Apple (IMO wisely) chose to diverge from the furnace-hot modular workstation using $1k graphics cards by others that you suggest. IMO Apple should address users' demands above Studio Ultra with modern architecture, not by regressing to dinosaur Threadripper architecture.
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.
Apple Working on Next-Gen Mac Studio and Mac Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pro chip performance is kind of irrelevant. The Max chip is the one that matters when evaluating performance.
That’s a nice sentiment. But there’s no evidence they intend to do so.
Apple is one size fits all now. And that size is mobile.
If so, then all pro markets including video, music, photo, illustration, and more will also shrink eventually as they dont want to make powerful Mac. Kinda sad to see this especially since Apple's main interest is mobile such as iOS and iPhone.
Nonsense. Apple's lineup of Macs is excellent, not one size fits all now. MBA, MBP; Mini, Studio, Studio Ultra comprise a beautifully configured product lineup that serves the needs of >99% of computer users very well. Only at the very highest end Mac Pro are they stumbling.
I’d prefer Apple release another energy heavy Intel Mac Pro with dual GPUs and make the fastest consumer machine… and charge us $5K - $10K instead of a MacMini with an AS Max that has the same restrictions as a MBP.
Give me a workstation.
Give me a workstation.
15 years ago I agreed with your sentiments. But today an M2 MBP or Studio with 96 GB of UMA RAM available easily meets my needs - - and that could be doubled with a Studio Ultra if I needed it. And that is just M2, with M3 on the horizon.
Sure, but they are all using the same socs. There is very little real differentiation between those models
We disagree. Base, pro and max level chips are each very different. And products are further individually differentiated via ports, RAM, video, etc.
M3 remains on the horizon for the Studio product I was discussing.
The Mac Pro is dead, this is a Mac Studio Pro under the old name.
but it's going to be the same chip that's the MacBook Pro. The ultra is just two max chips.
the base, pro and max have different numbers of cores (probably just different bins) and different numbers of memory controllers, that's it. they are still all iterations of a mobile chip.
you can configure whatever ram with whatever machine, just depends on the chips.
what is "video, etc?"
It's a MacBook Pro in a big box with pci slots and no keyboard or display .
In understand the sentiment but the GPU on AS doesn’t compare to modern day GPUs. Plus, and this is from my own experience and not based on any study or other data, AS has far more bugs than Intel Macs.
I want the MacPro to be a truly world-class supercomputer. Like it used to be. Now it’s just a MBP in a big box with PCIe.
Apple isn't going to reverse the 2024 downtrend with updates to existing products, or a $4,000 toy.
Apple needs something new, and I know just what that is. For just $500M, I'll tell them what! Hint: it's about vehicles, and no, it ain't an Apple car.
Apple needs something new, and I know just what that is. For just $500M, I'll tell them what! Hint: it's about vehicles, and no, it ain't an Apple car.
Very slim chance of that. The M2 Ultra is a fairly massive package and the M3 Ultra will only be larger. I think the “quad” design was only something that was researched, but ultimately abandoned by Apple.
In my opinion, based off the recent change in design of the M3 Pro as compared to the M3 Max, Apple is working on a unique design for the rumored “Mx Extreme” variant. It won’t double the Ultra but will come with a significant increase in CPU and GPU cores. By creating a unique design Apple can dump all the redundancy that would come with quadrupling the Max and add other things, like more PCIe lanes.
Dinosaur is a false assessment, I'm afraid. You can get 96C/192T and 128 PCIe lanes for 350W TDP. The M2 Ultra is rated by Apple to have a max TDP of 295W "running a compute-intensive test application that maximizes processor usage and therefore power consumption." So for 50 more Watts, the "dinosaur" gets you a lot more cores and connectivity--oh, and up to 2TB of memory, and you can hook it up to the GPU of your liking (like if you need CUDA). Ryzen is way more efficient than the AM5 socket spec would have you believe. They lose very little performance running at much lower TDPs. Not taking away from what Apple has done, but AMD's design is also really good, and scales much better for workstation tasks. I don't see how Apple can modify their design to accommodate massive amounts of RAM, or to support any other GPU than what they include. Maybe they could do the latter, but the former is severely limited by the UMA design and the memory being on package.
The Mac Studio is an example of being designed for M-Series. The 2019 Mac Pro chassis was designed for Intel. It currently runs the same M2 Ultra chip as the Studio, and yet it’s significantly bigger and heavier. There are several YT videos you can find that document that it actually doesn’t run any better or even much cooler since 2 of the 3 fans are directing air into a basically unused portion of the machine.
Basically if the design originated when intel chips were being used, then it’s safe to assume it’s not fully optimized for M-Series. M-series has vastly different thermal considerations, size, etc and that effects things like materials, thickness, heat sinks, fans, etc etc.
Last edited:
Fair enough...!
Yes, the Cheesegrater 2.0 could be redesigned to a smaller chassis, and unless Apple decides to grant us Apple silicon (GP)GPUs and increase the actual bandwidth to the PCIe slots, probably half of those slots could go away...
Apple could go even smaller if it offered something that was more than a Mac Studio, but without the "encumbrance" of PCIe slots; I, for one, would love to see a Mn Extreme Mac (Pro) Cube...! ;^p
You keep saying $6000 premium like it's a fact. A fully specced identical mac studio is $8,799 before tax while the same Mac Pro is $11,799 before tax. That's $3000 not $6000. You factor in external cases for pci cards and upgrading UAD cards to match internal performance, and oh look. There goes your $3000 premium.
So you don't know because your math is way off. Meanwhile, those buying Mac Pros (and they are selling) are probably more thrilled than I to get a fully specced one for $12,000 instead of $50,000.
Bottom line: don't expect people without pci cards to get it. Least of all on youtube.
Last edited:
While the recent Mac Pro has been criticized by some as a poor value with fuzzy market targeting, I think that Apple can make this a highly desirable machine by doing the following:![]()
Apple is working on a new Mac Studio that is likely to launch in the second half of 2024, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman believes.
![M3-Mac-Pro-and-Studio-Feature.jpg]()
Gurman mentioned the details in this weekend's edition of the "Power On" newsletter. He explained that the new Mac Studio is likely to be offered with the as-yet-unannounced fourth variant of the M3 chip. This will, like previous generations, double the components of the "Max" version, meaning that it will feature up to 32 CPU cores and 80 GPU cores.
Taiwanese research firm TrendForce believes that Apple will launch a new Mac Studio featuring the M3 Ultra chip at WWDC in June, just as it did with the M2 Max and M2 Ultra Mac Studio last year. Prior to the launch of these models in 2023, Gurman reported that Apple was already working on two follow-up machines.
Gurman also believes, contrary to suggestions earlier in the week, that Apple is likely to refresh the Mac Pro with this new high-end chip. He does not believe that Apple is likely to again abandon the machine after only one year.
He added that while upcoming devices such as the M3 MacBook Air could be popular if marketed properly, the Mac roadmap for 2024 is looking "otherwise muted," suggesting some skepticism about Apple's ability to turn the Mac's underperforming sales around.
Article Link: Apple Working on Next-Gen Mac Studio and Mac Pro
1) Make the processor modular. By doing this, businesses would now be buying into an infrastructure, and would save money in the long run since they could get a credit for their current module trade-in, and upgrade at a price below a Mac Studio. Also, time is saved since expansion cards and drivers don't need to be reinstalled.
2) Make dual CPU modules. That's right- go back to the dual g4 days. Of course you're not going to get double the speed of an M3 Ultra, but the OS and CPU bus could in theory be tweaked to yield 1.75x which is what the original M1 Ultra was giving over the M1 Max anyway. Moreover, Apple can set the module prices so that the "dollar per performance" graphs just make a fully tricked out Mac Pro a better overall value.
3) Make the modules liquid cooled. Yes, this is an added expense, but hear me out. You're buying a Mac Pro because you want the best of the best, the cre'me de la cre'me, the - you get the point. And for this reason, the chips for the MP are typically binned for higher frequency which makes them expensive. If however, the modules are more like a liquid cooled graphics card, then 15% performance gains could be achieved with standard chips while also preserving chassis space. This in turn, would partially mitigate the less than 2x performance gain from dual configurations.
4) While not presently critical, PCie 4.0 at full speed per slot would be a practical forward thinking move. As module speed increases and new cards increase their bus speeds, businesses would likewise increase the value of their chassis investment through longevity.
If Apple did this, then I would buy a Mac Pro, because I could have one machine with near double the speed of an Ultra, I would have the flexibility for internal SSD and AV expansion, and I could easily upgrade as needs demand.