MP All Models Is Apple ****ing themselves over the ThreadRipper 3 yet?

[Slash-2CPU]

I don’t think Threadripper shouldn’t be compared to Xeon, TR is a desktop chip, in the same market segment as intels x299 platform i7 and i9 HEDT chips a more direct comparison should be with AMDs Epyc platform, which is also making big strides in the server/ datacenter side. I’m not sure how different their architectures are. But in the consumer desktop space AMD are really shaking the intel tree. intel has stalled for years whilst AMD has cought up, competition is good and the Performance gap for consumers is closing or in some cases has flipped. I just got my daughter a Ryzen (3500u)windows laptop for school and it performs the same or better than the equivalent intel model (i5-8265u) with a better GPU, for much lower price. there are people out there that are running AMD hackintosh machines via a vm hyper visor dedicating one core to the VM managment and the rest of the cores to run the Mac, and the extra cores are brute force outperforming current macs on cheaper chips. Sorry for the rambling

Intel uses Xeon branding for workstation CPU’s and server CPU’s. It’s a hangover from the mid-90’s where you had Celeron, Pentium or Xeon.

The W Xeons in the 7,1 Mac Pro are Workstation Xeons. They are direct competition to TR, which is also a workstation CPU.

i7/i9 is high end desktop. 3800-3950X is also high end desktop. The exception being the 10980XE or others like it. With 48 PCIe lanes, it has a bit more expansion than any Ryzen part. Those are kind of “W Xeon lite” chips and line up against TR in some respects and 3800-3950X in core count and CPU performance.

Xeon Scalable is Epyc’s competition.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Either do things right and stop doing secrecy and design for Ive stuff and make a truly professional machine, with up to date cost per price ratio, that can compete with other comparable machine

Not sure what's left in between? People who absolutely must use MacOS no matter the compromises?

There’s no machine comparable to the Mac Pro, because, no matter how powerful ANY other system is at general purpose tasks, the Mac Pro runs Final Cut Pro X and Logic Pro X better and faster than all of them.

Once you understand that, at the high end, Apple’s only making systems for those forced (or have a very strong desire) to use Apple’s apps, apps that, year over year, continue to see significant improvements that make that $299 initial purchase a bargain, then you understand that they’re mostly above the AMD/Intel fray. They could come out with an os that runs on Raspberry Pi and that fails every single generic benchmark by HUGE amounts. However, if it still runs Final Cut Pro X better than anything out there (which effectively, is anything that’s not it), it’s still a “winner”.

 

[Pressure]

There’s no machine comparable to the Mac Pro, because, no matter how powerful ANY other system is at general purpose tasks, the Mac Pro runs Final Cut Pro X and Logic Pro X better and faster than all of them.

Once you understand that, at the high end, Apple’s only making systems for those forced (or have a very strong desire) to use Apple’s apps, apps that, year over year, continue to see significant improvements that make that $299 initial purchase a bargain, then you understand that they’re mostly above the AMD/Intel fray. They could come out with an os that runs on Raspberry Pi and that fails every single generic benchmark by HUGE amounts. However, if it still runs Final Cut Pro X better than anything out there (which effectively, is anything that’s not it), it’s still a “winner”.

You could always run MacOS in a kernel-based VM with full hardware acceleration. Sure that would purr along nicely on an 64-core Threadripper.

 

[teagls]

There’s no machine comparable to the Mac Pro, because, no matter how powerful ANY other system is at general purpose tasks, the Mac Pro runs Final Cut Pro X and Logic Pro X better and faster than all of them.

That doesn't sound sustainable. I'm stuck on Mac because of iOS specific development. I literally have to use two Macs and run synergy between them because a single machine physically can't do everything. It's ****ing ridiculous. At some point people will get fed up and find another – better alternative.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

That doesn't sound sustainable. I'm stuck on Mac because of iOS specific development. I literally have to use two Macs and run synergy between them because a single machine physically can't do everything. It's ****ing ridiculous. At some point people will get fed up and find another – better alternative.

What task requires two Macs? I have iOS developers and they all do their job on one.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

You could always run MacOS in a kernel-based VM with full hardware acceleration. Sure that would purr along nicely on an 64-core Threadripper.

Oh, I’m not saying that there aren’t valid options that will “Make it Happen”, like, as science experiments. However, if someone came to me looking for a production ready, higher performing solution for Final Cut Pro X because they just got a 6 figure contract to edit a movie, I’m not going to start them with buying a non-macOS solution then forcing macOS into it.

That doesn't sound sustainable. I'm stuck on Mac because of iOS specific development. I literally have to use two Macs and run synergy between them because a single machine physically can't do everything. It's ****ing ridiculous. At some point people will get fed up and find another – better alternative.

It’s infinitely sustainable as long as macOS is required to develop iOS apps, and iOS apps open developers up to a HUGE number of existing customers, all that have their credit cards in the App Store with one click between the developer and customer monies. I mean, just examining your personal situation... it’s a pain for you, and it’s ridiculous and you’re gonna KEEP doing it. Because if there was a better alternative that offered the same potential payout as iOS development, you would have jumped quick for that a long time ago. To get absurd with it, Apple could require 5 separate boxes to be connected via Thunderbolt for code development TOMORROW, and the orders would be backlogged immediately with delivery not expected for months.

Now, if it ever becomes true that Final Cut Pro X, Logic Pro X and iOS development can be done on something that’s NOT macOS... that’s when you know that Apple has given up on macOS and macOS hardware.

 

[ssgbryan]

There’s no machine comparable to the Mac Pro, because, no matter how powerful ANY other system is at general purpose tasks, the Mac Pro runs Final Cut Pro X and Logic Pro X better and faster than all of them.

Once you understand that, at the high end, Apple’s only making systems for those forced (or have a very strong desire) to use Apple’s apps, apps that, year over year, continue to see significant improvements that make that $299 initial purchase a bargain, then you understand that they’re mostly above the AMD/Intel fray. They could come out with an os that runs on Raspberry Pi and that fails every single generic benchmark by HUGE amounts. However, if it still runs Final Cut Pro X better than anything out there (which effectively, is anything that’s not it), it’s still a “winner”.

So, pay anywhere from $6,000 to $$$,$$$ for a dongle for FCX and Logic?

How big is that market? 10 - 25% of the 6,1 sales

 

[deconstruct60]

Well if you want to see how the 28 core Xeon W-3175X ($3000) compares to the new Threadripper CPUs (24core at $1400 or 32core at $2000)you can check out Anandtech's review. (18core i9-10980XE and 16core Ryzen are also there)

the 3175X is relatively immaterial to the Mac Pro 2019. The MP 2019 only takes W 3200 series parts. That 3175x is a kludge that Intel threw together to do some high core count , high frequencing drag racing. It is basically a dead in as far as MP is concerned. Fewer PCI-e lanes than support the slots speeds and feeds that the Mac Pro is designed for.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1504...3960x-and-3970x-review-24-and-32-cores-on-7nm

"AMD has scored wins across almost all of our benchmark suite. In anything embarrassingly parallel it rules the roost by a large margin (except for our one AVX-512 benchmark). Single threaded performance trails the high-frequency mainstream parts, but it is still very close. Even in memory sensitive workloads, an issue for the previous generation Threadripper parts, the new chiplet design has pushed performance to the next level. These new Threadripper processors win on core count, on high IPC, on high frequency, and on fast memory."

The anandtech charts in the article above have the i9 10980XE which is closer to what the Xeon W 2200 will be. That target a base clock TDP of 160W ( there is a huge wattage gap between TR3 280W and these 160W ). However, those too aren't the W 3200 series which roll out 205W base line clock load TDP.

Yes, there is be a gap on those benchmarks which trend on core count. But IPC, high frequency gaps really aren't represented well in what has been published so far. It isn't going to completely flip the script. The the gaps may not be as wide as what is being portrayed here ( 'erased the IPC gap". )

 

[Plutonius]

IMHO they should be.

I hate topics like this, but the neglect by Apple on productivity is stunning.

The new AMD ThreadRipper 3 series (3960X, 3970X) vastly outclasses all the top Intel CPU's by a wide margin in productivity. There is literally no competition except the last gen ThreadRipper. Yes TR3 is pricey, yet combined w Nvidia might slam the door shut for the Mac Pro 7.1 being remotely competitive.

I have been using Macs for productivity since Mac OS 6. The addition of Nvidia was huge, and is now a huge loss. My heavy upgraded Mac Pro 4.1 will last me another year or two.

I really prefer Mac OS over Windows, but damn!

Get the tool that best supports you.

If it's not Apple, don't worry about it.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

There’s no machine comparable to the Mac Pro, because, no matter how powerful ANY other system is at general purpose tasks, the Mac Pro runs Final Cut Pro X and Logic Pro X better and faster than all of them.

Once you understand that, at the high end, Apple’s only making systems for those forced (or have a very strong desire) to use Apple’s apps, apps that, year over year, continue to see significant improvements that make that $299 initial purchase a bargain, then you understand that they’re mostly above the AMD/Intel fray. They could come out with an os that runs on Raspberry Pi and that fails every single generic benchmark by HUGE amounts. However, if it still runs Final Cut Pro X better than anything out there (which effectively, is anything that’s not it), it’s still a “winner”.

Wow, by that logic, the trashcan mac pro was a super winner... oh yea, except it wasnt. It was a total disaster to the point that apple had to do an apology tour for what a complete disaster it was...

 

[teagls]

What task requires two Macs? I have iOS developers and they all do their job on one.

I can't comment specifically, but it involves video, AR, machine learning and computer vision.

 

[deconstruct60]

Wow, by that logic, the trashcan mac pro was a super winner... oh yea, except it wasnt. It was a total disaster to the point that apple had to do an apology tour for what a complete disaster it was...

You are deep in denial. The first system to ship after Apple's so called "complete disaster' tour was .... iMac Pro. Which went on to sell a decent amount of . The Mac Pro 2013 wasn't a complete disaster. The folks outside the market a system is targeted for don't really determine if a system is a 'complete disaster' or not. The iMac Pro has about the same 400-500W limitation. Similar embedded GPU solution. Same class of Xeon processor ( single package only) and about the same max core count.

For example the "Dual GPUs" set up did work for some folks which is why Apple put a big effort into doing a Vega II Duo card. It works for some, but not most of the historical Mac Pro user base. The learning curve and software feature base development they went through on that system are being applied to this new one.

Yes there were problems and limitations but no where is there an implication that it was an utter disaster.

Apple missed some sub markets of the Mac Pro segment they wanted to keep a hand in, but the system did work for some customers. Apple explicitly said as much in the first meeting in April 2017.
[automerge]1574881378[/automerge]

.... I literally have to use two Macs and run synergy between them because a single machine physically can't do everything. It's ****ing ridiculous. At some point people will get fed up and find another – better alternative.

Two legacy Mac Pros ?

 

[teagls]

It’s infinitely sustainable as long as macOS is required to develop iOS apps, and iOS apps open developers up to a HUGE number of existing customers, all that have their credit cards in the App Store with one click between the developer and customer monies. I mean, just examining your personal situation... it’s a pain for you, and it’s ridiculous and you’re gonna KEEP doing it. Because if there was a better alternative that offered the same potential payout as iOS development, you would have jumped quick for that a long time ago. To get absurd with it, Apple could require 5 separate boxes to be connected via Thunderbolt for code development TOMORROW, and the orders would be backlogged immediately with delivery not expected for months.

Now, if it ever becomes true that Final Cut Pro X, Logic Pro X and iOS development can be done on something that’s NOT macOS... that’s when you know that Apple has given up on macOS and macOS hardware.

The only reason we are still heavily on iOS is because the cost of AI inference is too high in it's current form. Once the cost goes down everything goes to the cloud. iOS development becomes a thin interface where development is trivial.

 

[fuchsdh]

I must have missed when the Mac platform stopped being viable when G4s were getting clocked by Intel. It took years of Intel consistently beating Motorola and IBM before Apple switched, and that was more, from Steve Jobs’ own words, about per-watt performance and future roadmaps more than anything else. It’s possible Apple’s getting to that point, but they’re not going to say anything until it happens, and it’s a lot of work to change your lineup. AMD only recently started actually being competitive or exceeding Intel; expecting Apple to move faster than a bunch of hot-dodders with LED cases suggests you’re not at all the target audience of their products.





If you want to get an AMD-running machine and it works for you, great. The sky is falling song and dance about the Mac platform flies in the face of reality, however.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

I can't comment specifically, but it involves video, AR, machine learning and computer vision.

Sounds like an edge case that most iOS developers won't encounter rather than doom and gloom for devs on MacOS then.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Oh, I’m not saying that there aren’t valid options that will “Make it Happen”, like, as science experiments. However, if someone came to me looking for a production ready, higher performing solution for Final Cut Pro X because they just got a 6 figure contract to edit a movie, I’m not going to start them with buying a non-macOS solution then forcing macOS into it.

Except I find myself receiving this email over and over: We need something more powerful than Apple sells, what can you put together these days? There's a market for it, and they need support. And the bottom line is that these solutions can absolutely be made to run in mission-critical spaces.

There are big companies out there with small but important groups who need every competitive advantage they can get. Some individuals are actually waiting for Apple to try and enforce the EULA.

There used to be Mac Pro benchmarks on Geekbench - with 30, 50+ core counts. Not all of these are enthusiasts in basements.

 

[teagls]

Sounds like an edge case that most iOS developers won't encounter rather than doom and gloom for devs on MacOS then.

All those technologies are the future... your iOS developers must be doing very basic stuff.

 

[koyoot]

I must have missed when the Mac platform stopped being viable when G4s were getting clocked by Intel. It took years of Intel consistently beating Motorola and IBM before Apple switched, and that was more, from Steve Jobs’ own words, about per-watt performance and future roadmaps more than anything else. It’s possible Apple’s getting to that point, but they’re not going to say anything until it happens, and it’s a lot of work to change your lineup. AMD only recently started actually being competitive or exceeding Intel; expecting Apple to move faster than a bunch of hot-dodders with LED cases suggests you’re not at all the target audience of their products.





If you want to get an AMD-running machine and it works for you, great. The sky is falling song and dance about the Mac platform flies in the face of reality, however.

Then you also must have missed the fact that already we have ALL of AMD's APUs in official Kexts of the Mac Os Catalina Beta.

Including one, which is SEMI-CUSTOM product. Ordered by someone else, and designed by AMD.

P.S. Switching from Motorola to IBM, and then to x86 was hard because they were different architectures.

Switching from x86 to x86 is piece of cake.

 

[fuchsdh]

Then you also must have missed the fact that already we have ALL of AMD's APUs in official Kexts of the Mac Os Catalina Beta.

Including one, which is SEMI-CUSTOM product. Ordered by someone else, and designed by AMD.

P.S. Switching from Motorola to IBM, and then to x86 was hard because they were different architectures.

Switching from x86 to x86 is piece of cake.

If you think Apple is going to switch their entire offerings to AMD this coming year, I’ll take you up on that bet.

 

[koyoot]

If you think Apple is going to switch their entire offerings to AMD this coming year, I’ll take you up on that bet.

When we will get USB4 on AM4, that is the moment we will start seeing AMD CPUs in Apple computers.

P.S. Interesting wording you've used there for that bet .

 

[jetjaguar]

Or a dune pro case....which is what I’m doing.

Same .. I really hope it comes out and doesnt get shut down by apple.

 

[carlos700]

I think an unspoken win for AMD EPYC is that they don't charge an extra 2-3K for higher memory capacity support. But no, I don't think Apple is "freaking out" over Threadripper. But it is getting harder to ignore how much better AMD's workstation (and desktop) CPU lineup is over Intel's right now.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

When we will get USB4 on AM4, that is the moment we will start seeing AMD CPUs in Apple computers.

P.S. Interesting wording you've used there for that bet .

I'll modify their bet to all of 2020 and put $1000 to the charity of your choice vs $1000 to the charity of my choice.

 

[basehead617]

There’s no machine comparable to the Mac Pro, because, no matter how powerful ANY other system is at general purpose tasks, the Mac Pro runs Final Cut Pro X and Logic Pro X better and faster than all of them.

As an audio professional, this is related to the key point for me. You can guarantee that pro tools, logic, high end interfaces, etc. will all be HEAVILY tested with the Mac Pro. Whatever needs to be done to make them all work the best they can with the Mac Pro, will happen. The same cannot be said for any frankenstein machine you create with newegg parts and are proud of yourself for. I can't tell you how many times the knowledge base of one of these hardware or software companies is full of caveats about how this TB card doesn't work or that motherboard doesn't work and isn't supported, etc. If you want - not hassle-free, but at least as hassle-free as possible - you can't do better than going with the pro mac products.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

How big is that market? 10 - 25% of the 6,1 sales

No, I’d guess about 100% of the 6,1 sales. Which will be in the tens or hundreds of thousands per quarter TOPS. Well, maybe more like 80 to 90%. I’m sure that SOME are buying it not because it’s the best performance per dollar (probably not) but just because they prefer macOS.
[automerge]1574893349[/automerge]

the trashcan mac pro was a super winner...

Sure was! For every year it was produced, it ran macOS and Final Cut Pro X 100% better than anything produced by the entire rest of the computing market!
[automerge]1574893891[/automerge]

Once the cost goes down everything goes to the cloud. iOS development becomes a thin interface where development is trivial.

Which is fine. The ONLY thing macOS is good for is running Mac apps and development for iOS. Once those things can be done outside macOS, then macOS goes bye bye... and I think that’s Apple’s eventual intent, really.