MP All Models Mac Pro ""Don't Buy"?

[c1987macguy]

The buyer's guide indicates "Don't Buy" for the current Mac Pros. I'm guessing this is based on past update cycles. I need a fairly power desktop for my work. But I've been advised that a new Mac Pro line is on the horizon. Will the M1 chip be in the Mac Pro's? Others have advised waiting on a Mac Pro purchase. Any informed thoughts?

I bought the worst Mac Pro ever -trash can- because it was the only new hardware that had come out in years. It has actually worked well, but expandability was poor. I don't think an iMac will cut it for my work. But I don't want to spend big on a current Mac Pro that may be obsolete in the near future.

I'm a photographer, photo retoucher, 3D artist, occasional video editing. I do work on some large files in Photoshop (2gb+). And 3D rendering never has enough horsepower. So I need some bang for the buck, as I'm just an independent user. I know Apple is typically top secret about future releases. But that can boomerang as buyers get nervous & wait.

Thanks for any advice.

 

[tsialex]

Apple Silicon Mac Pro with M2 will be released sometime in 2023, there are rumors about several iterations of prototypes being actively tested, but no release dates.

If you need a replacement for your Late 2013 Mac Pro right now, check out the Mac Studio.

 

[MisterAndrew]

If you like expandability the current Mac Pro is the only option. Look for one second-hand that still has a warranty. Then when the next one comes you can decide if you want to upgrade.

 

[avro707]

If you need a computer now that you need to expand then you have to go for the Mac Pro 7,1.

Depends on what kind of software you'll be using. 3D rendering - will you be using Windows as well? If so - 7,1 it is.

Despite everything I hear people saying, second hand 7,1 Mac Pros never seem to be going very cheap.

Studio could be an option depending on what you need. But if you can hold out a bit more maybe that's better.

What spec is your Mac Pro 6,1 at the moment?

Can you upgrade it or is it already at the maximum spec? I was able to upgrade mine to 2.7ghz 12 core, everything else was already top spec.

 

[paul_bace]

I would wait for the new Mac Studio...but only because there will be a lot of 7,1's going up for sale. As an owner of the 5,1, everything I've already stuffed into this machine will transfer easily. And I have a really long upgrade path. Even if they do start writing out support.

If you're on a trashcan though I get the Studio/Mac Pro M2 looking really good.

 

[Sergioejbf]

And upgrade CPU and eGpu while you are waiting?


12 cores and 6800/6900xt


we do not know how you have armed the 6.1 now?

 

[dinobear]

Apple said there won't be any new releases this year. So apple will miss the "about two year" ARM transition estimate. Does this mean apple chips can't compete with intel+dedicated gpu when it comes to pure power?

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Apple said there won't be any new releases this year. So apple will miss the "about two year" ARM transition estimate. Does this mean apple chips can't compete with intel+dedicated gpu when it comes to pure power?

Let's see what they come up with. What's interesting is if they come up with a discrete GPU solution for the Mac Pro, it could filter down to say an iMac Pro too.

 

[deconstruct60]

I would wait for the new Mac Studio..

There is likely not a new Mac Studio coming any time soon.

Mini ... still comatose on M1 it shipped with back in Nov 2020. It is not on a yearly upgrade product cycle.
MBP 14"/16" ... not going to hit 12 month upgrade cycle either. ( apple's line up is set for 2022). So no 12 month cycle there either.
iMac 24" perhaps even more comatose than the Mini. ( rumors about Apple waiting until M3 to do anything. So probably at least a two year squat on that hardware also).
MP 2019 .. nor core motherboard updates for 3 years. Before that 9 years. Before that 3 years.

Apple has no track record over last decade or so at all on keeping upper end desktops up on a 12 month cadence.

https://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#mac

[ NOTE: the average cycle time on the iMac looks like it is close to 365 days, but that is mostly a fluke. The 2019 was more of a refresh than a upgrade. ]

I wouldn't expect a M2 Studio before June 2023. Probably later into 2023 than that.

Not sure why there is a notion that Apple is going to do a very fast refresh of the Mac Studio. Mac Pro and Mini will likely come before that update. M2 Ultra would probably get priority tagged to the Mac Pro before splitting the new package flow for another model. Pretty good chance they will give the Mac Pro a "head start" on the shift to M2 before do a 'catch up' on the Studio. Similar issue at wafer availability level where MPB 14"/16" will get priority in line before wafers for other M2 stuff.

Part of the problem/issue is that nobody else uses these SoCs but Apple. The M1 Ultra is only in the Studio. So if apple kills off the M1 Studio generation early they are also killing off the mechanism to amortize the costs of the M1 Ultra R&D at the same time. this is a product with multiple order of magnitude less unit volume than an iPhone. Or a mainstream Gen 10, 11, 12 Intel CPU. Mapping iPhone referesh cadences on this SoC is highly likely flawed. the SoC base costs are greater and the volume is vastly different.

Over time, the very top end of the Mac line up is likely going to move at a slower refresh cadence than the bottom end.

.but only because there will be a lot of 7,1's going up for sale. As an owner of the 5,1, everything I've already stuffed into this machine will transfer easily. And I have a really long upgrade path. Even if they do start writing out support.

If Apple holds onto their band on 3rd party display GPUs on Apple Silicon it is not very likely there is going to be some widespread , wholesale rapid dumping of 7,1 (MP 2019 ) models. Limited deal with single users bolting for something new on a fully depreciated hardware ... sure. But folks ripping out whole multiple seat deployments on rapid, panic pace ... likely not going to happen.

Apple may not even stop selling 7,1 after the new Mac Pro and upgraded Studio ship. Sell far past end of 2023? Extremely likely, No. But sell well into 2023 and overlap with the new Mac Pro .... pretty good chance. Apple is still selling a Intel Mini about 2 years after selling the M1 Mini. Apple sold the MP 2013 (6,1 ) for six years. I don't think apple is "going 5-6 year zone" this time, but it does show they have zero problems with selling "old stuff" into narrower. very profitable niches over time. ( need a Mac with 1TB of RAM ... Apple probably is not going to cover that with next Mac Pro).

If you're on a trashcan though I get the Studio/Mac Pro M2 looking really good.

The upgrade Mac Pro isn't likely going to be the "new Studio". Probably won't be a flexible as the MP 2009-2012 , but also not as rigid as the MP 2013 either. That 'in between' status is also going to contribute to no rapid stampede off the 7,1 model. Some folks will move and some won't. So used 7,1 prices will likely only oscillate a bit while declining; not uniformly rapidly crater.

 

[deconstruct60]

I bought the worst Mac Pro ever -trash can- because it was the only new hardware that had come out in years. It has actually worked well, but expandability was poor. I don't think an iMac will cut it for my work.

Apple explicitly tagged the M1 Mac Studio as the transition replacement for the large screen iMac.

If only looking at the M1 iMac 24" that really isn't what Apple would even remotely point you too as a transition for a MP 2013.

A Mac Studio would be generally substantively better performance than a MP 2013. Not sure where you'd backslide much there at all if using modern Mac software. If the MP 2013 worked well then not sure where some where some large gap would open up there to continue progressing on a pace for several more years.

But I don't want to spend big on a current Mac Pro that may be obsolete in the near future.

Mac Pro 2019 isn't going obsolete any time soon. But it isn't a "ride the leading edge for next 10 years" system either. Not any clear signs either that the next Mac Pro is going to be "ride leading edge for next 10 years " system either. Apple really doesn't support "10 year systems".

Next Mac Pro likely isn't going to get radically more affordable either. Across the Mac product line up with the transition, Apple has done relatively little to push prices down. ( corner cases at low end mini where can hand wave that they are , but Apple has not introduced any new "all time low" prices at all. )

Where Apple is probably going to shave some off the price range is at the top end of the Mac Pro line up. Partially because combining CPU and GPU into a single expensive items ( instead of two expensive items . ) Bigger VRAM range but chopping lots off the system RAM relative to the Mac Pro 2019. So waiting for a new Mac Pro would allow you more time to collect up a larger amount of money ... but won't make the Mac Pro much 'cheaper'.

Neither is the Mac Pro 2019 likely to "fall off a steep cliff" on pricing by waiting another several months.

If that price range is problematical budget wise.... It is probably still going to problematical several months from now.

I'm a photographer, photo retoucher, 3D artist, occasional video editing. I do work on some large files in Photoshop (2gb+). And 3D rendering never has enough horsepower. So I need some bang for the buck, as I'm just an independent user. I know Apple is typically top secret about future releases. But that can boomerang as buyers get nervous & wait.

Photography (retouching , editing , etc) and video editing . Mac Studio isn't going to have problems on most workloads.

3D sculpting. More so depends upon how do the work. Is the 'shape' the main focus of the work or the final surface?

3D rendering ... if it generating 40-80% of the revenue then it is a major factor. If it generating less than 5% it is trending toward a distraction from the real "bang for the buck" issues. For the "insatiable horsepower" issues, a local 'render farm' is an option. Stuffing everything into one single box isn't necessarily the best "bang for the buck" either.

 

[theluggage]

Does this mean apple chips can't compete with intel+dedicated gpu when it comes to pure power?

Apple seem to have got the "pure CPU power" nailed with the M1 Ultra.

I think the jury is out whether gluing together more of the same integrated GPU cores used in the MacBook Air can beat the sort of high-end discrete GPU configurations possible on the Mac Pro - especially without relying on software being optimised for Metal and Apple Silicon GPUs.

The other problem is how they'll deal with those customers who actually need 1 TB or more of RAM if they stick to the model of "unified" LPDDR RAM mounted directly on the CPU package. An "Extreme" processor consiting of 4 M1 Maxes would logically top out at 256GB RAM (and there's all sorts of questions as to how that would fit together physically) - maybe 512GB if the M2 Max supports larger LPDDR chips (but, remember, unlike the regular M1, the M1 Max already had LPDDR5).

Going for external PCIe GPUs and regular, expandable DDR RAM to get the numbers would throw away some of the advantages that current Apple Silicon gets from having unified, on-package RAM shared by the CPU and integrated GPU.

There's no doubt that someone could make a Xeon-killer CPU with the ARM instruction set, support for huge amounts of RAM and loadsa PCIe lanes for GPUs, but ARM's big advantage comes from low power consumption in laptop/small form factor systems - not such a big factor in full-size PCIe towers... and Apple Silicon's big advantage is that Apple gets to cover the full iPad, MBA, MBP, Mini, iMac & Studio range with just 2 SoC die designs (M1 and M1 Max - since the M1 Pro is a cut-down M1 Max, the M1 Ultra is 2 Max dies joined together and the rumoured "extreme" version is 4 Max dies.

So, yeah, replacing the 2019 Mac Pro "like for like" with Apple Silicon is going to be rocket surgery.

The Mac Studio isn't going to replace every use case of the Mac Pro - but it's a better use of the strengths of Apple Silicon than trying to kludge it into a big box 'o' slots like the Mac Pro.

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple said there won't be any new releases this year. So apple will miss the "about two year" ARM transition estimate.

How much of that was outside Apple's control or self inflected mistakes would say something about their overall competitiveness. That they missed schedule by months after a Global pandemic ... really shouldn't be all that surprising.


In contrast, if they missed shipping becaue someone that a one-slot Mac Pro was generally going to past muster with the remaining set of Mac Pro users , then that is a different issue. If there is very long delay because they had to scrap the Mac Pro in late stage development in order to make something more flexible. That is an uncompetitive factor.

Does this mean apple chips can't compete with intel+dedicated gpu when it comes to pure power?

A discrete GPU? dGPU is short for discrete GPU. Not sure what a non dedicated GPU is . An iGPU is still a dedicated to being a GPU.

Compete on maximum pure power consumption? No.

Compete within a 400-900W system budget? Yes. ( although probably not at the same price point).

Constrained to sub 170W... Apple is clearly doing just fine.

Apple has never said they were out to make "everything for everybody". It is pretty doubtful that Apple has saddled Mac with with "maximum CPU core count + maximum power from a wall socket GPU" as being the targets for the Mac Pro. Some people want to tag the Mac Pro as a "box with slots" as Apple's "everything for everybody" offering. It is really not. At least I highly doubt Apple views it that way at all.



Some aspects of the Intel Mac Pro fell out of features Intel stuff in; not something Apple really was technically excited about. [ The opportunity to slap an extra > 1TB RAM tax on the 28 core Xeon W-6200 likely was attracting to the sales team at least as much to the technical build of Mac Pro. That is a tax a very small niche of users more so than technical requirement that apple would slap on themselves. ]

There is a wide mix of Intel + discrete GPU configurations to compete with. Apple only has to do a subset large enough to generate sufficient unit volume of the Mac Pro so it can generate revenue to cover R&D and generate reasonable amount of profit. Apple sells Mac Pros to make money. Not to compete in every single category possible.

When Apple released the Studio they said that the Mac Pro 16 core CPU and W5700 were the most popular configuration for the Mac Pro. The Max/Ultra covered that. A Mac Pro with several slots and an updated Ultra would cover that also. Hence it would be competitive.

If 'compete' is to maximizes the number of commodity parts inside the box. Then Apple likely isn't going there.
Natively 'raw iron' boot Windows in competition? Nope.

 

[Basic75]

When Apple released the Studio they said that the Mac Pro 16 core CPU and W5700 were the most popular configuration for the Mac Pro.

Does that take into account people upgrading the CPU and/or GPU themselves, or is that only for how they are sold by Apple?

 

[mattspace]

Some people want to tag the Mac Pro as a "box with slots" as Apple's "everything for everybody" offering. It is really not. At least I highly doubt Apple views it that way at all.

Every single generation, and model of PowerMac was a box with slots - even the 6100 pizza box, save for one (and even it had a GPU on a standard card), which was a catastrophic failure in the market. Every single Mac Pro was a box of slots, save for one, which saw a catastrophic collapse in Apple's reputation as a provider of professional media creation hardware.

The view you are expressing is ahistoric.

 

[pc297]

Given Apple's history of consistently giving users a solid 3 years before releasing an operating system solely supporting a newly-adopted architecture in the wake of a completed transition, then Intel users have it quite good as the MP M2 launching early next year means significantly added life for e.g. MBP and iMacs 2017-2020. It's unlikely that any future update until Intel support is dropped won't include them, as there isn't much if at all that the currently sold Mini i7 has that they don't have! You know, as per previous updates, "only Macs with built-in FireWire/ ports / only Macs with Metal-capable GPUs / only Macs with built-in Thunderbold ports are supported" etc? But who knows, might boil down to "Only Intel Macs with the T2 security chip are supported as of macOS version 16 <Sequoia>. Intel Macs with the T1 security chip can continue to use macOS version 15 <Redwood>", before we conceivably see the end of the road for Intel macs by version 17

 

[pc297]

But who knows, might boil down to "Only Intel Macs with the T2 security chip are supported as of macOS version 16 <Sequoia>.

Damn, I got the name right but the version no wrong and T2 requirement off too (required for Sonoma) 🤣