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 14,8 2023 Mac Pro is very useful
- Thread starter SDAVE
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And maybe they can lock the systems down so it's not possible to use any other OS.A lot if you care about performance.
CPU caches L1/L2/SLC have hardware support and the cache lookup and replacement strategy are basically free as far as software is concern.
If you use external RAM (on package) as caches for another set of external RAM (DIMM), you have to fall back to software for cache replacement. Performance will be terrible when you have a cache miss. Imagine spending thousands of CPU cycle just to decide which page to replace. And then spend CPU cycles to move memory around.
If you use the DIMM slotted RAMs as backing store for virtual memory (i.e. what SSDs are doing now) you will have memory trashing issue when your dataset is a lot bigger than 192GB. There's a reason why it is not recommended to have the swap memory configured too large compared to physcial memory. Performance will sink like a rock in water when your data set grows very large (e.g. 1TB) and your software requires random access. Actually the issue is not much different from what I wrote above about using on package RAM as cache for DIMM RAM.
If Apple really wants to have TBs of memory, they will have to implement ECC DIMMs for their Mac Pro and take a performance hit or go higher than 16 DIMM slots. Laying more than 1024 (data with ECC + address) signal lines in the main board just for memory will be an enormous challenge as traces will have to be longer with higher signal propagation delays.
Last edited:
You're wrong. This is perfectly familiar to me.
The thing is, the Mac Pro 2019 was based on obsolete components when it debuted, yet its processor provided 64 PCIe lines. Four years have passed and the new Mac Pro provides 16 PCIe lines. This is pathetic.
The future at least for Microsoft and windows is a full 100 percent run windows in the cloud. not on a local machine.
which means cheap dummy hardware. all the horsepower will be remote.
So If Apple follows the Microsoft Windows 12 future along with only fees to access your cloud based OS that means powerful machines like the Mac Pro are dead. Maybe there might be an M3 Ultra Mac Pro but most likely The Mac Pro will be Dead if Apple follows Microsoft into the cloud and 100 percent Cloud based OS computers. Sort of like the IBM Mainframe of 2025??
Microsoft is working on a full cloud-based Windows OS
New internal documents revealed by the FTC investigation shows a full remote access OS could be in Windows' future.www.pcworld.com
Chill. Windows isn’t moving 100% to the cloud any time soon, if ever, for numerous reasons. And it’s extremely unlikely that the wider computer industry would move to that solution so fast that Apple would cancel the M3 Mac Pro?? That’s 2 years away!
It's bizarre how people read things on the web and take some extreme position that all users will be using a cloud based OS. It's like the dumb idea that the world economy could run on silly crypto tokens or that "AI" is going to take everyone's jobs. They don't think about the scaling problems with these things when they already have scaling and security problems at the margins.
For Microsoft to go 100% cloud for all their users around the world their data centers would need to grow so large they would consume more land and energy and other resources than they could even possibly afford or acquire in the first place. It's not going to happen and will only be an option.
I'm with you OP. Higher Edu here, our film school and sports production unit are all over this thing. The Studio doesn't cut it for their needs.
Probably scales up to that price with hardware.
People need to understand that upgrading systems is a niche. And getting 1.5 TB of RAM is a niche of a niche. And it’s getting even more niche. Honestly as I age I’m getting tired of building and upgrading. The most I want to do these days is storage upgrades. So the Mac Pro is a perfect fit for me.
Plus, businesses don’t typically upgrade systems randomly. I have worked at places that had these policies. A full computer would need to be ordered for a better GPU or RAM. And the businesses that did do this (very very few of them), ordered upgrades from business partners/Dell for example and NOT from Newegg.
This really comes down to whether the form factor of the mac pro will be useful for the purchaser. Because the Mac Studio from what I can tell delivers the same raw performance out of the box. Before, the Mac Pro also offered higher performance, but now that is not an advantage. Hence, the niche market is now smaller. Also dont think it helps that the MBPs are fast as hell too.
Just like many of Microsoft’s many Windows client solutions, this will be niche. fat Windows you run locally will be here for the next couple decades in part due to limited bandwidth that still exists throughout the US. And many businesses won’t be rushing to put everything into a streaming solution either for privacy reasons or overall security.The future at least for Microsoft and windows is a full 100 percent run windows in the cloud. not on a local machine.
which means cheap dummy hardware. all the horsepower will be remote.
So If Apple follows the Microsoft Windows 12 future along with only fees to access your cloud based OS that means powerful machines like the Mac Pro are dead. Maybe there might be an M3 Ultra Mac Pro but most likely The Mac Pro will be Dead if Apple follows Microsoft into the cloud and 100 percent Cloud based OS computers. Sort of like the IBM Mainframe of 2025??
Microsoft is working on a full cloud-based Windows OS
New internal documents revealed by the FTC investigation shows a full remote access OS could be in Windows' future.
Right now, businesses and users have several options:
desktop Windows x86 - most laptops, desktops, users and businesses still depend on this.
Windows 365 - very niche used by commercial businesses among frontline workers.
Windows on ARM - extremely niche partly due to application compatibility and performance.
Apple don’t have CPU, they have SoC with CPU Cores, GPU Cores, Neural Engine, Media Engines, GPU Cores and RAM in one piece.
so would have to have a SoC Board and a slot to the board holding the PCIe slots.
now how will that slot deal with the move from M2 to M3 to M4.
your PCIe slot’s won’t get upgraded so now would need a SoC with the PCIe controller of the version on that SoC board whereas M3, M4 will move on versions, more lanes and you won get those with the old board still in system. swap that out and really what’s the point of separate board.
so now can have m3, m4 Mac Pro with PCIe slots on v4 or v5 dependent upon if bought new or upgraded And different numbers kf lanes available for each slot.
wave of complaints on second hand market that got an M4 with PCIe v4 and less lanes then expected.
your internal storage as in attached to SoC also becomes irrelevant as it is keyed to the SoC and if want to change on a T2 Mac Pro or a Studio then would need to rekey so would have to transfer off, reset and then transfer back on. So even if on a separate card like is on Studio and Pro then not like PC board where can remove the NVME from one board and add to another PC board and good to go.
so you would end up buying minimal internal storage and then buying PCIe storage card for Booting off.
so unless move RAM out of SoC and Apples model doesn’t have tiered memory so would have to swap out the complete SoC board again.
storage encryption issue and initializing storage unless not using it then want more RAM then prepare to DFU internal storage as well.
will have people starting saying why do I have to buy 1tb storage and not just a 256gb As do not use it.
Apple not like Intel where have various CPU in the family Of different performance. Basically at the Max/Ultra is more GPU cores, and RAM.
on a 5,1 then still stuck with a 1366 and once 2011 out then no more but that 1366 went in a Mac Pro from quad 2.26 to hex 3.46.
however I have an i9 9900k z390 based hackintosh and too upgrade then have to swap the board out as socket changed.
the only advantage it has if is had built less powerful 1151 socket and then swap out to an i9 9900k later.
however other then GPU cores an M1 Max SoC etc doesn’t have various CPU Core offerings or even clock speeds, meaning would need to support next Mx Max with the board that remains.
with everything else that would need to do with ASi System then basically not much less effort then a new machine but without newer PCIe. Transferring the cards then is very little effort compared to the rest of the work in swapping and getting up and running the new SoC.
it just doesn’t really work with SoC, and cannot see Apple wanting different system model just for the Mac Pro where not using a SoC.
not saying it could not be done but like dGPU isn’t something Apple looking to solve with there overall system.
a lot of work to solve swapping cards from one case to another..
That really is the sole value prop of the pro over the studio: special PCIe cards for specific purposes (not GPU of course). As you note though, that's a very niche population - but its still nice that apple addressed the market. The other use case is people who need large external storage beyond what you want to run over thunderbolt.
The much broader set of pro users, who leveraged it for external graphic cards, or upgradability, are out of luck. Honestly, as much as I dislike the former, I suspect we're stuck with it. Apple thinks that the GPU in the Mx chip is enough...that reality distortion field in action. I think they're delusional, but am resigned to having to buy a separate intel machine to get high GPU performance if the M3 isn't a huge surprise.
This feels like it's exactly what happened. The cancelled extreme chip would have made the pro a lot more attractive (but still would have missed the GPU need).
Well plus if they didn’t finish the Intel transition now (they were already overdue with their 2 year mark), they would only be able to complete it in 2025 when M3 Pro/Max/Ultra are expected. So yeah. It wouldn’t look good on Apple to keep the 2019 Mac Pro for two more years. And be three years OVER your two year transition you told everyone.
Great point, and it also would have extended how long they still have to make MacOS for intel.
This is clearly a rushed product, not denying it. But it makes sense from a business perspective. I’m sure there is some Intel agreement coming up for renewal too. Wouldn’t surprise me.
Apple either needed to update the Intel Mac Pro, or complete the transition. They learned that by having 2013 Mac Pro sell in 2019 with 2013 components and no price cuts until close to the end if I recall.
I do believe all the real world issues significantly impacted the M2 generation. M1 was mostly ready from an architectural standpoint before lockdowns and everything.
Not necessarily cheap.
" ... After all, you can’t get much more “software as a service” than a full operating system you pay for monthly, streamed to “dumb” screens that need incredibly inexpensive hardware. (Or, for that matter, the phones, tablets, and TVs that users have already purchased.) ... "
Foldable phones are going for $1-2K these days. That isn't 'cheap' or 'dummy' hardware. iPads with a Mn SoC in them. Also not particularly cheap. Likewise with TVs.... not necessarily cheap.
When get to point can just plug phone into large screen TV and attach BT keyboard are folks going to use Windows? (versus the apps on the phone? ) This move is partially to stay relevant as folks buy less classic PCs.
Phones are becoming a personal computer (for most people) , but 'Windows' isn't there.
Microsoft has a Windows dev kit for Arm that is running on incrementally more than a current top end smartphone SoC.
Available today: Windows Dev Kit 2023 aka Project Volterra
blogs.windows.com
In 2-4 years, the SoC in a smartphone probably tops this in a phone that millions of people walk around with every day.
Is the top 25% of the PC market going to disappear into phones in 4-8 years? Probably not. But a very sizable chunk of Windows is at threat. There is tons of moaning about how much effort Apple puts into making the Apple software ecosystem synergistic across both iOS , iPadOS , and macOS. If the highly mobile devices are going to 'eat' a large chunk of classic PCs ... there is very little wrong with the strategy.
It's not so much that Apple believe the Mx GPU is 'enough' (for high end use) - it's that this is all they have. The most they can stretch to for the desktop is to double up on their current top-end laptop chip. They are never going to produce a dedicated, high end SoC just for the Mac Pro - they just won't sell enough to make it worth the investment.
The ASi route has lots of upsides - the laptops are amazing - but this is the downside. There is no getting around it, and Apple will have made their peace with it when they made the decision to use their own chips. It's the Ultra or nothing. As far as Apple are concerned, if this is not appropriate for your use case, they unfortunately have nothing to offer and you will have to buy a PC. They don't want to lose you as a customer, but there is just no viable way for them to give you what you want without hosing money on a niche product.
The Mac Pro is clearly lacklustre, but at least Apple can make it without losing money. They've invested nothing in the chassis, they've raised the price by $1000, and they're using an SoC from a higher volume product. The logic board has practically nothing else on it other than a PLX switch and a bunch of slots. It will hopefully sell enough to pay its way, but if it doesn't, it will of course get canned.
People need to stop imagining that the Mac Pro is some kind of clean sheet design that's optimised for a specific use case. It's a total compromise based on what they have in the parts bin. If, despite that, it offers everything you need, then great. Enjoy your new computer. But for anyone who needs an upper-midrange desktop GPU or better, the PC is the clear (and only) option. The only conceivable appeal of the Mac Pro is that it runs macOS, but even this is of dubious benefit when it comes to 3D work, as Windows is better supported in this regard. Nvidia GPUs are a big part of that.
That's not the only way to do it, and Intel makes it work. Their Xeon Max processors have 64GB of fast HBM2e that can be used exclusively as only fast RAM, as cache for off-package DDR5 memory which is transparent to software, or in addition to the external memory in which case the software must distribute between faster and slower RAM.
I concede the point on the xeon cpu...its the chief reason why my 7,1 won't last as long as I originally would like it to. However it is based on the fact that for my work, GPU is king of my compute power and as long as I have an up-to-date GPU and the CPU doesn't cause any bottlenecks, I'm fine with it.
As for saving money, you're just looking at it from a myopic perspective of how much you spend now. I can just upgrade my GPU over years while you'll have to upgrade your entire computer unless youre fine with it getting slower and slower over the years. There's no question where the money savings go.
As for your video editing work, obviously the M1 will out perform it because it has dedicated video encoding accelerators...as I've mentioned countless times on these boards, video editing is not and will never be the pinnacle of what constitutes a "professional" user of this type of computer. Your argument is further weakened by the fact that, if you JUST do video editing, the 2023 mac pro is an even MORE waste of money because the performance is basically same as the mac studio because it has the the same SoC.
I really hope this doesn't sound condescending because I don't mean it to, but if you upgrade your computer every 3 years, a typical/classic workstation class product is not something you've usually used. These types of computers tend to last at the bare minimum 5-6 years and they typically are used for up to 10 years or more.
With this new 2023 mac pro, apple might have tried to change its definition, and how convenient for them since they make more money, but that's not how desktop workstations are typically used and its not how mac pros were used up until this garbage that apple pulled. I'm just so shocked at how many people are defending decisions where functionality is removed for a more expensive computer.
But not everyone uses a GPU for what you need too. And no I don't just do video editing work. And the Mac Studio is very atrocious, I have literally been on the edge of tossing it at my wall in my office because of the stupid whine/whistle it produces. So I will gladly take a Mac Pro over it, even if it performs the same.
I have been in businesses that had a three year refresh even for Dell workstations before. It might not be the norm to replace them in three years, but it does happen.
And like I have said, Apple needed to do SOMETHING to complete the Intel transition. If they did not update it now, it would have been in 2025 or even later maybe before we got a new Mac Pro with Apple Silicon. Apple was already over the two year they told everyone. Waiting until 2025 was not an option. So Apple didn't pull any "garbage", they had no choice.
I do hope there will be an M3 Extreme because it really doesn't make sense having the same SOC.
I am not defending Apple here, I understand what difficult decision that had to make from a business perspective. Also, I was massively against the Vision Pro from Apple. They need to just focus on Macs and Phones please. Vision Pro will just continue to cause quality to go down. And this is why I HATE public companies. Vision Pro exists because "shareholders must have something shiny". Instead of doing what is best for the consumer (ahem how about fixing macOS and iOS please???), public companies do what's best for shareholders in some cases.
Last edited:
Seems weird to me the business would update them every 3 years but if you have experience in that area, fair enough.
As for Apple having to do something...no its completely incorrect. They're the ones who self-imposed the 2 year deadline. They should have just said they would be switching all their computers to apple silicon as they can without disrupting functionality of previous products.
No one stopped them from refreshing the 2019 mac pro in 2020, 2021, 2022 with new intel cpus. They just chose not to because the top echelon is now just run by marketing and MBA people. Including x86 compatibility, including dGPU support even with a GPU in the SoC, including additional RAM support, is all possible. They just refused to do it because the marketers are either 1) pushing a vision of apple silicon on everyone which is completely riduclous. It's ridiculous a cube with no thermal headroom has the same processing power as a tower (as youve mentioned) or 2) they don't want to invest money in this area or 3) both.
We don't know, maybe there was an Intel contract or something so they had to stop selling new Intel products by the 2 or 3 year mark? It is certainly possible, I have been in those contracts myself. Apple could have renewed it sure, but they didn't want another 2013 Mac Pro situation where you are paying for a 2019 Mac Pro in 2025 but with 2019 components.
But the PPC -> Intel was faster than what they predicted. Again, a lot of real-world issues happened that probably messed up a lot of things. I was looking forward to some movie projects that got canceled due to these issues, and some games I was looking forward to were delayed due to it. It even impacted my living, we were on a waiting period for six months in order to replace a broken window because of all the shipping delays and everything. It was a mess for a very long time.
And #1 is why I think this was rushed to meet their 2 year transition (which they were already over). It makes no sense. They could have just canceled the Mac Pro and said just use the Mac Studio. I believe we will see the Mac Pro get better over time. 4x SOC/M1 Extreme and M2 Extreme have been rumors for years. The fact that Apple struggled with scaling with the M1 Ultra I firmly believe there is an M* Extreme that will come.
#2 yeah I think that is part of it too. Like what I said about shareholders. Putting more money in to Vision Pro because "we need a new product line" instead of you know being good to your consumer base. I have a large issue with public companies for this very reason. You must do EVERYTHING possible to maximize your profits. It is actually a requirement if you are a public company. Apple cannot get away from that. So to maximize profits, they focus more on iPhones and try to get in a new market. Which LOL I don't believe AR/VR is the end all be all market everyone else thinks it is. It hasn't taken off enough for YEARS.
Unfortunately, no matter what Apple could do I think GPUs are lost though which is unfortunate. But hopefully an Extreme SOC will make things a bit better.
The Extreme would likely cost at least $10000, have an excessive number of CPU cores, and only have the GPU power of a PC with a single $1500 graphics card. It would certainly be powerful, but not especially cost effective. And still not upgradeable in any meaningful way. Though its role in the range would be a lot clearer.
This is going to anger a lot of you but I ordered a 2023 Mac Pro.
I had a 2019 24 core + W6800x Duo and, after 3 weeks of testing, moved to an M1 Ultra Studio as my main edit/comp machine. The only annoyance has been the 3-4 thunderbolt devices that this necessitated, but the performance upgrade was worth it.
I'd prefer if the 2023 had beefier PCIe layout or upgradable graphics, but its still better than current.
It will be outfitted with 100GbE ethernet, an internal NVME for cache, and an AJA card.
Primary uses are editing Red .r3d, ARRIraw, ProRes etc in Premiere, FCPx, etc.
For heavy 3D moved to Windows long ago so that is not a concern.
I had a 2019 24 core + W6800x Duo and, after 3 weeks of testing, moved to an M1 Ultra Studio as my main edit/comp machine. The only annoyance has been the 3-4 thunderbolt devices that this necessitated, but the performance upgrade was worth it.
I'd prefer if the 2023 had beefier PCIe layout or upgradable graphics, but its still better than current.
It will be outfitted with 100GbE ethernet, an internal NVME for cache, and an AJA card.
Primary uses are editing Red .r3d, ARRIraw, ProRes etc in Premiere, FCPx, etc.
For heavy 3D moved to Windows long ago so that is not a concern.