Not necessarily, it could be a contractual agreement that specifically mentions AMD. Or its a contractual agreement that they did not want to break just for AMD for a year then move to their own processors. We just do not know the behind the scenes legalities of this. Businesses do not have that kind of flexibility that people think they do.
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 What does Apple's switch to ARM based processors mean for the future of the Mac Pro
- Thread starter Korican100
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not necessarily, it could be a contractual agreement that specifically mentions AMD. Or its a contractual agreement that they did not want to break just for AMD for a year then move to their own processors. We just do not know the behind the scenes legalities of this. Businesses do not have that kind of flexibility that people think they do.
Not in the dictionary that comes with a Mac. PCI-e v4 doesn't replace PCI-e v3. There is no rule that no new PCI-e v3 (or v2 ) devices can every be created. Nor is PCI-e v3 no longer made (all the current ones are not pulled from the market) . Again there is no barring or remove from the market of everything PCI-e v3 with v4.
PCI-e v4 is a better option. But that doesn't make PCI-v3 obsolete.
Even in the typical technical support semantics for "obsolete" it is more so used as indication of "end of service life" not as "end of manufacturing".
"Obsolete" being anything not the latest bleeding edge "shiny" feature is more of tech porn semantics to drive folks to buying new stuff all the time. That's more to do with consumerism than what the word actually means.
Intel PCI-e v4 CPU exist. Just not a common retail product. And certainly they were not worth holding up the already grossly delayed Mac Pro upgrade product cycle. A system with up to 12 Thunderbolt ports was something that AMD wasn't putting any substantive effort to support back in 2016-2017 so their PCI-e v4 wasn't going to offset at all. Too many i's un-dotted and 't's uncrossed .
I am sure there exists some specialized Intel CPUs that have this. But none of the consumer or Xeons have PCIe 4 at least the common ones like 10th generation desktop and Xeon Ws. And just to clarify, this is a nested conversation that started with someone mentioning the Mac Pro being obsolete day one, and they brought up because it did not have PCIe 4.0. I did not agree with that statement. So I am agreement with you that just because the Mac Pro is on PCIe 3.0, does not make it obsolete.
Just to comment on the PCIe 3.0 thing - to be fair to the poster who originally brought this up, it was in the context of Apple bringing out an all-new platform based on a very expensive yet outdated Intel platform. Even forgetting price, AMD's Threadripper chips offer more cores, more PCIe lanes, and support for a faster PCIe standard that is already being used by SSDs and GPUs. Factor in the lower cost and longer socket lifetime as well, and it's disappointing for Mac users to see the opportunity passed up. Even high-end Ryzen chips like the 3950X are faster than the top end 28-core MP in programs like After Effects: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...formance-PC-Workstation-vs-Mac-Pro-2019-1718/.
Or if you want to see real carnage, check out a Premiere comparison: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...formance-PC-Workstation-vs-Mac-Pro-2019-1719/
Last edited:
Those of you saying the G5 PowerMac was too loud probably haven’t used a first generation Xserve. Now THAT thing sounded like a jet engine. I worked at an Apple reseller at the time and the boss thought it would be a good idea to have it on the showroom floor. Within an hour there was a sign on it: “Do not turn on!”
That isn't true. Even Apple said as much. Apple stated they painted themselves in to a corner with the whole three equally TDP radiating chip packaging assumption that the made. Not PCI-e lanes; CPU bandwidth constraints never came up at all in that April 2017 meeting. Internal storage. Leaning perhaps too much on Thunderbolt . etc. But "no enough bandwidth juice even remotely possible from the CPU". Nope.
The only way get to PCI-e lanes being a blocker issue is that in some sort of "tail wags dog" design constraint where Apple has to stick with six external Thunderbolt ports. If had that as some sort of dogma constraint then there would have been an issue.
That dogma is grossly flawed. The iMac Pro shipped with 4 and that was just fine. The sky didn't collapse. The Mac Pro ships by default with 4 and again the Apple HQ didn't drop into a giant sinkhole. Frankly the default six TB sockets were just as flawed a default setting as the "everybody has to be two GPU" was.
If the Mac Pro had dropped down to just one internal GPU there would be been more than enough lanes on E5 v4 or W-2100 series to 4 (or 6 if wanted to stay in that dogma track) Thunderbolt ports and pull the SSD up to the CPU (pre T2 days). Bigger issue was which one internal GPU to move to because AMD's GPUs were moving very fast and were on the "Polaris" , low-mid range iterative refinement mode.
If the T2 is driving the whole upgrade then pragmatically no. It wasn't the CPU lanes it was the C612 chipset that would have been blocker for Xeon E5 v4. The major problem with a Mac Pro with one GPU and Xeon W-2100 series with a T2 is that it would highly overlap with the iMac Pro. After a point the problem wasn't Intel. A bigger issue was that the iMac Pro had a higher priority and the Mac Pro needed something else to put a sufficient gap between them for Apple's tastes. yeah part of that become CPU PCI-e lanes boosting. But that wasn't a complete show stopper from doing anything. Apple was primarily 'stuck' due to their own constraints , no Intel shipping something.
Apple pragmatically did iterate on the MP 2013 design. They simply just added a embedded monitor to it and it become the iMac Pro. Same power supply zone. Undid the default dual GPU thing. Merged in with the t-series. Faster bus to the SSD and large storage capacity. Intel really wasn't the primary hold up on iMac Pro getting out the door. T2 and AMD GPUs were major contributors to the timeline constraints also.
Once the Mac Pro design settled in on "double the old slot count" and new entry price zone , then yeah they had to 'wait' on something new from Intel, but that extremely like came after settling in on putting the iMac Pro first. Along the way Apple decided to sell fewer, but higher priced Mac Pros. That needed a new CPU package than what was out there before if attempting with just one package. ( which was in part the other really non blocking issue by Intel. With two CPU packages and incrementally bigger Mac Pro case than this current one could have done 8 slots in 2015-2017 era also. Again it is Apple's constraints; not Intel product catalog. Apple didn't want to set a dual CPU package exception because that was not the direction their SoC was going. ( or actually most of the workstation market either. ) )
I don’t see AMDs comparisons valid when it comes to the Mac Pro. We don’t know the contracts, legalities, Intel & Apple situation to know that AMD was even a valid consideration for the Mac Pro. Us being consumers and not business leaders are in a different position. We can use NVIDIA today, but AMD tomorrow. We can use Intel today but AMD tomorrow. We have that freedom, businesses do not.
So for the Mac Pro to be argued as obsolete day one, you need to compare Apples to Apples (pun intended!). Saying it’s obsolete because AMD has PCIe 4 is not really valid. It’s new technology.
For example: Saying something is obsolete if it just came out with a i9-9900k is valid. As the i9-10900k exists. It’s an Apples to Apples comparison.
So essentially you are stating that ANY Intel computer, not just Apple, is obsolete? Even if it has the brand new shiny 10th gen chips? Just because AMD offers PCIe 4?
I think the original point got lost.
Someone claimed that power efficiency is irrelevant (or very low concern) for "desktops" because they're not running from a battery. It's a claim that's been made multiple times now.
My point was that those saying that have clearly never the effects of inefficient (i.e. how power, and as a consequence high heat, and to remedy that, noisy) computers running from "mains power".
To answer your point specifically: I haven't used any generation xserve, no. But they were hardly sold as workstations were they. But they're yet another case where the naive will say "oh but why does it matter they're on mains power" and anyone who understands how a rackmount server is used in even the smallest server room will understand how efficiency is important/beneficial.
I dont know how loud the Xserve got in a (presumably) air conditioned sales room, but I do know how loud a dozen Cisco switches and a handful of HP 1U and 3U servers get when the A/C has died in (Australian) summer.
With good reason. The 2019 MP can draw as much power as is safe in the US from a standard AC socket (1400W, 80% of the 1800W max), yet by all accounts is whisper quiet, even under load.
[automerge]1593871346[/automerge]
As I've said previously, no I'm not saying a computer is obsolete just because it doesn't run the very latest PCIe bus. This is a straw man argument. I'm just supporting the point made by others that it's disappointing for an all-new system, with a very high price tag, to use Intel at a time when AMD are resurgent and are making superior CPUs.
I accept that Apple may have exclusivity contracts and so on that make a switch to AMD legally difficult. But ultimately Apple are a trillion dollar corporation and where there's a will there's a way. No need to make excuses for them. I think the bigger factor is that they planned to switch to ARM anyway, so why rock the boat? In any case, the Intel chips are arguably good enough for anyone considering a Mac workstation - companies looking for the best bang for the buck and / or support for CUDA will buy PCs anyway (as of course most do).
Last edited:
I am not the one that made that argument, so I agree that it is straw man. Which is why I find it ridiculous to claim that the Mac Pro was obsolete Day One because of it.
3D art - the driver is rendering - any render engine will take every byte of ram, every CPU and/or GPU cycle you can throw at it and ask for more. There is literally never enough.
My workflow normally has the following open - Poser, Daz Studio, ZBrush, Virtual box (for Adobe CS), Blender, Hexagon, and Libre Office. Tabbing through as needed (dual monitor set up - what are the odds a dual monitor setup is available on an ARM Mac?)
I am a hobbyist - I run bottom of the stack software; the Mac Pro is the ONLY Apple computer that is capable (at least if your time is valuable).
OSX already runs on AMD hardware. Catalina was available on day one. AMD-OSX.com has been helping folks since the release of 1st Gen Ryzen.
Software-wise, there are a number of things necessary for 3rd gen threadripper, but if a group hobbyist can get Ryzen based systems running on day 1, I would hope that Apple software engineers could address the scheduler and the other issues (mostly drivers).
AMD chips are also significantly cheaper. You or I can buy that 64 core 3990x for $3,500 at newegg. The 28 core Xeon is 5 figures. Apple could have sold the 7,1 for the same price and had MUCH higher margins.
Hardware wise - same work they did for the 7,1, unless they were smart enough NOT to develop MPX - a solution in search of a problem.
We could have had 24 core, 32 core, and 64 core 7,1 Mac Pros.
A base 7,1 is 8 cores, 32gb of ram, PCIe 3.0 I/O, & a 4 year old graphics card. For $6,000.
And that $6,000 computer is outperformed by any 3900x ($420) based system or higher.
Last edited:
I know you're not saying the Mac Pro is obsolete, but you're accusing me of making that point, by quoting me then asking:
That's what I'm saying is the straw man argument. You're putting silly words into my mouth, then disputing them. This is likely because it's easier than explaining why it's a good thing that Apple's $6000 (base) computer is using a bus that has been superseded by one that's twice as fast.
Now you know why Apple wants to move away from Intel. Again, we do not know the details. It is very possible that using AMD processors would make Intel force Apple to remove all Intel based macs from their lineup. I have seen contracts and clauses like that. Its not a gamble to take. We just don't know the legalities or contracts involved. I am not making excuses for Apple, but I have been involved with crazy contracts and legal discussions before.
[automerge]1593877815[/automerge]
Sorry that You was meant to be a generic you, not to someone specific. And now you know the problem with Intel and why Apple wants to move away from them.
[automerge]1593877815[/automerge]
Sorry that You was meant to be a generic you, not to someone specific. And now you know the problem with Intel and why Apple wants to move away from them.
No. You are assuming in weird direction. Intel has no power on that. They are parts supply company, and no they are not the sole vendor in x86 chips. They can't simply say to Apple that using AMD will cease supply of Intel chips.
Much minor vendors in PC worls are already offering both intel and AMD, and that kind of forceful demand will make to news. If you are telling me one of the biggest tech company in the world cannot do things that even small sized pc company is doing, they Apple's got a lot bigger problem, and no wonder their Mac Pro development sucked.
Apple's buyer here. Not the other way around.
No its not that simple. Apple and Intel are in a business relationship. Businesses are very different between you and me. Its not as simple as going on Newegg and getting processors. You need to have a relationship and a contract, even with a just a supplier. And no you typically do not disclose contracts and legal matters to the news. Its between lawyers.
I have not read the contract and legal matters involved with the Dark Sky acquisition. Have you? These matters are mostly closed to the public.
Yes, I've been explaining the advantages for the past few pages.
Why would Apple have agreed to such a contract? Are you suggesting that perhaps Intel put a lot of work into helping with the transition to x86, and didn't want to be taken advantage of? OS X is based on NextStep, which was natively x86 - it would have needed to be converted to PPC in the first place. I doubt Apple was lying when they said they had an internal x86 build of OS X from day one.
It's possible Intel was giving Apple a steep discount on CPUs, which would be null and void if Apple used AMD CPUs in any model. Apple wouldn't throw away a great deal on their notebooks for the sake of a few MP sales.
You don't know if Intel gave Apple a steep discount to the processors either. At the time the Intel transition happened, AMD processors were crap. That is why they could have agreed to a 10-15 year contract or whatever. And how do you know AMD would not do the same steep discounts?
Its all guessing. Just like some people here are guessing that it is just a simple call to AMD or Newegg action to get a Mac Pro on AMD. That is just a guess too. We...Don't....know. This is seeming to approach armchair-CEO style of discussion and complaints. We do not know all the sides.
What we do know, is that in the Intel space, its still PCIe 3.0 and the Mac Pro is not obsolete, and was not obsolete day one.
You know, all pc makers and chip makers also do have a business relationship or two.
Apple has to be careful to continue getting intel chips while other so many # of pc makers can easily offer Intel and AMD? No nononononono.
I also do have a job working for a big company, and I do know how a business contract works. However, you are kinda telling me that a consumer is forced to not buy BMW because buying it will make Benz to stop selling you any future product forever. No. Apple's consumer here. They have the power. It's just chip, and based on Apple's business model, Apple wouldn't have chosen Intel in the first place if that's what Intel was demanding back then. I have ample experiences with Apple's way of business and what they expect of vendors based on over 20+ years of witnessing Apples stragegy. Apple has never been one to be demanded upon by other vendors.
Don't just throw your imaginary assumption of what may be happening. Instead, look at what's actually happening between chip makers like Intel and AMD and hardware makers.
I didn't claim to:
And why would Apple agree to a 15 year contract..? For a steep discount, perhaps? Or are you saying Intel would have refused to supply Apple with processors? Is that even legal?
Can a BMW dealership sell Toyota cars legally? No they can’t. I have asked this question before because I was curious. Same thing COULD (keyword COULD) apply between Apple and Intel. There could be exclusivity involved.
And how about people stop throwing imaginary assumptions that it would be oh so easy for Apple to have made the 2019 Mac Pro use AMD processors. That’s just an assumption too.
I don't think anyone's actually claimed it would be easy in all respects, just that it would be desirable. But it's all moot anyway, as we now know that Apple had chosen to use their own ARM CPUs, so they could merge macOS with iOS.
Apple's not a dealership. Apple's consumer of chips made by Intel. Apple is not selling intel chips directly to consumers.
What Intel is offering is nothing without hardware company's effort to make it work as a whole system.
Apple just decided to go Arm while offering intels, at the same time Intel knowing well fully that Apple won't buy their chips in 2 years time. Wow. but somehow Apple is able to continue offering intel macs as of now? LOL Apple can surely go AMD with no problem. It's all about Apple's own decision, not forced demand by Intel.
You are tellilng me Apple is no more influencer than MSI or all those small pc makers. The notion of Intel's forcing Apple is so absurd, that I'm kinda speechless.
Yes. I’m not really sure how we got down this rabbit hole haha! My entire point was regarding that comment on PCIe 4 and the comment that the Mac Pro was obsolete day one because of it and AMDs progress.
Im not saying Apple is a dealership. And a dealership does more than take a car from a manufacture and pass it along to the customer. Apple is providing Intel’s processors to the customer in a Mac package. Some restaurants have have exclusivity with suppliers even if they don’t sell you the raw product. They cook it with their own style, just like Apple does.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding. I’m not saying this is 100% what is going on. But it’s entirely possible. Businesses are different. Apple could have agreed to something like this if Intel offered steep discounts in return. More money in Apple’s pocket and they just got to deal with Intel. Apple has been dealing with the frustrations of Intel for YEARS. It was actually a Skylake that forced Apple to transition to Arm. That’s before the 2019 Mac Pro.
[automerge]1593880830[/automerge]
Right. But the original poster of that comment stated obsolete since day one. This is all I was trying to say. I don’t think it needed so many follow ups but whatever.