Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

exoticSpice

Suspended
Original poster
Jan 9, 2022
1,242
1,951
We know why they won't cause Apple is so focussed on efficiency unless they get rid of that goal it's never going to happen.

Apple's GPU cores are slow as well they are clocked lower.

Now with Windows out of the way cause of no support from Apple or MS. The Mac Pro will once again broken if Apple only allows macOS.

With no AMD support the Mac Pro is dead to me unless Apple makes dGPUs that are on par or faster than AMD.

So I want Apple to make another Intel Mac but we just have to see.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tommy chen

jav6454

macrumors Core
Nov 14, 2007
22,303
6,257
1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
You know this how? I mean, we haven't heard much in terms of the Mac Pro, only that it's the next Mac to transition.

Also, with the Mac Pro's form factor, one can easily assume Apple could unlock more power consumption in their Mx chip line as the thermals allow it; glass half full.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmazingTechGeek

Juicy Box

macrumors 604
Sep 23, 2014
7,530
8,863
Also, with the Mac Pro's form factor, one can easily assume Apple could unlock more power consumption in their Mx chip line as the thermals allow it
You would think, but the Mac Studio is not limited by thermals, and could have been pushed more.
 

ssj92

macrumors regular
Mar 30, 2022
121
45
East Bay, CA
Next gen nVidia 4000 series and AMD 7000 series should about double performance of current flagships so we'll see if apple can compete.

Not to mention 96 core AMD Threadripper PRO & 56 Core Xeon Sapphire Rapids. Competition is only getting started.
 

exoticSpice

Suspended
Original poster
Jan 9, 2022
1,242
1,951
56 Core Xeon Sapphire Rapids
Yep and that too will easily destory the 2019 Mac Pro and likely the next Mac Pro. Apple made a mistake of leaving the high-end Mac Desktops to ARM. Should have stuck with Intel.

There's no way Apple will have > 32P cores in their Mac Pro and Intel next Xeon is all 56 P cores.
 

Matty_TypeR

macrumors 6502a
Oct 1, 2016
638
548
UK
The worst thing is you could buy the high end Mac Pro M2 ultra or studio and 3 years later be left behind by ever faster GPU's and CPU's with no upgrade path for your M2 ultra soldered in CPU. the M1 doesn't even support Egpu's as yet so the Apple eco system tighten's its grip with zero upgrade path's. You will have to buy new all the time to stay upto date with the latest available from Apple.
 

exoticSpice

Suspended
Original poster
Jan 9, 2022
1,242
1,951
The worst thing is you could buy the high end Mac Pro M2 ultra or studio and 3 years later be left behind by ever faster GPU's and CPU's with no upgrade path for your M2 ultra soldered in CPU. the M1 doesn't even support Egpu's as yet so the Apple eco system tighten's its grip with zero upgrade path's. You will have to buy new all the time to stay upto date with the latest available from Apple.
Yep, that is why the last best Macs from each category of Macs are:

- iMac 27" 2020/2019 - eGPU support
- 16" MBP 2019 - eGPU support
- Mac Pro 2019 - Will be WAY more upgradeable than whatever ARM Mac Pro comes next.
 

goMac

Contributor
Apr 15, 2004
7,662
1,694
Mark Gurman said the Mac Pro will have a 256 core GPU and its still going to slower than a 6900 XT.

That's not even counting for Nvidia next gen 5nm based GPUs.
Where did he say this? I haven't seen any core counts disclosed. The only speculation I've seen puts it at 128, not 256.
 

jav6454

macrumors Core
Nov 14, 2007
22,303
6,257
1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
You would think, but the Mac Studio is not limited by thermals, and could have been pushed more.
True, it can be pushed more. We just don't know that limit yet.
Mark Gurman said the Mac Pro will have a 256 core GPU and its still going to slower than a 6900 XT.

That's not even counting for Nvidia next gen 5nm based GPUs.
That's speculation and hearsay. For all we know Apple could also allow dGPUs on their Mac Pros.
 

MisterAndrew

macrumors 68030
Sep 15, 2015
2,882
2,363
Portland, Ore.
Apple put a lot of R&D into the MPX with AMD, so I don't see why they would abandon it so quickly. If the next Mac Pro has an Apple Silicon CPU I think it will still have MPX AMD GPUs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JahBoolean

deconstruct60

macrumors G5
Mar 10, 2009
12,309
3,902
Apple put a lot of R&D into the MPX with AMD, so I don't see why they would abandon it so quickly.

Apple put some R&D into the Mac Pro 2013 proprietary connector for the GPU and they dropped that on the next iteration. Classifying the MPX connector as 'a lot' is a pretty big stretch.

The connector does tackles three primary issues.

1. Power to the card ( Apple 'hates' wires. ).
2. Route up to four DisplayPort video data feeds back to the internal standard Thunderbolt controllers
3. two PCI-e v3 bundle provisioning to the Thunderbolt controllers (if present. the half-width cards typically not).


Problem 2 basically disappears with TB controllers on the M-series die. Cascading that largely eliminates the need for Probably two if controllers are back on the die. Muitiple M-series dies each with 4 TB ports means there would be a glut of TB ports ( The M1 Ultra Studio doesn't use them all; stops at six. )

Problem 1 had an alternative in the MP 2019 with the AUX power connectors.


As for the MPX modules themselves. Apple cut R&D expenses with multiple cards all using the same fan (mounted on the core chassis. ). Each module didn't have to do any "fan" R&D. Designing a big aluminum block for a card isn't a exactly a "land a man on the moon" sized complexity project.


I suspect some folks are hoping that the new Mac Pro gets new MPX cards and that those can be "hand me down" upgrades for the MP 2019. I wouldn't bet on that. Likewise Apple provisioning old MPX 2019 modules into the new Mac Pro ... wouldn't bet on that either.

It is pretty likely that Apple R&D spend on their own integrated , multiple die GPUs is a far, far ,far greater spend than what they spent to put an "extra" edge on a standard PCI-e card. If it is about not blowing the large R&D spend already laid out ... the Apple GPU is much bigger.


If Apple allowed a non-boot GPGPU cards in to the next Mac Pro then would only really need to just supply power ( if not doing anything with the video out abilities. ). It is a bit of a stretch to use a MPX connector just for that.


If boot screen support then maybe since would need to be custom Apple card anyway ( off the shelf needs UEFI and there is no UEFI). [ but again if these are non-UEFI boot cards ... going into MP 2019 would be a show stopper. And vice versa. ]


The more affordable R&D path would be to make these GPGPU cards that only initialize after boot. Send an incantation down to a largely off the shelf UEFI card and jumpstart it into working and then only send data back and forth over PCI-e v4 (or v5 if Apple dramatically steps up their 'game' ). The cards get a subset of the Metal stack ( just compute ) which will take some work but avoids issues like iPhone apps trying to run on a display hooked to a 3rd party GPU. And once again the driver stack development costs is likely higher than the amount Apple spent on the MPX connector.


If Apple wanted to squeeze some more money out of MPX modules to pay down MPX R&D they could do AMD 6x50 modules for the MP 2019. Or if RNDA3 Navi 33 isn't a huge stretch change from Navi 21 again another "extend the life" of the MP 2019 module offering. ( even more so if going to keep selling the 2019 base unit into 2023.)
[ Not likley necessary given the eye-watering prices that the Pro Vega II and other full width MPX modules regularly sold for. There was lots of margin there to pay for R&D of an edge connector. AMD also certainly got paid for their Infinity Fabric connector R&D ]


If the next Mac Pro has an Apple Silicon CPU I think it will still have MPX AMD GPUs.

Month away from WWDC 2022 and not even a hint of 3rd party GPU driver support coming to macOS. It is not impossible, but also not probable at the moment. At this point there would probably be some info leakage. ( e.g., Apple does some NDA demos at NAB and one or two folks flake on the NDA with some relatively vague hints so can't get traced back to them. )


The almost sure bet is that the next Mac Pro will have an Apple GPU in it. Extremely likely an iGPU with integrated Thunderbolt controllers. If there is any AMD GPU present it will be an augment to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T'hain Esh Kelch

deconstruct60

macrumors G5
Mar 10, 2009
12,309
3,902
We know why they won't cause Apple is so focussed on efficiency unless they get rid of that goal it's never going to happen.

Apple's GPU cores are slow as well they are clocked lower.

Clocked faster isn't necessarily a bad thing. There were multiple generation where AMD tried to make up the deficit to Nvidia by just ramping up clocks. It got AMD hotter GPUs , but didn't necessarily win the top end performance mark. ( If clock past what the underlying fab process it tuned to ... then tend to get quickly into the zone of diminishing returns. )

Apple's GPU go 'wide' , high compression , and cache heavy instead of higher clocked. When AMD and Nvidia go to N5/N4 that cache gap is likely to close. That is part of the issue. Most of the 'performance levers' that Apple is pulling aren't exclusive to Apple GPU. ( compression schemes between desktop and cellphone different , but general technique is used in both places. AMD and Nvidia have had caches ... just not as big ones. ).


Apple has pushed wider memory channels down into the lower end GPUs more than AMD/Nvidia. That probably won't change. Apple is probably on the relatively more expensive path and the other two have cost and market segmentation concerns to handle. But at the top end of the GPU spectrum, Apple's GPU memory bus is not particularly wider than the top end GPUs (that don't have to devote transistor budget to CPU cores and share memory bandwidth. ).

Apple's GPU doesn't scale up as well and doesn't scale out at all. As long as in the lower 60-80 of performance range they do OK. It is the upper edges that are problematical. However, for. 80+ % of what Apple sells ( laptops and low-midrange desktops ) that will work.


Now with Windows out of the way cause of no support from Apple or MS. The Mac Pro will once again broken if Apple only allows macOS.

It really isn't "Windows". It is closer to the situation where the initial Intel Macs had no BIOS boot support ( and were EFI only). Only worse this time because not even standard EFI is the boot layer now. It is all iPhone iBoot and a highly limited MacOS 'one true boot" adaptor layer on top.

It is about a 180 degree turn from where the Mac Pro 2019 and 2017+ Macs had arrived at with UEFI AMD GPU card support. On top of that, prominent feature now is running native iPhone/iPad apps that are hard wired to expect an Apple iGPU.

There is a big disconnect down at the low level foundational layer. Windows possible reglulated to virtual machines is only symptom of the issue; not the root cause itself.

When Apple switch to Intel they jumped into the Intel ecosystem ( and Intel was trying to push EFI along.... in part hoping that Apple would help drag some of the other system vendors into the "new world". UEFI did as much to keep BIOS going and help move folks along. ). This transition the "huge native ecosystem inertia" is iPhone boot.


With no AMD support the Mac Pro is dead to me unless Apple makes dGPUs that are on par or faster than AMD.

In the low to a healthy portion of the midrange they have already done that with an iGPU that you will have to buy anyway.

As for an Apple dGPU. Again foundational changes. All the extremely highly tuned Apple GPU apps expect an iGPU. So is Apple going to develop and another driver stack to do dGPU and tell folks to go back and redo all of your optimization work again. (after just asking folks to do major overhauls for iGPUs)? Probably not. At least not for a couple of years.

More likely Apple will be after app developers to optimize for the Ultra (and what will effectively be a dual ultra ) GPU that has some non-uniform memory effects have to work around rather than chasing a dGPU. Also whatever upgrades they add to the Apple GPUs in generation 3 , 4 , 5 of M-series ( and A-series). [ more VR/AR stuff , new compression , etc. ]


So I want Apple to make another Intel Mac but we just have to see.

At this point... probably more likely to get new MPX modules for the 'old' Mac Pro than get a new ( W3300/W3400 ) Intel processor. There are 6x50 version of the GPU that don't really need any major driver work at all. And if stick with single die RDNA3 probably not a large effort to update the drivers.

There is a recent thread where someone is bragging about a Geekbench Metal score with a 6900 stuff inside a semi-hackintosh Mac Pro 2009 beating a M1 Ultra. Same thing, but less hackintosh, could be done with the MP 2019 chassis if iterate another generation on AMD cards. Apple is still selling the 2018 Mini along side the M1 Mini. They could just keep going on the MP 2019 for another one or two years if just selling to the most expensive possible GPU focused crowd. And do a "half sized" Mac Pro with non AUX powered PCI-e cards with a Ultra and "double Ultra" for folks that aren't as focused on max budget on GPU cards.
 

th0masp

macrumors 6502a
Mar 16, 2015
833
499
Does it even matter if it turns out somewhat faster? Software support and development focus will still primarily be aimed at Windows and/or Linux for the relevant 'Pro' applications. With a heavy dose of Nvidia bias.

The Mac Pro won't give you a superior or industry leading performance, all it might give you is possibly the best performance within the Mac ecosystem. For a while anyway.
 

theluggage

macrumors 604
Jul 29, 2011
7,545
7,467
Now with Windows out of the way cause of no support from Apple or MS. The Mac Pro will once again broken if Apple only allows macOS.
I can't believe that many customers are buying $6000++ Mac Pros to run Windows when you can get more bang for your buck - and/or a lot more choice to tailor a system to your specific needs - with generic PC hardware. The Unique Selling Point of the Mac Pro is that it can run MacOS and MacOS Applications, and that has to be Apple's #1 priority. Windows compatibility was a nice bonus while it lasted, but unless Apple and third parties maintain a critical mass of applications which actually work better on MacOS there won't be any point to buying a Mac Pro whether or not it can run Windows.

As long as Apple commit to not just the x86 ISA but a broadly PC compatible architecture (...x86 Macs were always a gnat's whisker away from just being able to boot and install from a Windows CD/stick) they're going to have trouble distinguishing any full-sized desktop Mac from generic hardware (the 2019 Mac Pro enjoyed a brief lead by being among the first to exploit the new Xeon-W's I/O bandwidth and RAM capacity - but any other PC maker can do that if they see the demand). They'd already started to depart from the PC norm by shifting functionality to the T2 (which complicated Windows support) and introducing the afterburner (which AFAIK does squat unless you're using ProRes and/or compatible MacOS software).


Some customers currently need a Mac Pro because although they could switch to PC hardware. it would cost too much time and money to change their established workflow. That, though, is always going to be a gradually shrinking pool - especially if Apple keep dead-ending their Pro range (2010 Cheesegrater left to wither then dumped for the 2013 Trashcan - never updated and sort of replaced by the iMac Pro... couple of GPU bumps then discontinued with no replacement, 2019 Mac Pro then 6 months later Apple announce they're moving to Apple Silicon...) with no sort of public road map for the replacement. What professional user would seriously consider a Mac Pro solution for an upcoming project, with the 2019 model overdue to be replaced with a radically different Apple Silicon-based version with no clue as to it's specification - e.g. whether it will even have PCIe slots?

I don't know whether Apple Silicon will succeed in the Mac Pro market - but it does allow Apple to pursue tight integration between hardware and operating system which could potentially make Macs significantly outperform generic hardware when running MacOS and properly optimised software. In fact their big advantage is that the Mac market tends to be less conservative and legacy-obsessed than the PC world, so they can get away with more radical change - but there is a limit.
 

exoticSpice

Suspended
Original poster
Jan 9, 2022
1,242
1,951
Does it even matter if it turns out somewhat faster? Software support and development focus will still primarily be aimed at Windows and/or Linux for the relevant 'Pro' applications. With a heavy dose of Nvidia bias.

The Mac Pro won't give you a superior or industry leading performance, all it might give you is possibly the best performance within the Mac ecosystem. For a while anyway.
But that's the thing before Apple prided iself on being the fastest in the market in the PowerPC days. What happened to that Apple?

i guess the iPhone happened... With the amount of R&D Apple spends they could make the fastest and most powerful workstation in the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nermal

th0masp

macrumors 6502a
Mar 16, 2015
833
499
But that's the thing before Apple prided iself on being the fastest in the market in the PowerPC days. What happened to that Apple?

i guess the iPhone happened... With the amount of R&D Apple spends they could make the fastest and most powerful workstation in the world.
I've only started to use Apple machines once they went Intel so can't say for sure. But from what I recall the PowerPCs were considered slower and running hotter than their competition at least in the G4/5 days, were they not? I do remember those commercials comparing performance but I don't think anybody took them seriously in the office.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G5
Mar 10, 2009
12,309
3,902
That's the problem outside of video editing Apple Sillicon does not cater to needs of Mac Pro users.

Not really true. If go back to Apple's April 2017 meeting that covered several things including the Mac Pro path , they stated that programmers were are large constituent of what they labeled the Pro market. At Mac Pro is not necessary to do a modest mainstream app (or a iOS app), but for large multiple million line code bases it is going to be useful. Likewise folks running several larger virtual machines along with a edit/compile/debug of an app.

As a headless continuous build , integration, and deploy (CI/CD) target it has upsides. Especially, where Apple limits service rental terms for macOS. The Mac Pro 2013 was being bought right up until the very end for "mac as a service" workloads. Or remote work desktop consolidation ( host 2-3 virtual macOS instances on a single server).

Similarly the Audio space. If there are 2 or 3 8x PCI-e v3 (or better) PCI-e slots there are several audio cards that work inside the enclosure. ( audio tends to needs the width if using legacy PCI-e v1 or v2 cards. ). As a container for audio cards it has leverage. [ The Ultra and double Ultra really have more Thunderbolt controllers than they need. Flipping 2 or 4 of those controllers into PCI-e headers wouldn't be a huge change in direction for Apple for generation M2 or M3 large die variants. ]

There is also video capture which isn't necessarily the same system that will be doing video editing.


As a visualization tool it works. For larger footprint ( 10-20GB ) tends to work. M-series would just expand on that range. (one of the upsides of unified memory is that the GPU can be a RAM 'hog' to very large levels.)
 

mattspace

macrumors 68040
Jun 5, 2013
3,179
2,879
Australia
I've only started to use Apple machines once they went Intel so can't say for sure. But from what I recall the PowerPCs were considered slower and running hotter than their competition at least in the G4/5 days, were they not? I do remember those commercials comparing performance but I don't think anybody took them seriously in the office.
The PowerPC did what the M68k did, and no doubt Apple Silicon will do this as well - leapt out ahead on the basis of the low-hanging fruit, and was then eclipsed by Intel, who are slow to react and hampered primarily by bad management, which can be replaced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: th0masp

exoticSpice

Suspended
Original poster
Jan 9, 2022
1,242
1,951
The PowerPC did what the M68k did, and no doubt Apple Silicon will do this as well - leapt out ahead on the basis of the low-hanging fruit, and was then eclipsed by Intel, who are slow to react and hampered primarily by bad management, which can be replaced.
Intel chips will be very different 5 years from now. 2015 - 2020. They were the same just later more cores.

2021 added Alder lake. 2023 will be Meteor lake with tiles or chiplets, it will for thr first time have a AI engine. By 2025 Intel is rumoured to work on a completely new architecture.

Apples A series CPU architecture has been the same since 2017. 2 Big and 4 little.

A7 - A11 brought huge changes but from A11 to A15 was mostly efficiency improvements as the architecture remained relatively the same. Looks like A16 will be same this year.
 

bradman83

macrumors 6502a
Oct 29, 2020
959
2,376
Buffalo, NY
There were rumors for quite some time that Apple was developing its own discrete GPU alongside the all-in-one SoC packaging of the M-series chips. It wouldn't be impossible that Apple might release Mac Pro chips as a new series outside of the M family (one that doesn't have to be updated as regularly) - CPU/Neural Engine-focused chips that that support modular GPUs and RAM. Designing and manufacturing these sorts of custom parts for a small portion of the Mac market would no doubt be expensive, but given the current price points of the Mac Pro it wouldn't be a far leap. Doing so would free Apple to ramp up core counts on both the CPU and GPU without having to make the chip die impossibly large.
 

exoticSpice

Suspended
Original poster
Jan 9, 2022
1,242
1,951
Yep, that is why the last best Macs from each category of Macs are:

- iMac 27" 2020/2019 - eGPU support
- 16" MBP 2019 - eGPU support
- Mac Pro 2019 - Will be WAY more upgradeable than whatever ARM Mac Pro comes next.
Of course, by this I mean "expandablity" only.

The replacement for the 16" 2019 which is the 2021 MBP is better in every way in regards to heat, fan noise, speed and
display.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.