't wasted in mucking around with computer innards. There is a market for closed machines.

these aren’t complicated things that takes 5min to do max. If you think your 5min are worth wasting 20.000+$ for no benefits instead of 2.000$ for that one important upgrade. Be my guest, but we are people who value efficient work flows and practical computers above pretty and useless machines such as the iMac Pro and Mac Pro (2013)

 

[mattspace]

My older generation iMac Pro 18 cpu 4 TB SSD has performance similar to a current generation 12 cpu MacPro and it costs less since the monitor is included. There are some of us who have no interest in reconfigurability or upgradability. We buy a configuration that meets our needs. If our requirements change we upgrade. Our time is spent doing productive work, it isn't wasted in mucking around with computer innards. There is a market for closed machines.

The thing is, it's not like you're getting any component in that for less than it's actual value - it's a "pro" CPU, with a mediocre (at the time it was "new") single consumer gpu, and a consumer-grade display that can't be hardware calibrated. Realistically, there's very little that's "pro" about it - it's Pro, in the same way that Ford made Ghia a trim level, that had no relationship to Carrozzeria Ghia design and coachbuilding.

The point of a reconfigurable machine, is you don't have to reconfigure it. But when the market for heavy-lifting computers is small, and shrinking, if Apple isn't going to allocate resources to do both properly, then your needs are still 100% met by a machine with a separate display and box whose innards you never touch.

 

[PowerMike G5]

Luckily your in the minority, and your iMac is more expensive if you already have screens or need any expansion down the line you can’t buy because you have a non upgradable computer.
With a Mac Pro:
A new GPU is released, just put it in.
Faster storage is invented, just put it in.
Afterburner cards exist, just put it in.
Need 40Gbps Ethernet, just put it in.
I had 500Gb DDR4 memory and need 1Tb I can just chuck it in.

these aren’t complicated things that takes 5min to do max. If you think your 5min are worth wasting 20.000+$ for no benefits instead of 2.000$ for that one important upgrade. Be my guest, but we are people who value efficient work flows and practical computers above pretty and useless machines such as the iMac Pro and Mac Pro (2013)

Yes, this is the very reason of owning a modular, upgradable computer. If a closed system works for you, fine.

But the modularity of the the 7,1 Mac Pro is to allow for maximum flexibility for a wide range of pro-use workloads. And more importantly as mentioned here, allow for continued adaptation to new workloads. I already have an upcoming project next year, where I'm looking to add more RAM, the afterburner card, and possibly another GPU. I am also considering a CPU upgrade as well.

The fact that these are just possible to adapt to new workloads is what really counts over a closed system.

 

[kvic]

My older generation iMac Pro 18 cpu 4 TB SSD has performance similar to a current generation 12 cpu MacPro and it costs less since the monitor is included. There are some of us who have no interest in reconfigurability or upgradability. We buy a configuration that meets our needs. If our requirements change we upgrade. Our time is spent doing productive work, it isn't wasted in mucking around with computer innards. There is a market for closed machines.

I believe retail users or boutique workshops who prefer closed systems will have many options from Apple. So nothing for this category of users to worry about. I think you're made for each other. Apple love you buying a new machine when your current one doesn't fit the purpose in some way.

Apple may still keep Smaller Mac Pro as modular & expandable as well as compact. Perhaps MPX-like SoC daughterboard with cooler, a couple of PCIe expansion slots, socketed SSDs. Such a design can cater to larger firms as well as retail users.

I'm guessing Smaller Mac Pro will be the only new chassis made for Mac Pro with Apple silicon. At the same time, (Intel) 2019 Mac Pro & its refresh will be available for purchase for a couple more years. The addition of AMD RX6600 in macOS 12.1 beta is indicative of imminent refresh.. no? RX6600 will replace RX580 as entry-level GPU offering.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes, this is the very reason of owning a modular, upgradable computer. If a closed system works for you, fine.

But the modularity of the the 7,1 Mac Pro is to allow for maximum flexibility for a wide range of pro-use workloads. And more importantly as mentioned here, allow for continued adaptation to new workloads. I already have an upcoming project next year, where I'm looking to add more RAM, the afterburner card, and possibly another GPU. I am also considering a CPU upgrade as well.

The fact that these are just possible to adapt to new workloads is what really counts over a closed system.

Exactly. And for some reason people wants any modulation to be removed from the system even tho they have zero impact for them if they are modular.

 

[singhs.apps]

It is of course amazing what the M1 chips can achieve for such a small form factor. But Mac Pro is far from obsolete. My Mac Pro 28 core can run Cinebench 24/7 with 100% CPU temp maxed at 63C and fans not audible at 650rpm. Yep.

Just curious.. what’s the cinebench 23 score of your Mac Pro ?

 

[Boil]

Everyone is upgrading it. Especially when AMD releases new GPUs sue h as RDNA 3. Extra RAM if the new workflow needs it, new afterburner cards, PCIE 4 to PCIE 5 m.2 storage etc etc.

We can hope, because why should we be stuck with the Mac Pro from 2022 with the M1 in the year 2030? Soldered memory, soldered storage and 0 PCIe expansion capability? And no ability to use ether Nvidia or AMD cards for their specialty or nwerer apple GPU.

If I am using a hyper-expensive 2019 Mac Pro for actual making money kinda work my MPX slots might already have GPUs in them; I doubt I would want to just pull those GPUs and shelve them, more likely I would buy an all new 2022 Mac Pro (last of the Intel models) with a pair of those new GPUs, and dedicate the 2019 Mac Pro to on-demand rendering...

Zero reason to place PCIe4 or PCIe5 SSDs in a Mac Pro that only has PCIe3 slots...

If I were using a Mac Pro to make a living, I would most likely have bought one or two new machines thru that eight year period; and I would have the "old" machines dropped into a renderfarm...

Regarding AMD / NVidia GPUs, if one cannot read the writing on the wall, which is in huge bold neon lettering, "NO THIRD PARTY GPUS", then I don't know what to tell you...

Regarding Apple add-in GPUs, only time will tell, but nothing we have seen so far indicates that will be a thing, the power behind the Apple SoC is the immediate onboard interconnectivity with the rest of the SoC...?

Yes, this is the very reason of owning a modular, upgradable computer. If a closed system works for you, fine.

But the modularity of the the 7,1 Mac Pro is to allow for maximum flexibility for a wide range of pro-use workloads. And more importantly as mentioned here, allow for continued adaptation to new workloads. I already have an upcoming project next year, where I'm looking to add more RAM, the afterburner card, and possibly another GPU. I am also considering a CPU upgrade as well.

The fact that these are just possible to adapt to new workloads is what really counts over a closed system.

If the current Afterburner card (and I do not see Apple releasing a newer version) stays at US$2k, then it might be better to just spend that two grand on a M1 Max-powered Mac mini...?

"Afterburner is a PCI-E based accelerator card that handles the decoding of ProRes and ProRes RAW video codecs in Final Cut Pro X, QuickTime Player X, and other supported third-party applications.

(The M1 Max SoC) Media Engine designed to deal with video encoding and decoding in hardware. It can process H.264, HEVC, ProRes, and ProRes RAW content, with the M1 Max specifically having a video decode engine, two video encode engines, and two ProRes encode and decode engines."

Looking at your sig, it looks like you have CPU options available, right up until you top out with the 28-core Xeon; after that you would be hoping for Apple to do a final Intel refresh of the 2019 Mac Pro, which would require an all new motherboard...

I believe retail users or boutique workshops who prefer closed systems will have many options from Apple. So nothing for this category of users to worry about. I think you're made for each other. Apple love you buying a new machine when your current one doesn't fit the purpose in some way.

Apple may still keep Smaller Mac Pro as modular & expandable as well as compact. Perhaps MPX-like SoC daughterboard with cooler, a couple of PCIe expansion slots, socketed SSDs. Such a design can cater to larger firms as well as retail users.

I'm guessing Smaller Mac Pro will be the only new chassis made for Mac Pro with Apple silicon. At the same time, (Intel) 2019 Mac Pro & its refresh will be available for purchase for a couple more years. The addition of AMD RX6600 in macOS 12.1 beta is indicative of imminent refresh.. no? RX6600 will replace RX580 as entry-level GPU offering.

If Apple decides to fully refresh (internals-wise) the 2019 Mac Pro as the last Intel product in the entire Mac lineup, I would expect an announcement that it would be the final Intel model (get them while you can)...

The trick is for Apple to figure out what would be the minimal PCIe slot setup they could get away with, yet still meet the needs of those who actually utilize the PCIe slots (looking at the audio crowd mainly?)...

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If I am using a hyper-expensive 2019 Mac Pro for actual making money kinda work my MPX slots might already have GPUs in them; I doubt I would want to just pull those GPUs and shelve them, more likely I would buy an all new 2022 Mac Pro (last of the Intel models) with a pair of those new GPUs, and dedicate the 2019 Mac Pro to on-demand rendering...

You would sell the old cards as they are deprecated. Why would you spend 50k on a new Mac when the new Cards Or upgrades likely don’t even cost you 5 grand. It’s quite literally wasted resources, it would be more efficient to spend that money on cloud computing. Your on demand rendering would still be your computer, or you would spend the money to build a rendering farm, and not a Mac Pro.

Zero reason to place PCIe4 or PCIe5 SSDs in a Mac Pro that only has PCIe3 slots...

You have many reasons to do that. You can merge 8 PCIE 3 slots to run a 4x PCIE 4 ssd

If I were using a Mac Pro to make a living, I would most likely have bought one or two new machines thru that eight year period; and I would have the "old" machines dropped into a renderfarm...

You would likely never buy a new Mac Pro, you would just upgrade whatever part needed an upgrade and sold of the old part. Or build a dedicated rendering farm

Regarding AMD / NVidia GPUs, if one cannot read the writing on the wall, which is in huge bold neon lettering, "NO THIRD PARTY GPUS", then I don't know what to tell you...

Oh yes indeed. It doesn’t make it any less stupid or brain dead of apple. Nvidia GPUs are extremely good if you need CUDA cores for something or AMD for something else etc. these cards themselves have 64GB with 1.5TB of system memory. If you need to render something specific

Regarding Apple add-in GPUs, only time will tell, but nothing we have seen so far indicates that will be a thing, the power behind the Apple SoC is the immediate onboard interconnectivity with the rest of the SoC...?

Is completely irrelevant as the need will always be to expand. Artificially locking it down for zero benefit is just stupid. We can have a M1 max plus with the GPU and 128Gb soldered on, there is still more benefit for me to be able to ad 1Tb of L2 ram and SSD memory with any kind of PCIE internal expandability

If the current Afterburner card (and I do not see Apple releasing a newer version) stays at US$2k, then it might be better to just spend that two grand on a M1 Max-powered Mac mini...?

They can release an afterburner card that benefits the M1 chip.

If Apple decides to fully refresh (internals-wise) the 2019 Mac Pro as the last Intel product in the entire Mac lineup, I would expect an announcement that it would be the final Intel model (get them while you can)...

The trick is for Apple to figure out what would be the minimal PCIe slot setup they could get away with, yet still meet the needs of those who actually utilize the PCIe slots (looking at the audio crowd mainly?)...

I think it’s better they just replace it with a M1 version instead. Just take the Mac Pro from 2019, ad M2 max chip with soldered unified memory up to 128GB and then allow you to expand with 1Tb DDR5 RAM, maximal multipel Pcie 5.0 lanes and TB4 ports as possible.

 

[4wdwrx]

A Thermal chimney is a dead, there is no advantage of going that route and no ability to upgrade it with expansion cards etc. only possibility to have it is with water cooling. And apple will never use it.

The Corsair One is nice, but even with water cooling, it's thermals are not that good unfortunately.