As much I would love to purchase the Mac Pro, I'm not so sure about buying one due to it being way overpriced for my taste.
If you need multiple/high bandwidth PCIe slots for specialist I/O, AV or internal storage -> Mac Pro
If you are happy with 4-6 Thunderbolt ports -> Mac Studio
I just don’t understand why the Mac Pro exists. The Mac Studio Ultra seems the smart play.
Answer: High bandwidth, internal PCIe slots - if you don't need those you don't need a Mac Pro.
Yes, there could be some kind of Mac Studio Thunderbolt card slot case... like one could do with graphics cards before Silicon...
These have been around for ages - from Sonnet and the like - but they're limited because PCIe a single TB3 link only has 4 lanes worth of PCIe 3.0 bandwidth, vs. 24 lanes of PCIe 4 available for the PCIe slots in the Mac Pro. They're also quite expensive.
I know a couple of potential Mac Pro buyers still holding on to a faint hope for some sort of M3 Extreme--the mythical 2 x Ultra.
The article is a bit vague but it sounds like Apple may be heading in a different direction - they're talking about a new Ultra chip that isn't just a doubled-up Max. That wouldn't be entirely surprising, since the M3 series has already changed the way regular/max/ultra works.
M1/M2 had two basic die designs: the "regular" and the "max", with the "pro" effectively being a "max" with half the GPU cores and a media engine "chopped off" (maybe not
literally - although the code name
was the "jade chop"!)
M3 now has distinct die designs for the "pro" and "max" variants, with the max now having more CPU cores and a higher performance:economy core ratio - so its maybe not so unlikely that the new Ultra will also be a new design (esp. if its using a different process) rather than a doubled-up Max. Since the M3 Max seems to be turning in M2 Ultra-like performance, the M3 Ultra is probably worth waiting for (if you need that level of power) even if it's not an "extreme".
OTOH, the current Mac Pro
needs the doubled-up design to get the PCIe lanes (they're mostly from the SSD interface on the second die) - maybe Apple will find another way to skin that cat, or maybe the new "doubled up" chip that the article speculates about will be for the Mac Pro.
They could also go for an asymmetrical design with (say) a Max core fused to a GPU chip, as per NVIDIA's Grace/Hopper.
All speculation of course.
That works for some people but for others like me, it's an extra hassle. I always prefer to have a separate desktop and portable device, but then again I do the vast majority of my work at home, and have much lighter needs on my mobile device.
There's still a call for desktops of course, but the move to Apple Silicon has likely taken a huge bite out of the Mac desktop market. With Intel, there was a significant performance gap between the mobile chips in the MBP and the desktop-class chips in the iMacs. With Apple Silicon, until you get to the highest-end "ultra" chip, the MBPs and Mini/Studio all offer the same range of chips with
maybe some minor performance gain due to better cooling on the desktops. So if you want separate desktops and laptops for different workflows, that's fine, but if you want your main workflow "on the move" (e.g. you're working 3 days from home and 2 days in the office - increasingly common) a laptop with desktop-class performance can replace two desktops.
Hence: exit the 27" iMac, enter the Studio Display which is fairly obviously designed as a deluxe MacBook docking station first and foremost (half of the expensive internal gubbins is a huge, slimline power supply to charge a laptop).
I have visited several Apple stores in the past year. Interestingly, I have yet to see anyone looking at a Mac Mini or a Mac Studio. They sit there neglected and all alone. Apple looks like they have lost the desktop business.
My Nan used 30 pieces of anecdotal evidence a day, and she lived to be 96!
Seriously - although I don't think its contentious that laptops now dominate PC sales, you can't judge the state of Mac desktops by visiting a few iPhone stores and looking at the (lack of) crowds surrounding... a boring silver/grey box doing the same thing as all the MacBooks. If I were buying a laptop - or even an iMac - I might want to go to a store, look at the display, try the keyboard, feel the weight etc. A Mini or Studio? Nothing to see - just order one online (or walk straight up to the sales desk). Half the people in the store will just be browsing anyway - or in there to buy junior a MacBook Air or iPhone for 'back to school', and the phones, watches and laptops are always the interesting thing to look at.
On the other hand, my local independent Apple dealer has a history as AV specialist selling pro studio equipment - they don't actually have a showroom, just a coffee table and rubber plant for people dropping off stuff for repair - but If I could see their sales figures it is plausible that they'd be shifting a disproportionate number of Studios and Mac Pros compared to a high street Apple store. If asked the day after they'd just got the contract to kit out a local TV studio with 5 Mac Pros the data would be grossly inflated... Then there's all of those bulk orders by government and corporations which you
can't know because they's be commercially confidential. Note - I'm not saying that proves anything apart from that you can't work out Mac sales figures from one or two random samples, because each will be biassed in some way or another.
Thats why stats like the ones posted earlier in this thread from CIRP should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Apple have accurate sales stats, but they don't share. Anything else is guesswork extrapolated from surveys - and if the link doesn't explain the methodology of the survey, doesn't give confidence intervals,
let alone if it doesn't even specify whether "% sales" mean unit sales or revenue then you might as well roll a dice. No, its not a "snapshot" it's not an "estimate" it's not a "straw poll" -
it is just not valid data.
...and, yes, that covers 93.7% of
all published "statistics". Go figure.
