Apple to Release Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR on December 10

[Reed Black12]

That's not what I said.

The price/performance ratio of this machine is bizarre. The base is very expensive, and not that fast.
The SSD is tiny and there’s a paltry 32 GB of memory, that’s quite terrible, IMO.
I know it’s expandable, but then it will cost even more.

So it's not about price point, its about what you get for that price.

You're getting a very high scalable ceiling for essentially $50 a month over the course of a decade! That's extremely reasonable. I'll upgrade the guts as my needs change but, I don't really care that much about the base specs per se. I can get more ram and an external SSD or NAS for a fairly good price later. I mostly care about the ABILITY to upgrade pretty high down the line. Although great machine's I've never liked the iMac because of their fixed nature. So, I waited and waited and waited like many others. Now a scalable Mac Pro is finally here. Pumped!

 

[smulji]

It's not about whether Apple supports Nvidia, it's that Nvidia is planning on stopping support for CUDA on MacOS in the next version. Nvidia has the ability to support Drivers and CUDA on MacOS if it wants too.

Apple is banking its GPU future on Metal. And Nvidia refuses to support Metal on their GPU's. That's why you'll never see their GPU on Macs.

 

[Spock]

The concern here is if you don't want an integrated display, your only other option is a Mac mini, which is a sealed box (apart from the ram). It feels like there should be something between the $800 mini and the $6000 Pro.

I wish they would have just discontinued the Mac mini and replaced it with a mid tower system with a couple PCI slots, ram slots and options starting at the i3 for low cost and i9 for the higher end and then the Xeon for the Mac Pro. The old PowerMac G3 and G4 had options under $2,000 even the G5 I think.

 

[smulji]

Serious question - what professional audio/video work are you doing on a Linux machine? What applications?

I didn't know it was in use in the industry at all.

If you're not, why are you interested in macs?

Pixar uses Linux machines to help them develop their animations

https://www.cio.com/article/3116489/why-pixar-open-sourced-its-3d-graphics-technology.html

 

[Alan Wynn]

And thats my point. Why is the base configuration $6,000? Don't say it's because of cooling.

Simply because they designed a motherboard that has a great deal of performance headroom. They deliver it with a beefy power supply, and a case that can handle all the thermal load. Apple typically uses a blended margin such that lower priced machines have a lower (and sometimes negative) margin, expecting to make it up with sales of higher priced machines.

You may not want to buy this machine, but I guarantee that the low end machine is not very profitable for them.

 

[andywaynebrooks]

Who cares when there is no Cuda support?

Yeah, that will be a huge disappointment for the 2 or 3 nerds out there who care about this totally obscure feature. I hear it also does not support a floppy drive or a Zip drive.

 

[sfwalter]

I’m not sure the iMac Pro will be updated because it doesn’t make a ton of sense from Apple’s perspective to redesign it along with the regular iMac, whenever they finally decide to show some love to the iMac (long overdue). They’ll likely just fold everything into the iMac line, or the interior design differences between the larger iMac and iMac Pro will vanish.

There’s also the issue where a lot of people in the market for a pro workstation just aren’t interested in an all-in-one.

I personally would prefer not to get an all in one. However Apple doesn’t want to play in that market except for the super high need video editors and such

 

[hojoon0724]

ITT people who don't know what /s means

 

[deconstruct60]

You mean Metal 2/3 long live. The RDNA Architecture has nothing to do with the new Mac Pro, presently. The base model has the GCN Polaris 580 and then it's Vega Pro. It's HBM2 behemoths are GCN Vega VII Pros. The upcoming RDNA II is meant to be the first big Compute capable designs to compete with Nvidia 2080Ti and Lisa Su has said both HBM and GDDR6 based versions will appear.

The 5700 (RDNA / Navi ) is on the list of eGPU supported cards. There is are extremely good chance that will work in the new Mac Pro also. The Mac Pro won't launch with a ( RDNA / Navi ) MPX module, but the new Mac Pro isn't solely limited to MPX modules.

Nvidia 2080 isn't "big compute". Nvidia has V100 and T4 products for "big compute". The big RTX (TU-102 ) dies through lots of die space at niched raytracing and tensor which is only "big compute" in a very narrow area. RDNA II is going down that same niche, but it AMD appears to have something else aimed at more general "big compute " computation.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-arcturus-vega-gpu-support,39935.html
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/68074/amds-next-gen-arcturus-gpu-teased-here-1h-2020/index.html


There is a "bigger" RDNA coming but it is not clear that is lined up with what Apple wants. ( fast track Macs for top end gaming market? Probably not. ). For 7nm (and smaller) going to have to make more tradeoffs at the max die size gets smaller. Can certainly go bigger than what Navi currently is, but will be less able to throw everything and the kitchen sink into one every expanding die size.

The supposed "Nvidia killer" that AMD is suppose to have in RDNA II is more narrowly focused than "big compute". It is probably more so on the gaming side ( as some will be folded into the upcoming 2020 gaming consoles too. ).


If there is a "mid-rangel" RDNA II solution in late 2020 then perhaps Apple would do a MPX 580X replacement with that instead of using something like a 5700 baseline. But "big card" it more likely looks like Apple would take Arcturus (with some HBM bump) than RDNA II.

There is a reason Radeon HBM2 based cards were limited run on the Radeon VII--both Samsung and SK-Hynix have focused on the successor--HBM2e.

Probably a bigger reason was that the Radeon VII was a either a money loser or very close to break even. Those were probably allocated as offsets to the MI50 and MI60 they sold are much higher margins. Using a "big" die as a pipe cleaner for getting onto the 7nm process was probably more than a little expensive.

It also wouldn't be very surprising if the Vega II was late ( which will probably have a substantively higher price point) and so AMD also have 'extra' dies they needed a 'sink' to divert some supply to. And on top of that Navi was also also substantively late ( had to do a bug fix tape out for fixes. )

I'm sure AMD will use HDM2e (epsecially in some upcoming Apple products ), but that wasn't the major hold up on Vega20 microarchtiecture.

Apple needs as much Metal capable resources it can get its hands on, from Macbooks to Mac Pros. CUDA is a competitor to Apple Metal APIs--something nearly everyone on this site overlooks. Apple has zero interest nor need to add Nvidia to its mix of AMD discrete and Intel integrated GPU capable solutions for Metal. Apple took the best of OpenCL--their invention, and released Metal long before Vulkan/DX12 were a reality.

Errr. not really. Especially in a macOS context.

Metal on macOS. 2015
Mantle ( pre-cursor foundation for Vulkan ) 2013 (https://www.anandtech.com/show/7371/understanding-amds-mantle-a-lowlevel-graphics-api-for-gcn )
Vulkan 2016 ( but started off when AMD handed over Mantle in 2014-2015 as 'starting point' because wide consensus was extremely slow in developing around what "gl-next" would be. Mantle was a far more concrete starting point than "green field" committee product. )

The pre-cursor to DX12 was also in the Mantle timeframe.

There was lots of research into what were the choke points on OpenCL in the 2009-2012 timeframe that had several groups moving toward very similar solutions. Microsoft's , Nvidia , and Googles somewhat roadblocking OpenCL also occurred around that time. ( and OpenCL 2.0 taking some specs (more C++ flavor) that Apple didn't entirely like. ). If there wasn't as much committee 'drama' around 'gl-next' and 'OpenCL' Apple might have gone that way. Instead what they were seeing is a couple of powerful players trying to push a more fragmented foundation layer. Frankly, Apple had the money and resources to go that route too. Coupled to the iOS growth path they'd have a very large ecosystem (and userbase ) to drive demand too.

Metal was initially only primarily a shading language replacement. Its general purpose compute was (and still is a decent amount) relatively limited. Apple's tossing OpenCL for Metal isn't a good fit as much as it is convenient (for Apple ) .

 

[pertusis1]

There's nothing to argue. I'm talking about the Mac Pro and he's talking about a different product from 30 years go.

The reason I went back to the Iici is that everyone here wants to go back to the MacPro 1,1-5,1 for their point of reference. Sure, the current machine is more expensive than that. My point is that the current price is not setting some new record. It's well within a historical framework for high-ish end computers.

I would add that lots of people spend $30k plus for a car they drive 30 minutes a day. It does not seem that outlandish to spend half of that for a computer that they drive 8 hours a day, and which they use to earn a living (faster).

 

[wilhoitm]

You mean Metal 2/3 long live. The RDNA Architecture has nothing to do with the new Mac Pro, presently. The base model has the GCN Polaris 580 and then it's Vega Pro. It's HBM2 behemoths are GCN Vega VII Pros. The upcoming RDNA II is meant to be the first big Compute capable designs to compete with Nvidia 2080Ti and Lisa Su has said both HBM and GDDR6 based versions will appear.

In 2020 both Samsung's HBM2e or SK-Hynix based memory and range from 16GB, 32GB, 64GB [depending upon the stack sizes between 4-16 GB per stack] options will be available. The world of ``8GB of GDDR6'' is all you'll ever need is wearing thin.

SK-Hynix: https://www.skhynix.com/eng/pr/pressReleaseView.do?seq=2809&offset=1

Samsung: https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/dram/hbm-aquabolt/

There is a reason Radeon HBM2 based cards were limited run on the Radeon VII--both Samsung and SK-Hynix have focused on the successor--HBM2e.

Apple needs as much Metal capable resources it can get its hands on, from Macbooks to Mac Pros. CUDA is a competitor to Apple Metal APIs--something nearly everyone on this site overlooks. Apple has zero interest nor need to add Nvidia to its mix of AMD discrete and Intel integrated GPU capable solutions for Metal. Apple took the best of OpenCL--their invention, and released Metal long before Vulkan/DX12 were a reality.

Metal 3 was announced at WWDC 2019, but the final product isn't out yet. I suspect that happens the day the Mac Pro goes on sale.

http://metalkit.org/2019/06/10/introducing-metal-3.html

Both Apple and AMD have been moving targets on when RDNA II and Metal 3 to take advantage of the RDNA based architecture will be generally available for the Mac platform.

Thanks for that info about Metal 3!

The new 16" MacBook Pros are running with the AMD RDNA Architecture with the AMD 5300M and 5500M chips!

https://www.patentlyapple.com/paten...s-found-in-apples-new-macbook-pro-lineup.html

I think I am going to get and start out with the $799 AMD W5700 in my 2019 Mac Pro instead of AMD Radeon Pro Vega II that uses the older Vega architecture and see how it performs.

 

[fathergll]

Simply because they designed a motherboard that has a great deal of performance headroom. They deliver it with a beefy power supply, and a case that can handle all the thermal load. Apple typically uses a blended margin such that lower priced machines have a lower (and sometimes negative) margin, expecting to make it up with sales of higher priced machines.

You may not want to buy this machine, but I guarantee that the low end machine is not very profitable for them.

I haven't seen a specific parts break down on it which I'll be curious when that does happen but with that said a 2012 cheesegrater started at about $2800 in 2019 dollars. I understand they went apparently went all out but we are talking something that is literally over twice as expensive. Like I said before, it's like Ford taking away the F-150 and only offering the F-450.

 

[applesed]

I get a chuckle from the fact that the $6k base model has only a 256GB SSD (as reported).

Yes, storage can be expanded, and the target market will no doubt use networked storage for work, but even the base iMac Pro gets a 1TB SSD standard.

That is interasante

 

[realtuner]

I’m amazed how many people here don’t get sarcasm, even when you include the /s tag.

 

[falainber]

Yeah, that will be a huge disappointment for the 2 or 3 nerds out there who care about this totally obscure feature. I hear it also does not support a floppy drive or a Zip drive.

People paying $6K for a computer do it for very specific reasons and those reasons very often require use of CUDA. You are talking as if these computers will be purchased by your typical clueless Apple customer.

 

[deconstruct60]

It's not about whether Apple supports Nvidia, it's that Nvidia is planning on stopping support for CUDA on MacOS in the next version. Nvidia has the ability to support Drivers and CUDA on MacOS if it wants too.

It probably isn't a Nvidia ( or Apple) only issue.

As long as Nvidia holds onto the notion that for CUDA to win Metal has to loose ( or at least relegated to 2nd place) then Apple isn't going to sign off on their drivers. You can spin that as 'can support' but when have to Mac into 'hack mode' to get the driver to load .... that isn't the normal definition of technical support. ( that is more like 'happens to work'. ).

The macOS kernels are going to get tighter security in future models (i.e., the driver format and mechanisms are changing.) and even on that rouge path Nvidia's options would be limited going forward.

Apple also is probably making some big asks of graphics drivers component suppliers too. Apple is also moving to being a more full fledge GPU component provider so Navidia could be doing lots more work for fewer design wins.

There is two big mismatches here. First for Apple, possible CUDU on Mac revenue versus Metal on iOS . Second for Nvidia , possible CUDA on Mac revenue versus CUDA on Linux(Datacenter) and Windows . As long as those two sides are primarily looking at the issue from that two different perspectives they probably are going to just sit and wait for the "other side" to blink.

If Apple was going to sell a 1M Mac Pros in 1-2 years maybe Nvidia would concede. It will probably be an order of magnitude less than that. Very similar from Apple's side. If Intel's discrete GPU is more than just decent then Apple will have two external GPU suppliers and their own internal stuff. Nvidia doesn't have deep leverage if unwilling to do what the others are willing to do.

 

[alexandr]

I'm specifically responding to your desire for their sales to be absolute crap. That comes across as jealously and frustration borne out of the price of the machine that I'm 100% certain you want. For the record, literally one job for a professional pays for this machine's base price. And if were really honest - that's a week and half worth of work. So, again - doesn't sound like this machine is for you. iMac Pro is still out there. Or a maxed out spec'd PC will do you fine, Alexandr.

your certainty is failing you - i don't need those specs for that money, i would love for there to be a simpler model(or two) for a more reasonable price for those of us who don't need all the bells and whistles. and apple being a consumer brand(and a great one) should be giving options, and not creating one super high end model and nothing else. and btw this may not have been clear - i'm speaking of the display only.

 

[fathergll]

The reason I went back to the Iici is that everyone here wants to go back to the MacPro 1,1-5,1 for their point of reference.

Well obviously. Wouldn't you agree that would far more sense to compare the price of the last Mac Pros from 6-7 years ago over an example from 1989?

Sure, the current machine is more expensive than that. My point is that the current price is not setting some new record. It's well within a historical framework for high-ish end computers.

I don't understand the relevancy of comparing electronics from 30 year ago to today. It's like chiming in that the first Apple from 1976 would have cost $3,000 today.

I would add that lots of people spend $30k plus for a car they drive 30 minutes a day. It does not seem that outlandish to spend half of that for a computer that they drive 8 hours a day, and which they use to earn a living (faster).

I don't disagree that vast majority of people are living over their heads considering the auto loan delinquencies are at a all time high and that bubble will pop like housing did in '09...with that said if the price of a product(Mac Pro) doubles in a 6 year period then that is outlandish.

 

[jlocker]

I was going to get a Mac Pro $6000 unit it is worth every penny, when people talk about building their own computer they only look at the processor, or storage or memory. What is the real meat and potatoes is the bus speed and backplane speeds. And apple engineers the heck out of the underling structure. So you might get parts and slap in on a motherboard, the motherboard will never have the speed of the Mac Pro.

I decided to go with a MacBook Pro 16 with 32 gigs of ram, 2TB of storage, which I split for Bootcamp for Windows 10 and the AMD 5500 with 8GB of ram. Got a Razer Core X to use my Vega 64 card that ran in my old Mac Pro before it died. And The whole setup was like $3600 dollars. The nice think about the MacBook Pro it is portable and I can take it to work vs sitting at home not being used. So instead of keep a Mac Pro for 10 years, and upgrading, I decided to get a MacBook Pro and upgrade ever 5 years, so I will get upgraded technology. But still having the option to upgrade the video card in a year or 2 maybe even twice.

This MacBook Pro 16 is awesome and worth every penny. If you are looking for a desktop, that is expandable, tell Apple, I want a Mac mini pro with this kinds of things and feed back to Apple. Apple might grant you your wish next year, That is why you need to use Apple Feedback page to tell them what you want.

Technology has a limited life span so the more time it is not being used, the less value per dollar spent the equipment.

Well maybe when I retire in 10 years I will get a 2030 Mac Pro tower work out of the house from

 

[smulji]

I was going to get a Mac Pro $6000 unit it is worth every penny, when people talk about building their own computer they only look at the processor, or storage or memory. What is the real meat and potatoes is the bus speed and backplane speeds. And apple engineers the heck out of the underling structure. So you might get parts and slap in on a motherboard, the motherboard will never have the speed of the Mac Pro.

I decided to go with a MacBook Pro 16 with 32 gigs of ram, 2TB of storage, which I split for Bootcamp for Windows 10 and the AMD 5500 with 8GB of ram. Got a Razer Core X to use my Vega 64 card that ran in my old Mac Pro before it died. And The whole setup was like $3600 dollars. The nice think about the MacBook Pro it is portable and I can take it to work vs sitting at home not being used. So instead of keep a Mac Pro for 10 years, and upgrading, I decided to get a MacBook Pro and upgrade ever 5 years, so I will get upgraded technology. But still having the option to upgrade the video card in a year or 2 maybe even twice.

This MacBook Pro 16 is awesome and worth every penny. If you are looking for a desktop, that is expandable, tell Apple, I want a Mac mini pro with this kinds of things and feed back to Apple. Apple might grant you your wish next year, That is why you need to use Apple Feedback page to tell them what you want.

Technology has a limited life span so the more time it is not being used, the less value per dollar spent the equipment.

Well maybe when I retire in 10 years I will get a 2030 Mac Pro tower work out of the house from

I suggest you get a Pro XDR display to go with your 16" MBP.

 

[Alan Wynn]

People paying $6K for a computer do it for very specific reasons and those reasons very often require use of CUDA. You are talking as if these computers will be purchased by your typical clueless Apple customer.

Sorry, you have no evidence that those reasons “very often require CUDA”. There are certainly cases that do, and way more that do not.

 

[cmaier]

I wish they would have just discontinued the Mac mini and replaced it with a mid tower system with a couple PCI slots, ram slots and options starting at the i3 for low cost and i9 for the higher end and then the Xeon for the Mac Pro. The old PowerMac G3 and G4 had options under $2,000 even the G5 I think.

Ah, the old “mid tower post.”

been awhile since I’ve seen one of these.
[automerge]1575836884[/automerge]

People paying $6K for a computer do it for very specific reasons and those reasons very often require use of CUDA. You are talking as if these computers will be purchased by your typical clueless Apple customer.

Most Apple customers are very clue-full. That’s why they aren’t buying disposable windows machines.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I haven't seen a specific parts break down on it which I'll be curious when that does happen but with that said a 2012 cheesegrater started at about $2800 in 2019 dollars. I understand they went apparently went all out but we are talking something that is literally over twice as expensive. Like I said before, it's like Ford taking away the F-150 and only offering the F-450.

Sorry, but the Mac Pro you love, topped out at a level way below this one. This machine has so much more headroom that they are not even comparable. Again, as I pointed out before, the 2018 Mac Mini is way closer in relative specs to the 2012 Mac Pro than the 2012 Mac Pro top configuration is to the 2019 Mac Pro.

 

[dogslobber]

"Can't innovate, my ass".
[automerge]1575837189[/automerge]
I forgot all about this brass neck:

"... with an add-on stand priced at $999"

 

[bluecoast]

I love debating things on here as much as the next person, but too many of the replies on this thread feel like:

‘I define myself as a prosumer. I should be able to buy Apple high-end products & I can’t afford the Mac Pro thorefore I’m going to complain about it’.

This a machine that’s made for high end professional use. If you don’t absolutely need this machine’s power to deliver your work but would quite like a powerful rig, it’s just not for you.