The Mac Pro used to be the fastest consumer machine. It isn’t and hasn’t been since 2019.
That is the point of the Mac Pro. If AS can’t deliver that, give us a Mac that can.
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
That is the point of the Mac Pro. If AS can’t deliver that, give us a Mac that can.
Precisely why I sold my Mac Pro. The M2 Ultra is roughly on a par with a 24-core Intel CPU and the W6800X Duo. And because Apple is crap at developing/maintaining GPU drivers, Blender will soon drop support for AMD cards. So I got out while the going was good and jumped on the M2 Ultra – all at a considerable loss because practically no-one wants wants the 2019 Mac Pro.
2019 Mac Pro was in no way a consumer machine. It was priced the same as any other 2019 high powered Xeon workstation from Dell, HP or the custom shops like Puget Systems.
Really the only area that is lacking is GPU. Based on my own experience with the M3; my belief is that Apple is more than likely going to beat nVidia in the next 3-5 years. Although right now, Apple is beating them in overall VRAM size.
Yeah I hear you skippermonkey; it is a tough pill to swallow spending that much on the 2019 Mac Pro only to have it beat in 4 years by a laptop. I would probably be happier if Apple at least gave us AMD 7xxx support; but like you say, developers are moving to how AS GPUs work now, so it is kind of a moot point.
I am going to keep mine though; it is just too cool of a case not to and worst case I can turn it into a Windows box down the road.
Based on benchmarks? Some (how much?) software is dependent on CUDA to take advantage of GPU, that appears to be a Nvidia specific product, developed, distributed and supported nVidia.
Well there is the rub. If you have to use software that has to use CUDA, you shouldn't have even been purchasing a Mac once Apple dropped Nvidia GPU support.
Well most software like Adobe for instance back when Metal was just starting, would let you choose between CUDA, OpenCL and Metal.
I am guessing it is really only deep scientific apps that might *require* CUDA to operate. Almost all of the major 3D Apps do not require CUDA. Does it help, of course; but the major ones are also supporting Metal.
Until the 2019 Mac Pro, the PowerMac and Mac Pro was priced at roughly twice the cost of the iMac; fairly reasonably.
I think Apple missed the bus here. There was a market for a smaller Mac Pro styled tower unit, that can be made affordable by being upgradable. Plus software to play at least legacy PC games. My wallet stayed closed and I have lost hope of Apple ever catching on. Too comfortable in their plush offices. Outsourcing the concept may still work.
The Mac Studio and Studio Ultra provide such a wide range of powerful cost-efficient power-efficient computing at the mid-high range of power that the "...market for a smaller Mac Pro styled tower unit, that can be made affordable by being upgradable. Plus software to play at least legacy PC games..." is small and very not cost-effective for Apple. Even though you and I would each buy one.
Agreed. I will have to admit though, the 2019 Mac Pro is still a hell of a nice kit.
Mark Gurman will soon return with another series of obvious statements.
I think an insider from the chip team at Apple (as heard on the Upgrade podcast last year) said that wasn't even a possibility until the M7, because the timeline was pretty clear up through the M6 already.
The 2019 Mac Pro is still the best all-around Mac to run the widest range of applications that are commonly used in professional environments. Native Boot Camp support is important to run Windows apps such as ArcGIS Pro and to use Nvidia GPUs. It would be more expensive to purchase a new dedicated Windows workstation and also a new Mac.
I'd say a hackintosh with 14th gen intel cpu and 6xxx amd gpu is the best all-around Mac to run the widest range of applications used in any environment
The M1 Ultra is overkill for most people.
Scrapped as in useless, defunkt. Clearly, can’t run any GPUs & least of all NVidia; can’t mount NVMEs with Sonoma. I could tell you just how long and what projects for Apple, but I’m retired now & really is none of your business (and these days, if ‘working for Apple’ really has any credibility whatsoever).
That would be a no. And it's always amazing how people products weren't specifically designed for are always such experts iin them despite sales figures and, uh, facts.
Is this claim that a current Apple Silicon engineer speaking using his real name, has made statements about Apple’s ASi roadmap?
Admit it. The whole point of Mac is MacBook, and such fact just got more highlighted in the Apple Silicon era. Apple has been a mobile company for quite a long time, and desktops are such a niche market that those customers are blessed to get what's left of the Apple Silicon designed specifically for the MacBook Pro.
Currently have the base M1 Ultra Studio and it is still more than adequate for photo editing.
Even the base M1 Max is amazing. That's my daily driver and I have to say it's the absolute best desktop computer I have ever owned.
My M1 14" MBPro (64GB Ram & 4TB SSD) and M1 Ultra Mac Studio (128GB Ram and 8TB SDS) handle everything I do with aplomb.
The single cpu speed is nearly the same across each chip in a specific generation (M1 then M2 and now M3). So for most folks, there needs to be an astounding increase in single cpu speeds to make much difference in their computing experience. Does an event that happens in the blink of an eye on an M1 chip now happen in a quarter of the blink of an eye on a M3 chip? If the M1 boots up in 5 seconds and a M2 boots up in 3 seconds, does that 2 seconds time saving justify buying the latest and greatest?
Most folks at home are not calculating re-entry of space stuff in their living room so may not need an Apple equivalent of a Craig main frame in their living room
Apple graciously showed me that computers are an expense rather than an asset as they "depreciated" my M1 Ultra Mac Studio that cost around $7,500 to around $1,500 trade in value in less than one year.
I will be interested to read about the M4 series, but it most likely won't generate an over powering urge to buy a M4 device.
The single cpu speed is nearly the same across each chip in a specific generation (M1 then M2 and now M3). So for most folks, there needs to be an astounding increase in single cpu speeds to make much difference in their computing experience. Does an event that happens in the blink of an eye on an M1 chip now happen in a quarter of the blink of an eye on a M3 chip? If the M1 boots up in 5 seconds and a M2 boots up in 3 seconds, does that 2 seconds time saving justify buying the latest and greatest?
Most folks at home are not calculating re-entry of space stuff in their living room so may not need an Apple equivalent of a Craig main frame in their living room
Apple graciously showed me that computers are an expense rather than an asset as they "depreciated" my M1 Ultra Mac Studio that cost around $7,500 to around $1,500 trade in value in less than one year.
I will be interested to read about the M4 series, but it most likely won't generate an over powering urge to buy a M4 device.