No. I'm saying that the degree to which the GPU options on the 2023 Mac Pro are worse than the 2019 Mac Pro is much smaller than the degree to which both Mac Pros (let alone all Mac Pros) are poor choices for those prioritizing GPU performance above all else.
Again, you're taking a multi dimensional choice and folding it down to a single dimension: GPU benchmarks.
There are a lot of reasons people bought the 2019 Mac Pro for GPU work. Heck - Radeons even sell on the PC side. Saying the Mac Pro was a bad choice because it had Radeons continues to be nonsense.
Are there reasons someone might choose a GeForce based computer? Yes. But that doesn't make the Mac Pro a bad choice.
Yes. There are already SEVERAL of these threads out there. And no one is contributing anything new to them. It's the same five of you complaining about the same things over and over, ad nauseam..
Great. No one is forcing you to be here.
Relative to the Mac, sure. It was a great option. Relative to the rest of the industry, and for the cost? It's not competitive. Do recall that the original comment I replied to of yours was asserting that the 2019 Mac Pro was a competitive machine.
You keep saying this - and as I keep pointing out - competitive does not mean it's the best in every performance axis.
There was even a lot of utility in having upgradable GPUs year over year. A lot of users didn't care about raw performance but needed a machine where they could keep up with new versions of Metal.
Oh yeah? Give me numbers to back that up. I'm pretty sure that, for workstation-caliber graphics, NVIDIA vastly outnumbers AMD's marketshare and by a wide margin. Those cards are out of line for "the industry" of workstation computer graphics because most workstations ship with NVIDIA.
I'm kind of scratching my head here. That's both true and misses the point. A vast majority of CPUs sold are Intel. Does that mean AMD is non competitive?
You must not follow Apple news closely then.
Hah. Yes. I'm intimately familiar with everything in that video.
Apple spells it out for you and the entire rest of the world what they intended to do with GPUs across the ENTIRE Mac lineup. And that video predates the 2023 Mac Pro announcement by three years.
Sure. You can go back to my posts discussing this on this forum in 2020 when that video was posted. If not I'll re-summarize:
- That architecture technically does not rule out swappable GPUs. (Shared address space can work across removable GPUs.)
- That video does not rule out a competitive GPU (say like a rumored M2 Extreme that seems like it was cancelled.)
The fact that you didn't pay attention to it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
I don't think your "facts" are quite what you think they are.
Apple's priorities are not YOUR priorities nor MY priorities nor the priorities of anyone else in this or any thread. This has always been the case. Why it's suddenly a problem for you and everyone else complaining about this specific machine as though this specific machine is the start of that systemic problem is beyond me. Some of us have been on the wrong end of these kinds of decisions made by Apple for decades.
Again - you're conflating things. Apple could have architected a machine would would have been competitive (M2 Extreme.) They chose not to. Longer reach - but they could have worked on removable GPUs that still had a unified address space. They didn't.
Apple Silicon is not incompatible with these things. Even within the guardrails of what they outlined in the 2020 video there are still options.
Again, you made the claim that the 2019 Mac Pro was feature for feature component for component comparable to the other contemporary Xeon workstations out there and have been moving the goalpost since.
I don't think this goalpost has moved at all. I mentioned that you could even put the same Nvidia cards in a Mac Pro and you freaked out.
Apple even mentions installed Nvidia cards in a tech doc here:
PCIe cards you can install in your Mac Pro (2019) - Apple Support
Learn about the Apple MPX Modules and some of the third-party PCIe cards you can install in your Mac Pro.
It is for most of the people that have complained in this and every other forum post concerning the 2023 Mac Pro. Frankly, I agree with your statement here. I'm sure that the 2023 Mac Pro WILL serve plenty of people just as well and I don't doubt that the 2019 Mac Pro did and does as well. But that doesn't negate the fact that these were never the most optimal machines for GPU related tasks.
You keep saying "optimal" without defining optimal. The 2019 Mac Pro was a good choice for a lot of GPU workloads.
Was it a good choice for bitcoin mining or AI training? No. But there's a bigger world beyond that.
You'd hope that a 4-GPU configuration from 2019 would still clobber a single-GPU configuration from 2023. That's not saying a whole lot.
I'm saying Apple's 2019 top end can still clobber Apple's 2023 top end. That's a problem. The 2023 Mac Pro got slower - not faster.
It's not really that the top end config got cheaper. It's that Apple cut the top end config. Literally. The top end config was suppose to be M2 Extreme which never shipped. The top end config is missing.
If M2 Extreme had shipped, I think we'd be having a different version of this conversation - maybe around upgradability. But looking at the numbers they would have had top tier GPU performance.
Last edited: