My hunch is this will be the last Mac Pro model that we see produced. It's just not going to be a viable option with the SoC architecture, nor profitable. They should've just kept it as the only Intel model in their lineup and updated the 2019 specs.
Yeah.... With the way suddenly how AMD and Intel have leveled up, on the desktop side of things, Intel Macs probably would have been a smarter move. The Intel Core i9-13900K and AMD Ryzen 9 7950X are both faster than the M1 Ultra in multicore and faster than the M2 Pro/Max in single-core (and of course multicore). The M2 Ultra will certainly best those CPUs but you're talking about CPU/Mobo/RAM/PSU combos that cost half of the M2 Ultra.
True, it really makes sense why we're not seeing it with upgradable graphics and ram. I imagine it would be very expensive to design a workaround for that, with it being Apple silicon.
@@nicknorthcutt7680 There are ARM based computers with both. It's feasible but Apple doesn't seem interested in modular designs at all as they'd lose out on charging up front.
I've known a number of studios who have recently installed Mac Pros so as not to have to deal with the hassles of external PCI-e boxes and TB4 cables. It makes their lives easier to just keep everything internal to the machine, more than worth the $3K uncharge in config hassles.
@@superstar64 I love the G3/G4 hanging door design but having one again, it's not quite as utilitarian as the cMP, especially the trays in the 4,1/5,1. Working on them is a bit more annoying due to the cabling not being nearly as managed. The other knock is the longevity. cMPs are still viable today, 15 years later. The best a G4 had was about 8 years if you had a PCI G4 from 2000 and upgraded the CPU.
@@dmug I didn't mean as a modern machine. At the time they were released, the G4 towers were probably one of the best computers money could buy, and still make great machines for classic Mac gaming (because those two words don't look awkward in a sentence together). I only mentioned the G4 tower since you brought up the iMac G3 as one of Apple's best machines, and I thought I could throw in my pick from that era.
I don't even want to imagine the sticker shock of a 48-Core / 384 GB / 152 Core GPU. One thing is for sure, it'd probably have a GPU that'd actually be on the same turf as AMD and Nvidia
You could see Mac Pro 5.1 and even a trashcan in almost every music/video production studio, it was an industry standard and a dream for every indy creator. But now this niche is totally lost by Apple. A Mac Studio with some extra storage via Thunderbolt is an absolutely identical thing for much cheaper. I will miss Mac Pro, spent a decade enjoying the reliability and power of this amazing machine. But now it's so hard to imagine a scenario where it's worth buying. Bye-bye, the legend. P.S. Greg, thanks for the nice video, informative as usual.
Yeah, I saw that Mac Mini m2 (the base model) is $449 on Amazon today. I could realistically edit the videos I make on it and probably make the music I do (most of the time) on one.
@@dmug Due to my nomad lifestyle now I had to migrate from my maxed-out cMP 5.1 to MacBook Pro 14 with M1 Pro, and I have to admit that this tiny machine is more than enough for ALL my needs, and it actually outperforms my 5.1. I'm missing a bulk of internal nvme storage, but even this is not a big deal.
Yeah, I bought the M1 Max and my work provides me the M1 Pro. Honestly I’d just get the M1 Pro if I had to do it over again. I think in the future I’m going to go laptop and build a NAS as buying the apple silicon Mac Pro is just a bad investment. TH-cam makes me like $200 a month so I can’t justify it.
Nice opportunity for third-party metal-bashers: make a nice brushed aluminium cheese-grater box with a rack inside for a Mac Studio and a bunch of slots for M.2 SSDs on Thunderbolt adapters, or maybe even a complete NAS unit. The money saved on not paying the Apple SSD tax and just going with the minimum internal to the Studio should easily cover the cost of the box, never mind the $3000 tax on the Mac Pro!
@@dmug I personally think they’d prefer the Mac Studio and are going to kill of the Mac Pro otherwise why make the new Mac Pro so similar. That’s just my opinion.
Oh hey, my video made it in LTT's I Put a GPU in the M2 Mac Pro www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtcSN... It's been confirmed that the Mac Pro 2023 will not support 3rd party GPUs by Apple.
Those thunderbolt cards are bandwidth weak for many pro applications like even 1 pcie4 SSD can saturate it. At 40Gb per second. So anyone needing more than that hard limit for their sound dsp multi SSD video supported graphic I/o multi port say USB card multi 10 g card all ports with full bandwidth will have to bypass the studio or go over or Linux for true upgradeable workstation .. actually the biggest weakness in non upgradeable memory for both the studio and Mac pro That is an instant non starter for a lot in 3d and animation who needs to work from ram. Next is non upgradeable CPU as this time stamps your Mac to that year and that cpu pure planned obselence in a desktop. Next obviously is no GPU upgrades and CPU stealing gpu memory and vice versa although it has some pluses for connect speed it also has minuses for peter ribbing Paul to pay mark.Ibviousky no standard SSD upgrades. Apple prices are beyond insane and the fact that your machine can brick if the included SSD ever fails and it will. In that event lock out booting from external drives as well. Newer apple oses lock out millions of osx 10.1 - 10.10 great Mac programs many with no upgrade path or buggy ones and of course no 32 bit programs and no easy emulation to get the m1 m2 machines to run those programs or windows programs without a huge performance lost. Repair and parts independent if apples are insane charges out of warranty, you need a new motherboard for everything recommendation, diy hard to do. Since every two years or so GPUs almost double in power and cpus up to 50% and programs needing memory more apple dates your machine obsolete by stopping upgrades. Especially on laptops as well. 32 and 48 GB ddr 5 modules are available and soon 64GB. Meaning windows laptops with 1 or 2 slots open can have at least 48GB to 192max GB on 4 slot models and with thunderbolt and USB 4 3 and 5 they can add an external GPU later with tb5 and the next USBC giving 80Gbps even a budget laptop can outperform a Mac studio or pro in many gpu tasks for much cheaper. I hope we get a fourth creator style desktop OS besides Linux mac and windows that runs in standards PC parts soon
The tower Mac Pro presented today, is just a "stop gap" measure. There was a design error with the 5nm M-1 processor chips where, when they are doubled their performance goes up only by about half. Go from a base model M1 to a M1 pro (is a 50 percent increase); then go from a M1 pro to a M1 Max (is now a 25 percent increase); then go from M1 max to M1 Ultra (is now a 12 percent increase). So, last year when the M1 Extreme was shown to Tim Cook, it was only 6 percent better than a M1 Ultra processor. This kind of put Apple, Inc. into a box when it came to the tower Mac Pro. I am sure, once the new 4nm or 3 nm processor chips arrive the Mac Studio and tower Mac Pro models will each have different processors (smile...smile).
I think you're missing a few things: The M2 Pro and M2 Max performance in the CPU department is effectively nothing. They're the same core count, and same clock speed, just the GPU count and higher memory bandwidth. The M1 Ultra vs the M1 Max in CPU scores was more like 50% and the rumor was the Extreme would be 50%ish more than the Ultra, as it'd be a 2x the core count of the Ultra and 2x the GPU core count of the Ultra. The big issue was cost. It takes 4x the yield of Apple Silicon dies as a single M1 Max. The cost scaling then would be more than 2x the Ultra, as also it'd require the UltraFusion to scale with the insane bandwidth. You'd be looking at $20,000 computer at the top end if not more. The Mac Pro is already boutique and the numbers were just too little. I'm sure the sales figures of the 28-Core Mac pro 2019 were pretty slim and Tim Cook, the forever bean counter, saw it wasn't worth the cost.
@@dmug 'The M2pro and M2 Max performance in the CPU dept...." you should look at the specs on the M2 pro and max configs of the MB Pros. The stock M2 Pro is a 6 performance core/4 efficiency core config, while the M2 Max is an 8 performance core and 4 efficiency core config. The additional performance cores are going to add 20-25% unless there are thermal issues. Pro/Max are not the same CPU unless you pay for an upgraded pro with 8 performance cores. Doing so will make the CPU's the same.
@@sanaksanandan We will see only time will tell. What, I did notice is that after the introduction of the M1 Ultra processor chip the engineer designer no longer is shown on any od Apple's marketing videos (perhaps he is now in "the dog house").
@@lekudos Sure.... but I'd guess medical imaging would be a task that you'd be accessing images off a server and not locally. Perhaps networking cards would be useful but I wouldn't expect needing massive storage locally.
I also have a Mac Studio that I use as a backup system but working with many TB of CT images and cancer treatment plans for thousands of patients accumulated over the past many years is much slower via either my 10 gbps ethernet NAS RAID or my thunderbolt 3 DAS RAID archiving systems compared to several PCIe RAID currently in my 2019 Mac Pro 16-core (e.g. one of my PCIe RAID is an OWC Accelsior 4M2 that runs about 6,000MB/s in RAID 0). I build 3D models of the eyes of patients with eye cancers and plan targeted radiation treatment that destroys the cancers while preserving as much of the healthy eye as possible.
It’s not too bad but I didn’t really expect anything else. I’m glad they upgraded the Studio too which I think I will choose over the Pro only because I got used to not caring about internal expansion after upgrading my cMP to a M1 MacBook Pro which was powerful enough to keep me going and I quite liked having a self contained unit. Part of me is curious about what possible upgrades there might be for the new Mac Pro years down the line like there was for the Mac Pro I bought new oh so many years ago but it’s not smart to buy something on the off chance it might be hacked or patched into something amazing years later. 😅
The last Mac Pro was made in 2012. Nothing that has come since has been worthy of the moniker and have been Mac Pros in name only. The latest model is a joke.
The Mac Pro 2019 is/was a nice computer, just Apple seems to be in a rush to drop support for it and didn't embrace it's excellent design. It was also too Pro, and shouldn't have taken 6 years to ship. It is a much better designed computer than the cMP as it's much easier to work on, a lot less steps to to complete disassemble it, and it's dead silent, more so than cMP. It's absurd that Apple doesn't sell it's parts to fix it and it's pretty shitty that Apple knew the Apple Silicon Macs were around the corner when selling $12k+ configurations.
@dmug I've little doubt the 2019 Mac Pro is a better computer, having been released 7 years after the cMP it should be. However it wasn't a like for like replacement. In 2012 the base cMP cost $2499 - adjusted for inflation in 2019 that comes to approx $2785. The 2019 Mac Pro however started at a whopping $5999 - that's over twice the price. It's completely unreasonable to expect people who (like me) had owned very Mac tower and waited patiently for years for a new one to arrive, to be expected to stump up $6k!!! Even the debacle that was the 2013 trashcan Mac Pro started at $2999 (adjusted for inflation approx $3300), so $6k is by every scale imaginable completely unreasonable and instantly means it isn't a like for like replacement. Despite the HUGE price increase the base model shipped with just 256GB storage the same as the trashcan in 2013 (when SSDs were expensive). It was pitiful and a complete F**K YOU by Apple to many users. And don't get me started on the $1000 wheels or the $1000 monitor stand! It shouldn't cost $6k to get a tower Mac. It was taking the piss. Apple knew this, they simply didn't care. Now they've all but abandoned it. You know when you had a girlfriend that you wanted to split with, but you couldn't bring yourself to do it, so instead you treated them like crap until they left you instead... that's Apple and the Mac Pro users! They finished with you long ago, now they're just waiting for you to leave!
They could be doing the same thing they did with M1 machines, I just find it super weird they would do this to the Mac Pro, just a lazy refresh with a spec bump, next generation will likely have dGPU support and a new design. But then, why not just do it now? I don’t get it
Also I think M3 could show us major improvements when it comes to performance on the max and ultra chips, the performance of the M2 variants really blew me away, because I was expecting way less, based on the jump from base m1 to m2. So I guess that’s why? I think holding out on the Apple Silicon transition for another year, god forbid two years could make investors angry, and little Timmy doesn’t like the sound of that They quoted a 2 year transition, and I think if they wanted to ship the Mac Pro with dGPU support + a new design + M3 it would likely be at the end of m3’s cycle, which would likely putt the transition into 4/5 years, so it wouldn’t look good for apple if their “2 year transition” turned out to be actually 4/5 years.
@@dmugonestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if this ends up to be the case, considering how Tim has been really trying to make investors happy lately I think M2 Mac Pro users would be pretty pissed though lol
I also have noticed announcements of the new Apple Mac Pro Computer. Since Apple company is now using System on a Chip architecture the prospective buyer will need to carefully consider the equipment options when ordering this computer because, like other Apple products, it is not upgradeable. The System on a Chip architecture does make for a faster more powerful computer, but now memory, video, and cpu's are no longer upgradeable.
It's not faster or more powerful than Nvidia and amds correct workstation and producer chips in CPU or GPU performance in 3 d and else where. It is superb for video because of the media engines chips and uses very little power compared to the competition. The GPU is probably on par with last gen etc 3070 but can in theory access much more memory instead of just8 8 10 -12 16- 24GB if the CPU is not using it. This will allow 3,d model playback in real time. If course x86 CPU can have 1.5 TB in memory for extreme computation. Interesting.
@@goobfilmcast4239 What? Why do you think im not allowed to use both systems? Is not Pc against Mac. Objectively this New Mac Pro Is trash and its against what a Mac Pro should be and has been for all these years, don't be such a loyalist snob, man.
Go look at a video done by Neil Parfitt. He uses all six slots in his Intel Mac Pro. But the interesting thing is that the slot configuration in the m2 max pro and the Intel Mac Pro are different. That may prevent the kind of setup Neil did. The other issue is that the new M2 Mac Pro is limited to 192 meg memory where is the Intel Mac Pro that Neil used he was able to get 768 meg installed in one of his orchestral Library for his audigy card loading to use his 300 meg to do so, again would invoke swap on the system. In terms of real time performance this could be a be a hard line deciding factor.
Neil Parfitt released a video talking about the new M.2 Mac Pro and why it might not be a solution for him. But being a pro he expects to be in his into Mac Pro for the next 5 to 7 years, and possibly longer because of the issues he has outlined in that video.
I had my time with the apple Silicon experiment. Now, Im going back to the beloved PC. Sure, apple Silicon is powerful, but I don’t want to pay through the nose for more ram and storage. I have my eyes on a used 9th or 10th gen i7 rig that I can max out my ram to 64 gigs and upgrade my storage to 2tb that cost a couple of hundred bucks more than the base model mac mini.
@@goobfilmcast4239 Not everyone wants to spend the money on a new computer and perhaps has an ideological component about keeping eWaste out of land fills for as long as possible. Also, I can name things that the Mac Mini can't do right off the top of head: Play games in Windows or boot common x86 Linux distros or run common VMs. People have their reasons.
i think they release the mac pro so they can start the process of the m3 and to make sure everything work perfectly for the new m3 family before they release it and second i think the mac pro in the long run will be the only computer you will be able to upgrade the cpu and the ssd alone if you wanted to so it makes sense if you think about it.
Given the SoC structure, it was an open question as to what the Mac Pro would be. One possible option I saw a few people considering in forums is the SoC being on a daughter card and the case being sort of a generic enclosure that can upgraded that way. Unless something amazing happens, that looks like a hard no. At least for now. Maybe when M3 comes out? Or maybe we will see overdrive options from 3rd party vendors. Either way, it is certainly a bit disappointing as this makes the Mac Pro even more niche given the option of a studio. The open question would be if there had been a dual CPU or an even bigger (Ultra +) with double the everything to separate it out, would that level of power have been enough of a draw? I wonder if the increased price point isn't the biggest clue.
It's for people who need fast large amounts of storage and or pcie capture and controller cards. There are videos of editing professionals who bought the studio and are complaining about the slow transfer speeds/lack of pcie. It's a pointless computer otherwise. Even if I won a lottery and had F'off type cash I still wouldn't buy the new mac pro. I'd just get the top of the line studio and max it out. I have one PCIE slot via an akitio thunderbolt enclosure that I used to use as a PCIE NVME boot disk off my old 2012 imac. I've own a studio since oct and other than a moderately fast 1000mbs transfer speeds on a 1tb external hard drive that I don't really need I can't think of what else I can use it for. What the hell would I ever use six of them for? Recording studios use those PCIE slots. Video editors who need to be able to transfer and store large files need them. We don't need them.
Yes, this looks like an extremely niche product, for a few specific clients. But Apple can allow themselves to do this. On one side, the form factor existed, so no new tooling there, just a new motherboard. On the other side, they don’t care if they just sell a few of these, they know who this is for, and I guess the inventory will be limited. Not for most of us, and I don’t mind (more and more I see things being produced that are just there for a few selected customers).
That’s been my takeaway, there’s various studios and high tier clients client that justify its existence (probably even Apple itself for development of its own platforms). It’s a B2B product that is displayed very publicly. It’s a shame though it’s price high and feature set is so slim. If it’d come it at $1k above the studio, it may have been compelling as a computer that has a 5-8 year shelf life is out of bounds for most.
I'm guessing they have niche clients that still demand PCIe and they're mostly not interested in the prosumer/home market where people are price sensitive.
I was hoping apple would at least make their own gpus for this, or literally a card with an m2 chip on it. It would probabaly be expensive but it would at least be an option
My thought as well. This new Mac Pro is more of a glorified big Mac Studio. I was hoping they would at least put two M2 Ultra in this chassis. People who buy this are just getting one Mac Studio and paying 3000 dollars for the opportunity to expand, but currently are not sure what they can put into those slots. Afterburner card? Already in the CPU and is better. GPU? Already in the CPU and the ones you would think you can plug in would probably have architecture conflicts. Storage? Maybe. The listed modules require you to rip out the ones inside the chassis. An upgrade, not an expansion, and they don't use the PCIe slots at all. The absurd thing is that two of the front fans are just blowing across an empty chassis straight to the back covers.
@@Tigerex966 I think the bigger nail in the coffin is that it won't be ableto handle legacy cards since their manufacturers are long gone or won't write updated drivers using M-series programming codes This is a dead bloated pig floating in the river. I know three production houses here in Toronto that upgraded to the Itel Mac Pro. In total they moved over 27 legacy cards over and had no issues out of the box with all but two of them. That's not going ot happen with this machine. There is no way this will ever be a profitable machien for Apple. It almost feels like the old days of 90's Apple just before they almost went bankrupt releasing useless hardware with no customer to sell it to.
@@che-weihsieh975 There are people who need specialty hardware -- like audio engineers -- who buy multi-thousand $$ cards who need machines like the Mac Pro. Just because everyone is citing internal storage and video cards as the only ones they can think of doesn't mean they're the only ones anyone can use.
@@godofbiscuitssf I understand that, and audio professionals usually already know what they want. But aside from those use cases, there really isn’t a point where buying a Mac Pro is any more useful than a Mac Studio. For many years, Apple has made their pro machines extremely focused on video editing, photo editing, especially after the introduction of Apple Silicon. They have proven to be powerful and efficient when doing those tasks, due to the hardware and dedicated software optimizations. There will be people who would look at these Mac Pros and think, hey, these are supposed to be the best for what I want, not knowing that the extra money doesn’t get you much more than a promise.
Yeah, the memory isn't "doing double duty" for CPU and GPU. It's unified. No blitting operations and round-tripping from CPU across the PCI bus to GPU and back are needed, and in fact it's an optimization step to make sure to remove any of them from code you're bringing over from intel versions. Unified memory is a key part of the performance gains in Apple Silicon. Why were you expecting anything but the same thing? It wouldn't be socketed. There wouldn't be a discrete GPU. Metal at this point expects unified memory. The GPU isn't the only thing at play for compute, which I suppose might come as a surprise if you're used to drinking NVIDIA's koolaid, but there are other processors -- the Neural Engine, multiple matrix processors (integer calculations) come to mind, to name a couple -- that also come into play for compute, that also benefit from unified memory and not "have to do shared duty with".
It’s more efficient, I’m not arguing that, but also everything in VRAM doesn’t exist inherently in RAM. 16 GB of textures would exist in the entirely in the 64 GB RAM pool whereas with a dedicated GPU it’d exist with pointers to the GPU but be independent. I’m hardly an nvidia fanboy but as a developer who’s toyed with ML training, Apple Silicon is impressive for an iGPU but pretty ho-hum compared a dedicated gpu. Also you can see the effects of the neural engine in stable diffusion, if you disable it, there isn’t much of a speed penalty. Nvidia so thoroughly dominates the compute realm that many of the popular docker container stacks are CUDA only. Lastly, Apple M1 Ultra isn’t even as fast metal compute as the mid tier AMD 6800 (not the XT). Apple may get away with more out of less, but the problem is the competition is offering so much more that it doesn’t matter.
Not true the gains are extremely small if any . The real secret sauce are the media engines and low power draw not the unified memory which was made to be cheap profit off of bto upgrades only from apple and to lock out all others. The speed improvements simply are not there. The shared memory also has a bad side as you are robbing peter to pay Paul instead of paying them. Both. In some situations like when the GPU needs gobs of memory and you have it great but otherwise it can actually hurt performance.
@@Tigerex966 That doesn't track. Simple math says 800GB/s bandwidth is faster than 64GB/s, and not having to copy data roundtrip is always going to be slower than not having to copy it at all. As for your price gouging "theory", there aren't enough Macs made to turn that into a real business relative to Apple's overall business. There just isn't.
@@godofbiscuitssf not true at all there are tons of variables software and hardware custom chips encoders media engines app developers restrictions bad code in addition to simple stats. Simply because one has a pcie bus to go through or dedicated GPU or more or less or faster or slower memory SSD or Bandwidth does not make it slower or faster. It's the best balance of all the variables that in. This is hy a turtle can beat a rabbit sometimes it's not just hardware specs or software it's hi they irk together as a unit to get a final result. Put usain bolt in steel toe boots running in mud rain snow hip deep he I'll be slower the a old lady with a cane in track shoes on a proper track in the 100m. One day when you are older you will see past the hype and stop your false brainwashed statements on false facts
@@Tigerex966 I'm probably older than you are. I'm telling you that it's impossible any blit operation to be faster than not doing the blit in the first place, that 800 GB/s is faster than 64 GB/s, that Metal is designed around the hardware architecture of the SoC, and that Apple has much MUCH larger needs other than making a relatively few bucks off of RAM upgrades on relatively few Macs to design an entire future hardware strategy around that kind of nickel and diming.
I love the new Mac Pro as a system, but I don’t love the price. $3k is too much for the additional stuff that you’re getting. $1000 premium would be more realistic, and would probably drive the sales of the new Mac Pro. I’m glad they finally got it out the door, because I’ll have to wait 3-4 years for the prices to come down on eBay enough to justify replacing my Mac Studio with one.
I’m just gona watch from the sidelines as the big TH-camrs do benchmark tests on the new mac pros next week. Lol. This just seems like a glorified Mac Studio at this point.
@@Tigerex966 Isn't the Intel CPU on a separate processor card? I remember reading about Apple offering Intel processor upgrades. I would be livid if Apple orphaned my machine so swiftly after paying such a staggering premium.
There was the rumored M series Extreme. The Ultra is effectively two M1 Maxes glued together with a very very fast interconnect. The issue is a single Extreme would take 4x the SOCs of a singular M1 Max, and require an insanely beefy interconnect. The M2 Extreme would have cost more than 2x to make of a single M2 Ultra as it'd be two Ultras smashed together for a 48 Core monster, and it'd probably only provide a 50%-ish jump in performance. The rumor mill was that the cost was just too high, as the Extreme would have been easily over $20k. Apple knows how many Mac Pro 2019s they sold above $20k, and it probably wasn't many.
It’s such a shame. I would love a Mac Pro that allows for upgradability. I don’t care if they’re Apple-exclusive. It doesn’t sound impossible to just have a barebones SoC, with UltraFusion lanes going to a spot on the motherboard for Memory modules, and another for Graphics modules, Storage modules, or Connectivity modules. That would make Mac Pro a paragon of the industry.
Actually… not really. The M2 Ultra does struggle in performance tests in a weird way. Also it only got a chance because Apple refuses to support 7000-series GPUs.
This means Mac Pro isn’t for university researchers or hi-tech development such as AI, some use CUDA CORES or AMD power GPUs for programming AI finite elements analysis molecule folding etc . I guess and engineering firm wouldn’t really use it apart from expensive word processing. So it’s only for the music entertainment industry but the ADAC or extra PCIE boards would be limited especially fine tune controls on CGI production and the CUDA cores needed for essentially a super computer on a desktop isn’t there - I guess you could connect a light bulb to the PCIE or some Christmas lights
The Mac Pro continues to be rackable, but I am wondering whether Apple is even considering making a blade version, maybe a revised XServe, or even a family of blades including an Apple version for GPU computing. What hardware is Apple running to train their LLMs on? Are they using their own hardware, or are they secretly farming it out to Linux servers and Nvidia hardware?
I'd very very very surprised if Apple didn't use AWS or Google cloud, they already use AWS for S3 for iCloud storage and media. See: www.macrumors.com/2021/06/29/icloud-data-stored-on-google-cloud-increasing/
@@dmug It seems to me a huge difference is at this point cloud storage has been commodified to where it is no big deal to subcontract out functionality, whereas I am not sure training LLMs has been equally commodified. I'm not sure Apple should want to subcontract out this functionality to companies even the size of Amazon or Google who are themselves not completely sure what direction to go in for their own computing. Also isn't there a huge struggle just getting access to the latest hardware from Nvidia? Can even Apple cut a check to get themselves ahead of the line in front of Google or Amazon's own internal needs?
@@johnphamlore8073 There's no reason to buy tons of infrastructure just to train LLMs when you can lease the compute time you need. One of my friends is in the ML space and he just leases as needed for his company. It's how the game is played.
There is a lot of confusion. Having native PCIe slots will provide much much more bandwidth than any external chassis. About GPUs.... Well, guys, first of all nobody prevents GPU makers to make drivers and cards that do not consume 1 kW. The consumption of PC GPUs is ridiculous. the performance of the M series GPUs is much more than respectable. As for upgrades. People buying this sort of machine do NOT upgrade their CPUs anyway. For memory... we have an issue. There is currently no solution to get 800 GB/s bandwidth with expandable memory. But... the memory bandwidth is also nowhere else to be found, in any other CPU. So... the MacPro is a specific machine; it's really not a bad one. For people who need faster Networking / audio I/O / video I/O, etc... this is perfect. Much much better than any chassis limited by Thunderbolt. Any of the MacPro slots delivers more than any TB port. For GPUs ? I'm unclear on the need... and honestly, AMD and nVidia should do their job.
Actually Apple does prevent gpu drivers, Apple actually prevented Nvidia from creating drivers for macOS. It’s quite famous for being so petty appleinsider.com/articles/19/01/18/apples-management-doesnt-want-nvidia-support-in-macos-and-thats-a-bad-sign-for-the-mac-pro/amp/ Secondly a Asahi Linux dev mentioned apple silicon doesn’t support dGPuUs at a hardware level like the raspberry pi. Also don’t think anyone cares about the power consumption at the point of the highest end GPUs, the 4090 is a monster for anything from ML to AI training, to 3D rendering or codec mashing. Nvidia was doing its job but Apple stopped that.
This thing doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The only real difference with Studio is PCI-E expansion slots and these are totally pointless. You can't use external GPU and everything you can use can also be connected via thunderbolt, there's literally 0 reason to buy this over Studio. It's one of the most stupid products they ever made, maybe the most. Certainly the most expensive.
The last time i check Apple targets content creators with their pro variant computers and not the gaming community, so what's the purpose of making Apple's GPU vs Nvidia RTX 4090 comparisons.
Both AMD and Nvidia have much better compute, which is the backbone of many emerging technologies like ML and AI, as well as for codec mashing, physics modeling and even video compositing, as well as the more obvious like 3D graphics rendering. Apple’s GPUs are impressive when you look at per watt but the issue is that when you take the gloves off, the 4090 in OpenCL benchmarks is 3.5 times faster than the M1 ultra. Apple isn’t even as fast as the 2080 in OpenCL. For creators, the 4090 mops the floor with whatever Apple has. :/
Maybe it doesnt support GPUs because it doesn't need it. 76 core gpu. And to be fair it is 40K cheaper than the maxed out intel version. Still way over priced but cheaper.
The pricing is Apples to oranges as the intel Mac let you stack in a lot more upgrades, like 4x GPUs. Based on the geek bench metal compute, this will probably be about that of a 6800 XT if we’re lucky as the M1 ultra wasn’t exactly winning awards the gpu department. The 4x media engine is extreme overkill but it should be a monster for the codecs it supports. I’ll be curious if Apple can (or willing) to bring AV1 support to it.
1:00 come you guys wanted this Mac Pro , you Silicon cracks heads wish for it. Tim Cook saw the numbers of you people buying the silicon Mac (M1 and M2). he was saying to himself they will buy it because it. has a Mx in it. I already they washing going support GPU (AMD/NVIDIA) anymore. They killed all relationship with Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, All major pc game Developers out there. I been saying for the start Silicon Mac suck, because you have no control over upgrades of your personal computer (hint in the wording). Even my Apple TV with Apple Arcade seems like a Nintendo wII with that Arcade splash screen
Is that 300 watts per 16 times slot or total system wattage. If apple does not support their 2019 and amd gpu cards or pcie based ddr5 memory card adapters much faster than pcie ssds. Then how can anyone trust this going forward all pro towers always allowed ram and GPU upgrades aside from the trash can pro having no GPU upgrades except through an egpu. .seems like apple is doing that double now no gpu internal or external or memory upgrades. And the SSD upgrades with apple in it or insanely expensive and not that fast for ten times price of mvne. I am guessing apple will soon offer afterburner 3d graphic cards themselves specifically for apple silicon otherwise what's the use of a pro machine dated by the year it is released for it's GPU CPU and memory all soldered in place this give these machines an incredibly short life span like the trashcan man. The 2019 and classic pro can still be upgraded to the latest osx and GPU memory and actually run some things better than apple silicon because of the upgradeability.
300w addition power outage between the one 8 pin and two 6 pin power connectors. PCie itself provides 75w per card. Modern GPUs often use two 8 pins at the base config (6900 XT, 7900 XT) and the OC versions or top versions often more. My 6900 XT in my Mac pro uses three 8 pin power cables and I think many of the 6950s and the 7900XTXs use some form of 3 power cables. I highly doubt apple jammed in a 1400w PSU this go around, My guess is it's probably 850w range.
Why paying like $8K+ for Mac Pro while you can jusy get Mac Studio way cheaper and smaller factor? I dont see PCIe options are worth extra prices. Remember not every PCIe works on Mac Pro. You have buy specific from Apple which it also cost a lot. Mac Pro is waste potential now.
I'm a bit disappointed in some ways. Everything Apple is going strictly SoC and not upgradable. So the configuration is placed at the time of the order and that's the end of it. You get what you pay for. I don't know. I'm considering getting a Mac Studio probably the M1 Max version refurbished and be done with it. The Mac Pro is still a bit overpriced for what it is due to no upgradability whatsoever. I almost went for the 2019 Mac Pro but decided against it due to it being Intel-based system. As of now, I'm going to sit back and see how all of this will pan out. Then I will make my decision on what to do next.
similarish situation whenever Apple drops the Mac Pro 2019, I’ll probably just get the Max version of the studio or go strictly laptop. The later is probably the route I’ll go and be stuck buying a new laptop and selling the old one every few years. The Mac Pro 2019 was a silly purchase for me but I justified it by selling off a lot of old hardware during the madness of the early pandemic which funded about 85% of the cost.
@@dmug Yeah I'm considering the laptop route as well. I feel that I get the refurbished Mac Studio and a refurbished M1 MacBook Pro 16 for mobility reasons and I will be set for a while without any concerns about Apple dropping support. I still have my monitor when I was using the Mac Pro 5,1. So I will pull that monitor out to use once I get a Mac Studio.
They can't scale the design because gluing more Apple CPU together require more links and it's really costly + more links means scalability isn't linear Mac Pro is very small market and to specifically design dedicated CPU, GPU and Neuro engine doesn't make sense from cost perspective. Apple SOC CPU is also very costly to produce, because of it's size, because there is very small amount of Apple CPU / wafer and add to that error during production and you get less usable CPUs / wafer. Apple will probably change their design, because cost is very high for production large chips. Maybe they can separate CPU, GPU and NeuroEngine as chiplets and connect them on 1 big package. This will give advantage small chiplets for small devices, dedicated CPU/GPU/NeuroEngine for Mac Pro There is a channel AdoreTV, which explains in details the production process of CPUs + rumors about AMD/Intel next gen production
As a longtime Mac person of 20+ years, (and currently a 2019 Mac Pro user like you) I think it's time to say goodbye to the Mac platform. I just don't see any logic in their product lineups anymore. I'll ride my Mac Pro as long as they support it with future macOS versions, then turn it into a Windows-only machine using bootcamp and install an NVIDIA GPU that should outperform whatever Apple Silicon Mac Pro they put out at that time. I would've kissed Phil Schiller's or Jon Ternus's @$$ if they went really innovative and just announced an MPX module with an Apple Silicon SOC on it that could be plugged into the 2019 Mac Pro, maybe plug in two of them and fuse them together for even more power, and give the 2019 the best of both worlds (Intel & AS). Unfortunately, they're not even creative as a layman like me, so yeah, you can't innovate anymore. My @$$. They just think slapping on the best chip of the time is good enough. Pathetic...
I find the M2 Ultra in general very much an overhyped and akward Product. The CPU side seems to be roughly on the level of an Intel Core i7 13700 (getting beaten by an i9 13900), which if you only care about CPU grunt you can easily get a build for under 1000$ going which than opens you up for further upgrades in the future. For the GPU as you mentioned it doesn't hold a candle to current gen AMD and Nvidia products either. I think in the Desktop Workstation Space this whole "thightly integrated SoC" Philosophy really shows its cracks. For me as a Full Stack developer - what I need is CPU Power and RAM, first and foremost singlecore performance. The RTX 3070 level GPU in mac would never even get touched and I don't have any use for AI and Media accellerators. Or a video editor. Might probably not need nearly as much CPU Power but the biggest Media engine possible and plenty of storage. I also think that the ongoing war between AMD and Intel has lead to incredible price to performance improvements in the x64 CPU space while Apple living in their own world probably doesn't help innovation and pricing long term. Overall since Workstation use is very specific I think by basically upscaling the entire SoC stops making sense past the M1 Max.
That must be an unusual tool chain you have. Im a UX dev and full stack dev myself and my most rugged tool chain is 10 docker container setup that also requires node, and the usual browsers, IDE, slack and sketch. 32 GB of ram covers is it. Faster cpu is nice but there’s not a massive amount of productivity left on the table, even React Native where you’re forced into compiles isn’t exactly massively slowed by my computer. I might feel differently if I was a swift dev making heavy apps or doing a lot of ML but as a full stack? Nah. I agree that Apple’s showing in the M2 ultra isn’t mind boggling as it’s bested by the 13900KS and compute wise is roughly that of a 3080 in OpenCL but there are quirks the unified memory and media engines that do make it an unusual entry. Apple’s high end desktops are underwhelming at best but the laptops continue to be top tier. It is funny though how most apple users seem wholly unaware of what’s happening on the pc side of things.
I wanted them to change it to a cube form factor and use min PCI-E cards. Not accepting external GPU's is expected. It's going to be a super niche product for those 10 or 20 people that might need it for legacy cards that still are running the 1990's Mac Pro. It is cheaper compared to the Intel version but lacks the ability to use the external GPU's so it should be cheaper than it is. The Studio makes so much more sense as an onset production computer. You could even edit footage on set as a production is filmed scene by scene. The mac pro makes no sense except as a pretty box for production houses to put by the receptionist's desk to impress clients as they enter the studio.
Thanks man! I've binged watched lots of your videos today (when I've discovered your channel)! Regarding TH-cam revenue, how many views per month do you need in order to buy a Mac pro? Thanks! I'm not sure where TH-camrs like Luke Miani have so much money to spare on this high end devices
The level of cope from people worshipping at the feet of apple who dont actually know much about hardware but come up with more hilarious justifications for why this closed down hamstrung arm platform is "so much better" is comical. Keep it coming guys 😂
Firmly vowed to never own or use an iOS product since forever, and as the walls of the Apple prison grow ever higher and the company's endless miserable design decisions mount, I'm so very glad to be vowing never MxMac as well.
What’s wrong with you lot !!! I love my Mac, and I have this brilliant Mac Pro… 2023 Mac Pro Apple M2 Ultra with 24-core CPU, 60-core GPU, 32‑core Neural Engine 64GB unified memory Main Mac Storage 8TB SSD With Two Separate PCIe Storage 24TB SSD
Great that it’s working for you but wouldn’t you agree it’s kinda messed up my Mac Pro 2019 has more ram and a much more powerful GPU than the best 2023 Mac Pro configuration and I was able to do it after the fact? Outside of people who need large amounts of internal fast storage, there’s not much of an audience for this new Mac Pro.
@@dmug it is what it is at the end of the day. I had a 2019 Mac Pro this I loved but it broke but Apple kindly replaced it with my new 2023 Mac Pro and I love it even more
@@KainsTormentWell, I wouldn‘t complain about a free replacement, since it surely will have better future software support, but as long as my Intel Mac Pro works I‘ll stick with it and the software it runs best. Like bootcamp, for some gaming.
My hunch is this will be the last Mac Pro model that we see produced. It's just not going to be a viable option with the SoC architecture, nor profitable. They should've just kept it as the only Intel model in their lineup and updated the 2019 specs.
Yeah.... With the way suddenly how AMD and Intel have leveled up, on the desktop side of things, Intel Macs probably would have been a smarter move. The Intel Core i9-13900K and AMD Ryzen 9 7950X are both faster than the M1 Ultra in multicore and faster than the M2 Pro/Max in single-core (and of course multicore).
The M2 Ultra will certainly best those CPUs but you're talking about CPU/Mobo/RAM/PSU combos that cost half of the M2 Ultra.
True, it really makes sense why we're not seeing it with upgradable graphics and ram. I imagine it would be very expensive to design a workaround for that, with it being Apple silicon.
@@nicknorthcutt7680 There are ARM based computers with both. It's feasible but Apple doesn't seem interested in modular designs at all as they'd lose out on charging up front.
Mac Pro is dead
I've known a number of studios who have recently installed Mac Pros so as not to have to deal with the hassles of external PCI-e boxes and TB4 cables.
It makes their lives easier to just keep everything internal to the machine, more than worth the $3K uncharge in config hassles.
Long live the 5,1 Cheesegrater. We’ll keep them going as long as we can.
Still the best computer Apple has made since the original iMac
@@dmug I'd argue the slot-loading iMac, but sure.
@@dmug Any and all variants of the graphite G4 tower. Also long live the mid 2012 MacBook Pro, still the best laptop I've ever had.
@@superstar64 I love the G3/G4 hanging door design but having one again, it's not quite as utilitarian as the cMP, especially the trays in the 4,1/5,1. Working on them is a bit more annoying due to the cabling not being nearly as managed. The other knock is the longevity. cMPs are still viable today, 15 years later. The best a G4 had was about 8 years if you had a PCI G4 from 2000 and upgraded the CPU.
@@dmug
I didn't mean as a modern machine. At the time they were released, the G4 towers were probably one of the best computers money could buy, and still make great machines for classic Mac gaming (because those two words don't look awkward in a sentence together). I only mentioned the G4 tower since you brought up the iMac G3 as one of Apple's best machines, and I thought I could throw in my pick from that era.
Tim Cook gas been trying to kill max pro since 2013.Steve Jobs would have never let this happen.
A vision cannot handle my 1000 page keynote that is a free alternative to photoshop
I wanted the xtreme version… but that will live in our dreams.
I don't even want to imagine the sticker shock of a 48-Core / 384 GB / 152 Core GPU. One thing is for sure, it'd probably have a GPU that'd actually be on the same turf as AMD and Nvidia
@@dmug the last generation amd intel and Nvidia have improved a lot.
Maybe with m3...maybe Apple heard us...maybe...
I was wonder, if this Machine maybe won't support Graphics Card
It seems very unlikely.
No
You could see Mac Pro 5.1 and even a trashcan in almost every music/video production studio, it was an industry standard and a dream for every indy creator. But now this niche is totally lost by Apple. A Mac Studio with some extra storage via Thunderbolt is an absolutely identical thing for much cheaper. I will miss Mac Pro, spent a decade enjoying the reliability and power of this amazing machine. But now it's so hard to imagine a scenario where it's worth buying. Bye-bye, the legend.
P.S. Greg, thanks for the nice video, informative as usual.
Yeah, I saw that Mac Mini m2 (the base model) is $449 on Amazon today. I could realistically edit the videos I make on it and probably make the music I do (most of the time) on one.
@@dmug Due to my nomad lifestyle now I had to migrate from my maxed-out cMP 5.1 to MacBook Pro 14 with M1 Pro, and I have to admit that this tiny machine is more than enough for ALL my needs, and it actually outperforms my 5.1. I'm missing a bulk of internal nvme storage, but even this is not a big deal.
Yeah, I bought the M1 Max and my work provides me the M1 Pro. Honestly I’d just get the M1 Pro if I had to do it over again. I think in the future I’m going to go laptop and build a NAS as buying the apple silicon Mac Pro is just a bad investment. TH-cam makes me like $200 a month so I can’t justify it.
Nice opportunity for third-party metal-bashers: make a nice brushed aluminium cheese-grater box with a rack inside for a Mac Studio and a bunch of slots for M.2 SSDs on Thunderbolt adapters, or maybe even a complete NAS unit. The money saved on not paying the Apple SSD tax and just going with the minimum internal to the Studio should easily cover the cost of the box, never mind the $3000 tax on the Mac Pro!
I wanted to put a 7600xt in my 5.1 i guess the possibility for that is now gone
Not really if hackers can figure it out.
@@Tigerex966 they cant figure that out
@@IITMM sure they can with open core macvid cards and others
@@Tigerex966 nope they cant
@@IITMM actually they can, it's just a matter of time effort and sometimes luck.
They’ll be killing the Mac Pro in a few years. This was just to “say” we made a apple silicon Mac Pro.
Perhaps or just to keep the Mac around in various studios where they still make a nice chunk of change, where people are less price sensitive.
@@dmug I personally think they’d prefer the Mac Studio and are going to kill of the Mac Pro otherwise why make the new Mac Pro so similar. That’s just my opinion.
.....OK.....just buy a PC....get off of the Mac. See, I fixed it for you.
@@goobfilmcast4239 ugh no
Oh hey, my video made it in LTT's I Put a GPU in the M2 Mac Pro
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtcSN...
It's been confirmed that the Mac Pro 2023 will not support 3rd party GPUs by Apple.
Those thunderbolt cards are bandwidth weak for many pro applications like even 1 pcie4 SSD can saturate it. At 40Gb per second.
So anyone needing more than that hard limit for their sound dsp multi SSD video supported graphic I/o multi port say USB card multi 10 g card all ports with full bandwidth will have to bypass the studio or go over or Linux for true upgradeable workstation .. actually the biggest weakness in non upgradeable memory for both the studio and Mac pro
That is an instant non starter for a lot in 3d and animation who needs to work from ram.
Next is non upgradeable CPU as this time stamps your Mac to that year and that cpu pure planned obselence in a desktop.
Next obviously is no GPU upgrades and CPU stealing gpu memory and vice versa although it has some pluses for connect speed it also has minuses for peter ribbing Paul to pay mark.Ibviousky no standard SSD upgrades.
Apple prices are beyond insane and the fact that your machine can brick if the included SSD ever fails and it will. In that event lock out booting from external drives as well.
Newer apple oses lock out millions of osx 10.1 - 10.10 great Mac programs many with no upgrade path or buggy ones and of course no 32 bit programs and no easy emulation to get the m1 m2 machines to run those programs or windows programs without a huge performance lost.
Repair and parts independent if apples are insane charges out of warranty, you need a new motherboard for everything recommendation, diy hard to do.
Since every two years or so GPUs almost double in power and cpus up to 50% and programs needing memory more apple dates your machine obsolete by stopping upgrades.
Especially on laptops as well.
32 and 48 GB ddr 5 modules are available and soon 64GB.
Meaning windows laptops with 1 or 2 slots open can have at least 48GB to 192max GB on 4 slot models and with thunderbolt and USB 4 3 and 5 they can add an external GPU later with tb5 and the next USBC giving 80Gbps even a budget laptop can outperform a Mac studio or pro in many gpu tasks for much cheaper.
I hope we get a fourth creator style desktop OS besides Linux mac and windows that runs in standards PC parts soon
You forgot to mention $1000 for the cheese grater.
The tower Mac Pro presented today, is just a "stop gap" measure. There was a design error with the 5nm M-1 processor chips where, when they are doubled their performance goes up only by about half. Go from a base model M1 to a M1 pro (is a 50 percent increase); then go from a M1 pro to a M1 Max (is now a 25 percent increase); then go from M1 max to M1 Ultra (is now a 12 percent increase). So, last year when the M1 Extreme was shown to Tim Cook, it was only 6 percent better than a M1 Ultra processor. This kind of put Apple, Inc. into a box when it came to the tower Mac Pro. I am sure, once the new 4nm or 3 nm processor chips arrive the Mac Studio and tower Mac Pro models will each have different processors (smile...smile).
Did they changed the design of M3 chips to fix that issue ? Even ultra chip is a waste of money, unless you need that extra 10% performance badly.
I think you're missing a few things: The M2 Pro and M2 Max performance in the CPU department is effectively nothing. They're the same core count, and same clock speed, just the GPU count and higher memory bandwidth. The M1 Ultra vs the M1 Max in CPU scores was more like 50% and the rumor was the Extreme would be 50%ish more than the Ultra, as it'd be a 2x the core count of the Ultra and 2x the GPU core count of the Ultra.
The big issue was cost. It takes 4x the yield of Apple Silicon dies as a single M1 Max. The cost scaling then would be more than 2x the Ultra, as also it'd require the UltraFusion to scale with the insane bandwidth. You'd be looking at $20,000 computer at the top end if not more. The Mac Pro is already boutique and the numbers were just too little. I'm sure the sales figures of the 28-Core Mac pro 2019 were pretty slim and Tim Cook, the forever bean counter, saw it wasn't worth the cost.
@@dmug 'The M2pro and M2 Max performance in the CPU dept...." you should look at the specs on the M2 pro and max configs of the MB Pros. The stock M2 Pro is a 6 performance core/4 efficiency core config, while the M2 Max is an 8 performance core and 4 efficiency core config. The additional performance cores are going to add 20-25% unless there are thermal issues. Pro/Max are not the same CPU unless you pay for an upgraded pro with 8 performance cores. Doing so will make the CPU's the same.
@@sanaksanandan We will see only time will tell. What, I did notice is that after the introduction of the M1 Ultra processor chip the engineer designer no longer is shown on any od Apple's marketing videos (perhaps he is now in "the dog house").
Is this true?
the 2023 mac pro is exactly what I wanted and need for my computing tasks (3D medical imaging), a >20 core apple silicon cpu with PCIe slots!
Honest question: Why do want it over the Mac Studio?
@@dmug PCIE slots!
@@lekudos Sure.... but I'd guess medical imaging would be a task that you'd be accessing images off a server and not locally. Perhaps networking cards would be useful but I wouldn't expect needing massive storage locally.
It has way more efficient cooling@@dmug
I also have a Mac Studio that I use as a backup system but working with many TB of CT images and cancer treatment plans for thousands of patients accumulated over the past many years is much slower via either my 10 gbps ethernet NAS RAID or my thunderbolt 3 DAS RAID archiving systems compared to several PCIe RAID currently in my 2019 Mac Pro 16-core (e.g. one of my PCIe RAID is an OWC Accelsior 4M2 that runs about 6,000MB/s in RAID 0). I build 3D models of the eyes of patients with eye cancers and plan targeted radiation treatment that destroys the cancers while preserving as much of the healthy eye as possible.
It’s not too bad but I didn’t really expect anything else. I’m glad they upgraded the Studio too which I think I will choose over the Pro only because I got used to not caring about internal expansion after upgrading my cMP to a M1 MacBook Pro which was powerful enough to keep me going and I quite liked having a self contained unit. Part of me is curious about what possible upgrades there might be for the new Mac Pro years down the line like there was for the Mac Pro I bought new oh so many years ago but it’s not smart to buy something on the off chance it might be hacked or patched into something amazing years later. 😅
I think I'll probably invest in a really nice NAS with NVMe buffers and figure out where I'm going from there.
Why didn’t they just make a Mac Studio tower and leave the Mac Pro name behind?
The last Mac Pro was made in 2012. Nothing that has come since has been worthy of the moniker and have been Mac Pros in name only.
The latest model is a joke.
The Mac Pro 2019 is/was a nice computer, just Apple seems to be in a rush to drop support for it and didn't embrace it's excellent design. It was also too Pro, and shouldn't have taken 6 years to ship.
It is a much better designed computer than the cMP as it's much easier to work on, a lot less steps to to complete disassemble it, and it's dead silent, more so than cMP. It's absurd that Apple doesn't sell it's parts to fix it and it's pretty shitty that Apple knew the Apple Silicon Macs were around the corner when selling $12k+ configurations.
@dmug I've little doubt the 2019 Mac Pro is a better computer, having been released 7 years after the cMP it should be.
However it wasn't a like for like replacement.
In 2012 the base cMP cost $2499 - adjusted for inflation in 2019 that comes to approx $2785. The 2019 Mac Pro however started at a whopping $5999 - that's over twice the price. It's completely unreasonable to expect people who (like me) had owned very Mac tower and waited patiently for years for a new one to arrive, to be expected to stump up $6k!!!
Even the debacle that was the 2013 trashcan Mac Pro started at $2999 (adjusted for inflation approx $3300), so $6k is by every scale imaginable completely unreasonable and instantly means it isn't a like for like replacement.
Despite the HUGE price increase the base model shipped with just 256GB storage the same as the trashcan in 2013 (when SSDs were expensive).
It was pitiful and a complete F**K YOU by Apple to many users.
And don't get me started on the $1000 wheels or the $1000 monitor stand!
It shouldn't cost $6k to get a tower Mac.
It was taking the piss. Apple knew this, they simply didn't care.
Now they've all but abandoned it.
You know when you had a girlfriend that you wanted to split with, but you couldn't bring yourself to do it, so instead you treated them like crap until they left you instead... that's Apple and the Mac Pro users!
They finished with you long ago, now they're just waiting for you to leave!
They could be doing the same thing they did with M1 machines, I just find it super weird they would do this to the Mac Pro, just a lazy refresh with a spec bump, next generation will likely have dGPU support and a new design.
But then, why not just do it now? I don’t get it
Also I think M3 could show us major improvements when it comes to performance on the max and ultra chips, the performance of the M2 variants really blew me away, because I was expecting way less, based on the jump from base m1 to m2.
So I guess that’s why? I think holding out on the Apple Silicon transition for another year, god forbid two years could make investors angry, and little Timmy doesn’t like the sound of that
They quoted a 2 year transition, and I think if they wanted to ship the Mac Pro with dGPU support + a new design + M3 it would likely be at the end of m3’s cycle, which would likely putt the transition into 4/5 years, so it wouldn’t look good for apple if their “2 year transition” turned out to be actually 4/5 years.
I’m really hoping this is the case, the m3 is the Mac Pro was what they wanted to ship and this was just a meh version.
@@dmugonestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if this ends up to be the case, considering how Tim has been really trying to make investors happy lately
I think M2 Mac Pro users would be pretty pissed though lol
This "Pro" is Apple's F you to Pro users. Guess I'm building a PC now 😑
Great Info but I have a tremendous urge for a beer. lol. Thanks
So what we can do with the PCI exept soundcards and I/O's extension. ?
Yep. Any non GPUs.
RIP Mac Pro. Back in the day U wuz a real gangsta.
absolutely bonker, doesn't make any sense
I also have noticed announcements of the new Apple Mac Pro Computer. Since Apple company is now using System on a Chip architecture the prospective buyer will need to carefully consider the equipment options when ordering this computer because, like other Apple products, it is not upgradeable. The System on a Chip architecture does make for a faster more powerful computer, but now memory, video, and cpu's are no longer upgradeable.
.....OK.....just buy a PC....get off of the Mac. See, I fixed it for you.
It's not faster or more powerful than Nvidia and amds correct workstation and producer chips in CPU or GPU performance in 3 d and else where.
It is superb for video because of the media engines chips and uses very little power compared to the competition.
The GPU is probably on par with last gen etc 3070 but can in theory access much more memory instead of just8 8 10 -12 16- 24GB if the CPU is not using it.
This will allow 3,d model playback in real time.
If course x86 CPU can have 1.5 TB in memory for extreme computation.
Interesting.
that 15 inch air looks so cool tho
Jesus. The Mac Pro is dead.
Pretty much.
.....OK.....just buy a PC....get off of the Mac. See, I fixed it for you.
@@goobfilmcast4239 What? Why do you think im not allowed to use both systems? Is not Pc against Mac. Objectively this New Mac Pro Is trash and its against what a Mac Pro should be and has been for all these years, don't be such a loyalist snob, man.
WOW! A Mac Studio with a $3,000 expansion chassis! Can't wait to buy one (not).
The main dif is it has pcie slots and way more efficient cooling and it’s about equivalent of two max studios
You're obviously not the type of consumer they're targeting with this anyways
@@diverman1023 Whew! I don't like being targeted by big business, do you?
@@diverman1023 I'm glad that Apple does not aim at everyone! Aren't you?
So, which PCIe cards can you actually use on this MacPro? I mean, are there even enough situations where you'd need 6 slots?
I am betting only the ones that were shown in the presentation. Any legacy cards are no goes since they won't have M-series coded drivers or plug-ins
SSD drives...which will be proprietary most likely and cost another fortune for each one
Go look at a video done by Neil Parfitt. He uses all six slots in his Intel Mac Pro. But the interesting thing is that the slot configuration in the m2 max pro and the Intel Mac Pro are different. That may prevent the kind of setup Neil did. The other issue is that the new M2 Mac Pro is limited to 192 meg memory where is the Intel Mac Pro that Neil used he was able to get 768 meg installed in one of his orchestral Library for his audigy card loading to use his 300 meg to do so, again would invoke swap on the system. In terms of real time performance this could be a be a hard line deciding factor.
Neil Parfitt released a video talking about the new M.2 Mac Pro and why it might not be a solution for him. But being a pro he expects to be in his into Mac Pro for the next 5 to 7 years, and possibly longer because of the issues he has outlined in that video.
I had my time with the apple Silicon experiment. Now, Im going back to the beloved PC. Sure, apple Silicon is powerful, but I don’t want to pay through the nose for more ram and storage. I have my eyes on a used 9th or 10th gen i7 rig that I can max out my ram to 64 gigs and upgrade my storage to 2tb that cost a couple of hundred bucks more than the base model mac mini.
I can understand that, I'll stick with Apple for laptops but I'm not sure where I'll go after my Mac Pro 2019.
I’ll keep my MacPro 3,1 with its HW upgrades and Open Core Legacy Patcher running Ventura
I think my next Mac Pro video is gonna be about the Mac Pro 3,1 :)
My base M1 Mac Mini destroys ANY MacPro 3,1 regardless of whatever GPU or driver you can hack.
@@goobfilmcast4239 Not everyone wants to spend the money on a new computer and perhaps has an ideological component about keeping eWaste out of land fills for as long as possible.
Also, I can name things that the Mac Mini can't do right off the top of head: Play games in Windows or boot common x86 Linux distros or run common VMs. People have their reasons.
@@dmug Windows? Linux? ….. stop using vulgarity in your comments
i think they release the mac pro so they can start the process of the m3 and to make sure everything work perfectly for the new m3 family before they release it and second i think the mac pro in the long run will be the only computer you will be able to upgrade the cpu and the ssd alone if you wanted to so it makes sense if you think about it.
I hope so.
Given the SoC structure, it was an open question as to what the Mac Pro would be. One possible option I saw a few people considering in forums is the SoC being on a daughter card and the case being sort of a generic enclosure that can upgraded that way. Unless something amazing happens, that looks like a hard no. At least for now. Maybe when M3 comes out? Or maybe we will see overdrive options from 3rd party vendors. Either way, it is certainly a bit disappointing as this makes the Mac Pro even more niche given the option of a studio. The open question would be if there had been a dual CPU or an even bigger (Ultra +) with double the everything to separate it out, would that level of power have been enough of a draw?
I wonder if the increased price point isn't the biggest clue.
Amazing video, love your content!
Base price is rather, nice 👌
😂
Fully loaded price is nice compared to the old one at 50k 😂
@@oscarcampbellhobson Absolutely. I won’t buy it, but maybe in 10-12 years I can pick one up for $2-300 lol
I’m really disappointed
A lot of us are…
It's for people who need fast large amounts of storage and or pcie capture and controller cards. There are videos of editing professionals who bought the studio and are complaining about the slow transfer speeds/lack of pcie. It's a pointless computer otherwise. Even if I won a lottery and had F'off type cash I still wouldn't buy the new mac pro. I'd just get the top of the line studio and max it out.
I have one PCIE slot via an akitio thunderbolt enclosure that I used to use as a PCIE NVME boot disk off my old 2012 imac. I've own a studio since oct and other than a moderately fast 1000mbs transfer speeds on a 1tb external hard drive that I don't really need I can't think of what else I can use it for. What the hell would I ever use six of them for? Recording studios use those PCIE slots. Video editors who need to be able to transfer and store large files need them. We don't need them.
Yes, this looks like an extremely niche product, for a few specific clients. But Apple can allow themselves to do this. On one side, the form factor existed, so no new tooling there, just a new motherboard. On the other side, they don’t care if they just sell a few of these, they know who this is for, and I guess the inventory will be limited. Not for most of us, and I don’t mind (more and more I see things being produced that are just there for a few selected customers).
That’s been my takeaway, there’s various studios and high tier clients client that justify its existence (probably even Apple itself for development of its own platforms). It’s a B2B product that is displayed very publicly.
It’s a shame though it’s price high and feature set is so slim. If it’d come it at $1k above the studio, it may have been compelling as a computer that has a 5-8 year shelf life is out of bounds for most.
i think apple wants to sell these as volume work pcs and is targeting the studio as the mortal pc... sadly, because i really would love those ports.
I'm guessing they have niche clients that still demand PCIe and they're mostly not interested in the prosumer/home market where people are price sensitive.
I was hoping apple would at least make their own gpus for this, or literally a card with an m2 chip on it. It would probabaly be expensive but it would at least be an option
My thought as well. This new Mac Pro is more of a glorified big Mac Studio. I was hoping they would at least put two M2 Ultra in this chassis. People who buy this are just getting one Mac Studio and paying 3000 dollars for the opportunity to expand, but currently are not sure what they can put into those slots. Afterburner card? Already in the CPU and is better. GPU? Already in the CPU and the ones you would think you can plug in would probably have architecture conflicts. Storage? Maybe. The listed modules require you to rip out the ones inside the chassis. An upgrade, not an expansion, and they don't use the PCIe slots at all. The absurd thing is that two of the front fans are just blowing across an empty chassis straight to the back covers.
They have to or it's dead in the water for many graphic pros write driver's for Nvidia amd or Intel GPUs.
@@Tigerex966 I think the bigger nail in the coffin is that it won't be ableto handle legacy cards since their manufacturers are long gone or won't write updated drivers using M-series programming codes This is a dead bloated pig floating in the river. I know three production houses here in Toronto that upgraded to the Itel Mac Pro. In total they moved over 27 legacy cards over and had no issues out of the box with all but two of them. That's not going ot happen with this machine. There is no way this will ever be a profitable machien for Apple. It almost feels like the old days of 90's Apple just before they almost went bankrupt releasing useless hardware with no customer to sell it to.
@@che-weihsieh975 There are people who need specialty hardware -- like audio engineers -- who buy multi-thousand $$ cards who need machines like the Mac Pro. Just because everyone is citing internal storage and video cards as the only ones they can think of doesn't mean they're the only ones anyone can use.
@@godofbiscuitssf I understand that, and audio professionals usually already know what they want. But aside from those use cases, there really isn’t a point where buying a Mac Pro is any more useful than a Mac Studio. For many years, Apple has made their pro machines extremely focused on video editing, photo editing, especially after the introduction of Apple Silicon. They have proven to be powerful and efficient when doing those tasks, due to the hardware and dedicated software optimizations. There will be people who would look at these Mac Pros and think, hey, these are supposed to be the best for what I want, not knowing that the extra money doesn’t get you much more than a promise.
Darn shame
It really is.
Yeah, the memory isn't "doing double duty" for CPU and GPU. It's unified. No blitting operations and round-tripping from CPU across the PCI bus to GPU and back are needed, and in fact it's an optimization step to make sure to remove any of them from code you're bringing over from intel versions. Unified memory is a key part of the performance gains in Apple Silicon. Why were you expecting anything but the same thing? It wouldn't be socketed. There wouldn't be a discrete GPU. Metal at this point expects unified memory.
The GPU isn't the only thing at play for compute, which I suppose might come as a surprise if you're used to drinking NVIDIA's koolaid, but there are other processors -- the Neural Engine, multiple matrix processors (integer calculations) come to mind, to name a couple -- that also come into play for compute, that also benefit from unified memory and not "have to do shared duty with".
It’s more efficient, I’m not arguing that, but also everything in VRAM doesn’t exist inherently in RAM. 16 GB of textures would exist in the entirely in the 64 GB RAM pool whereas with a dedicated GPU it’d exist with pointers to the GPU but be independent.
I’m hardly an nvidia fanboy but as a developer who’s toyed with ML training, Apple Silicon is impressive for an iGPU but pretty ho-hum compared a dedicated gpu. Also you can see the effects of the neural engine in stable diffusion, if you disable it, there isn’t much of a speed penalty. Nvidia so thoroughly dominates the compute realm that many of the popular docker container stacks are CUDA only.
Lastly, Apple M1 Ultra isn’t even as fast metal compute as the mid tier AMD 6800 (not the XT). Apple may get away with more out of less, but the problem is the competition is offering so much more that it doesn’t matter.
Not true the gains are extremely small if any .
The real secret sauce are the media engines and low power draw not the unified memory which was made to be cheap profit off of bto upgrades only from apple and to lock out all others.
The speed improvements simply are not there.
The shared memory also has a bad side as you are robbing peter to pay Paul instead of paying them. Both. In some situations like when the GPU needs gobs of memory and you have it great but otherwise it can actually hurt performance.
@@Tigerex966 That doesn't track. Simple math says 800GB/s bandwidth is faster than 64GB/s, and not having to copy data roundtrip is always going to be slower than not having to copy it at all.
As for your price gouging "theory", there aren't enough Macs made to turn that into a real business relative to Apple's overall business. There just isn't.
@@godofbiscuitssf not true at all there are tons of variables software and hardware custom chips encoders media engines app developers restrictions bad code in addition to simple stats.
Simply because one has a pcie bus to go through or dedicated GPU or more or less or faster or slower memory SSD or Bandwidth does not make it slower or faster.
It's the best balance of all the variables that in.
This is hy a turtle can beat a rabbit sometimes it's not just hardware specs or software it's hi they irk together as a unit to get a final result.
Put usain bolt in steel toe boots running in mud rain snow hip deep he I'll be slower the a old lady with a cane in track shoes on a proper track in the 100m.
One day when you are older you will see past the hype and stop your false brainwashed statements on false facts
@@Tigerex966 I'm probably older than you are. I'm telling you that it's impossible any blit operation to be faster than not doing the blit in the first place, that 800 GB/s is faster than 64 GB/s, that Metal is designed around the hardware architecture of the SoC, and that Apple has much MUCH larger needs other than making a relatively few bucks off of RAM upgrades on relatively few Macs to design an entire future hardware strategy around that kind of nickel and diming.
I love the new Mac Pro as a system, but I don’t love the price. $3k is too much for the additional stuff that you’re getting. $1000 premium would be more realistic, and would probably drive the sales of the new Mac Pro. I’m glad they finally got it out the door, because I’ll have to wait 3-4 years for the prices to come down on eBay enough to justify replacing my Mac Studio with one.
At $5k it’d still be worth it for just PCIe storage. It’s almost like apple didn’t want to sell this.
@@dmug too expensive for just pcie slots
I’m just gona watch from the sidelines as the big TH-camrs do benchmark tests on the new mac pros next week. Lol. This just seems like a glorified Mac Studio at this point.
Loving the hot takes
A Mac Pro would never be worth it.
.....OK.....just buy a PC....get off of the Mac. See, I fixed it for you.
@@goobfilmcast4239 oh wow. Is your butt ok?
We wanted the m2 extreme, and unfortunately this is what we got
I wonder if Apple will offer a M2 upgrade path for their existing Intel MacPro customers.
As a 2019 owner, they certainly haven't said anything to me 🙃
They could put it on a pcie card and maybe only lose 20percent performance but have windows and GPU support.
@@Tigerex966 Isn't the Intel CPU on a separate processor card? I remember reading about Apple offering Intel processor upgrades. I would be livid if Apple orphaned my machine so swiftly after paying such a staggering premium.
I was hoping something like M2 UltraUltra (.....4X M2 max...?) so it get bit more differentiation from Mac studio, but oh well...
There was the rumored M series Extreme. The Ultra is effectively two M1 Maxes glued together with a very very fast interconnect. The issue is a single Extreme would take 4x the SOCs of a singular M1 Max, and require an insanely beefy interconnect. The M2 Extreme would have cost more than 2x to make of a single M2 Ultra as it'd be two Ultras smashed together for a 48 Core monster, and it'd probably only provide a 50%-ish jump in performance.
The rumor mill was that the cost was just too high, as the Extreme would have been easily over $20k. Apple knows how many Mac Pro 2019s they sold above $20k, and it probably wasn't many.
@@dmug oh well....
It’s such a shame. I would love a Mac Pro that allows for upgradability. I don’t care if they’re Apple-exclusive. It doesn’t sound impossible to just have a barebones SoC, with UltraFusion lanes going to a spot on the motherboard for Memory modules, and another for Graphics modules, Storage modules, or Connectivity modules.
That would make Mac Pro a paragon of the industry.
Even upgradable ram would have been a big deal as it’d open the gate for 3rd parties
It's beautiful.
That is all.
The new M2 Ultra is faster than the 6900X GPU but that's really it. You could just get one in a Mac Studio for way less
Actually… not really. The M2 Ultra does struggle in performance tests in a weird way. Also it only got a chance because Apple refuses to support 7000-series GPUs.
This means Mac Pro isn’t for university researchers or hi-tech development such as AI, some use CUDA CORES or AMD power GPUs for programming AI finite elements analysis molecule folding etc . I guess and engineering firm wouldn’t really use it apart from expensive word processing. So it’s only for the music entertainment industry but the ADAC or extra PCIE boards would be limited especially fine tune controls on CGI production and the CUDA cores needed for essentially a super computer on a desktop isn’t there - I guess you could connect a light bulb to the PCIE or some Christmas lights
Mac Pro 2023 is a total disaster.
The Mac Pro continues to be rackable, but I am wondering whether Apple is even considering making a blade version, maybe a revised XServe, or even a family of blades including an Apple version for GPU computing. What hardware is Apple running to train their LLMs on? Are they using their own hardware, or are they secretly farming it out to Linux servers and Nvidia hardware?
I'd very very very surprised if Apple didn't use AWS or Google cloud, they already use AWS for S3 for iCloud storage and media.
See:
www.macrumors.com/2021/06/29/icloud-data-stored-on-google-cloud-increasing/
@@dmug It seems to me a huge difference is at this point cloud storage has been commodified to where it is no big deal to subcontract out functionality, whereas I am not sure training LLMs has been equally commodified. I'm not sure Apple should want to subcontract out this functionality to companies even the size of Amazon or Google who are themselves not completely sure what direction to go in for their own computing. Also isn't there a huge struggle just getting access to the latest hardware from Nvidia? Can even Apple cut a check to get themselves ahead of the line in front of Google or Amazon's own internal needs?
@@johnphamlore8073 There's no reason to buy tons of infrastructure just to train LLMs when you can lease the compute time you need. One of my friends is in the ML space and he just leases as needed for his company. It's how the game is played.
There is a lot of confusion. Having native PCIe slots will provide much much more bandwidth than any external chassis. About GPUs.... Well, guys, first of all nobody prevents GPU makers to make drivers and cards that do not consume 1 kW. The consumption of PC GPUs is ridiculous. the performance of the M series GPUs is much more than respectable. As for upgrades. People buying this sort of machine do NOT upgrade their CPUs anyway. For memory... we have an issue. There is currently no solution to get 800 GB/s bandwidth with expandable memory. But... the memory bandwidth is also nowhere else to be found, in any other CPU. So... the MacPro is a specific machine; it's really not a bad one. For people who need faster Networking / audio I/O / video I/O, etc... this is perfect. Much much better than any chassis limited by Thunderbolt. Any of the MacPro slots delivers more than any TB port. For GPUs ? I'm unclear on the need... and honestly, AMD and nVidia should do their job.
Actually Apple does prevent gpu drivers, Apple actually prevented Nvidia from creating drivers for macOS. It’s quite famous for being so petty
appleinsider.com/articles/19/01/18/apples-management-doesnt-want-nvidia-support-in-macos-and-thats-a-bad-sign-for-the-mac-pro/amp/
Secondly a Asahi Linux dev mentioned apple silicon doesn’t support dGPuUs at a hardware level like the raspberry pi.
Also don’t think anyone cares about the power consumption at the point of the highest end GPUs, the 4090 is a monster for anything from ML to AI training, to 3D rendering or codec mashing.
Nvidia was doing its job but Apple stopped that.
300 watt power supply I think is limiting.
@@Tigerex966 This is 300W in addition to what the slot provides. The PSU is still above 1 kW.
Yes we will blow together like duft punk
Pretty close to ideal though. Should work great.
Can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not
;)
@@dmug what?
It’s close to the ideal M series configuration. Why do you need a discrete GPU? It has slots for pcie SSD’s and sound cards.
This thing doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The only real difference with Studio is PCI-E expansion slots and these are totally pointless.
You can't use external GPU and everything you can use can also be connected via thunderbolt, there's literally 0 reason to buy this over Studio.
It's one of the most stupid products they ever made, maybe the most. Certainly the most expensive.
The last time i check Apple targets content creators with their pro variant computers and not the gaming community, so what's the purpose of making Apple's GPU vs Nvidia RTX 4090 comparisons.
Both AMD and Nvidia have much better compute, which is the backbone of many emerging technologies like ML and AI, as well as for codec mashing, physics modeling and even video compositing, as well as the more obvious like 3D graphics rendering. Apple’s GPUs are impressive when you look at per watt but the issue is that when you take the gloves off, the 4090 in OpenCL benchmarks is 3.5 times faster than the M1 ultra. Apple isn’t even as fast as the 2080 in OpenCL.
For creators, the 4090 mops the floor with whatever Apple has. :/
Plan to get one for our studio since you can load it up with pci SSDs and use it as a server to replace our Pegasus setup.
How many PCIe lanes do you get? If you have 2 16x cards in there, how do they perform for you?
Maybe it doesnt support GPUs because it doesn't need it. 76 core gpu. And to be fair it is 40K cheaper than the maxed out intel version. Still way over priced but cheaper.
The pricing is Apples to oranges as the intel Mac let you stack in a lot more upgrades, like 4x GPUs. Based on the geek bench metal compute, this will probably be about that of a 6800 XT if we’re lucky as the M1 ultra wasn’t exactly winning awards the gpu department.
The 4x media engine is extreme overkill but it should be a monster for the codecs it supports. I’ll be curious if Apple can (or willing) to bring AV1 support to it.
1:00 come you guys wanted this Mac Pro , you Silicon cracks heads wish for it. Tim Cook saw the numbers of you people buying the silicon Mac (M1 and M2). he was saying to himself they will buy it because it. has a Mx in it. I already they washing going support GPU (AMD/NVIDIA) anymore. They killed all relationship with Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, All major pc game Developers out there. I been saying for the start Silicon Mac suck, because you have no control over upgrades of your personal computer (hint in the wording). Even my Apple TV with Apple Arcade seems like a Nintendo wII with that Arcade splash screen
Is that 300 watts per 16 times slot or total system wattage.
If apple does not support their 2019 and amd gpu cards or pcie based ddr5 memory card adapters much faster than pcie ssds.
Then how can anyone trust this going forward all pro towers always allowed ram and GPU upgrades aside from the trash can pro having no GPU upgrades except through an egpu.
.seems like apple is doing that double now no gpu internal or external or memory upgrades.
And the SSD upgrades with apple in it or insanely expensive and not that fast for ten times price of mvne.
I am guessing apple will soon offer afterburner 3d graphic cards themselves specifically for apple silicon otherwise what's the use of a pro machine dated by the year it is released for it's GPU CPU and memory all soldered in place this give these machines an incredibly short life span like the trashcan man.
The 2019 and classic pro can still be upgraded to the latest osx and GPU memory and actually run some things better than apple silicon because of the upgradeability.
300w addition power outage between the one 8 pin and two 6 pin power connectors. PCie itself provides 75w per card. Modern GPUs often use two 8 pins at the base config (6900 XT, 7900 XT) and the OC versions or top versions often more. My 6900 XT in my Mac pro uses three 8 pin power cables and I think many of the 6950s and the 7900XTXs use some form of 3 power cables.
I highly doubt apple jammed in a 1400w PSU this go around, My guess is it's probably 850w range.
Why paying like $8K+ for Mac Pro while you can jusy get Mac Studio way cheaper and smaller factor? I dont see PCIe options are worth extra prices. Remember not every PCIe works on Mac Pro. You have buy specific from Apple which it also cost a lot. Mac Pro is waste potential now.
I'm a bit disappointed in some ways. Everything Apple is going strictly SoC and not upgradable. So the configuration is placed at the time of the order and that's the end of it. You get what you pay for. I don't know. I'm considering getting a Mac Studio probably the M1 Max version refurbished and be done with it. The Mac Pro is still a bit overpriced for what it is due to no upgradability whatsoever. I almost went for the 2019 Mac Pro but decided against it due to it being Intel-based system. As of now, I'm going to sit back and see how all of this will pan out. Then I will make my decision on what to do next.
similarish situation whenever Apple drops the Mac Pro 2019, I’ll probably just get the Max version of the studio or go strictly laptop. The later is probably the route I’ll go and be stuck buying a new laptop and selling the old one every few years.
The Mac Pro 2019 was a silly purchase for me but I justified it by selling off a lot of old hardware during the madness of the early pandemic which funded about 85% of the cost.
@@dmug Yeah I'm considering the laptop route as well. I feel that I get the refurbished Mac Studio and a refurbished M1 MacBook Pro 16 for mobility reasons and I will be set for a while without any concerns about Apple dropping support. I still have my monitor when I was using the Mac Pro 5,1. So I will pull that monitor out to use once I get a Mac Studio.
Those new MacPro’s you rather go buy a car 🚘
They can't scale the design because gluing more Apple CPU together require more links and it's really costly + more links means scalability isn't linear
Mac Pro is very small market and to specifically design dedicated CPU, GPU and Neuro engine doesn't make sense from cost perspective.
Apple SOC CPU is also very costly to produce, because of it's size, because there is very small amount of Apple CPU / wafer and add to that error during production and you get less usable CPUs / wafer.
Apple will probably change their design, because cost is very high for production large chips.
Maybe they can separate CPU, GPU and NeuroEngine as chiplets and connect them on 1 big package.
This will give advantage small chiplets for small devices, dedicated CPU/GPU/NeuroEngine for Mac Pro
There is a channel AdoreTV, which explains in details the production process of CPUs + rumors about AMD/Intel next gen production
As a longtime Mac person of 20+ years, (and currently a 2019 Mac Pro user like you) I think it's time to say goodbye to the Mac platform. I just don't see any logic in their product lineups anymore. I'll ride my Mac Pro as long as they support it with future macOS versions, then turn it into a Windows-only machine using bootcamp and install an NVIDIA GPU that should outperform whatever Apple Silicon Mac Pro they put out at that time.
I would've kissed Phil Schiller's or Jon Ternus's @$$ if they went really innovative and just announced an MPX module with an Apple Silicon SOC on it that could be plugged into the 2019 Mac Pro, maybe plug in two of them and fuse them together for even more power, and give the 2019 the best of both worlds (Intel & AS). Unfortunately, they're not even creative as a layman like me, so yeah, you can't innovate anymore. My @$$. They just think slapping on the best chip of the time is good enough. Pathetic...
Good luck getting Nvidia to run even in Windows mode.
Amd sure.
I find the M2 Ultra in general very much an overhyped and akward Product. The CPU side seems to be roughly on the level of an Intel Core i7 13700 (getting beaten by an i9 13900), which if you only care about CPU grunt you can easily get a build for under 1000$ going which than opens you up for further upgrades in the future. For the GPU as you mentioned it doesn't hold a candle to current gen AMD and Nvidia products either.
I think in the Desktop Workstation Space this whole "thightly integrated SoC" Philosophy really shows its cracks. For me as a Full Stack developer - what I need is CPU Power and RAM, first and foremost singlecore performance. The RTX 3070 level GPU in mac would never even get touched and I don't have any use for AI and Media accellerators. Or a video editor. Might probably not need nearly as much CPU Power but the biggest Media engine possible and plenty of storage.
I also think that the ongoing war between AMD and Intel has lead to incredible price to performance improvements in the x64 CPU space while Apple living in their own world probably doesn't help innovation and pricing long term.
Overall since Workstation use is very specific I think by basically upscaling the entire SoC stops making sense past the M1 Max.
That must be an unusual tool chain you have. Im a UX dev and full stack dev myself and my most rugged tool chain is 10 docker container setup that also requires node, and the usual browsers, IDE, slack and sketch. 32 GB of ram covers is it. Faster cpu is nice but there’s not a massive amount of productivity left on the table, even React Native where you’re forced into compiles isn’t exactly massively slowed by my computer. I might feel differently if I was a swift dev making heavy apps or doing a lot of ML but as a full stack? Nah.
I agree that Apple’s showing in the M2 ultra isn’t mind boggling as it’s bested by the 13900KS and compute wise is roughly that of a 3080 in OpenCL but there are quirks the unified memory and media engines that do make it an unusual entry. Apple’s high end desktops are underwhelming at best but the laptops continue to be top tier. It is funny though how most apple users seem wholly unaware of what’s happening on the pc side of things.
I wanted them to change it to a cube form factor and use min PCI-E cards. Not accepting external GPU's is expected. It's going to be a super niche product for those 10 or 20 people that might need it for legacy cards that still are running the 1990's Mac Pro. It is cheaper compared to the Intel version but lacks the ability to use the external GPU's so it should be cheaper than it is. The Studio makes so much more sense as an onset production computer. You could even edit footage on set as a production is filmed scene by scene. The mac pro makes no sense except as a pretty box for production houses to put by the receptionist's desk to impress clients as they enter the studio.
Thanks man! I've binged watched lots of your videos today (when I've discovered your channel)!
Regarding TH-cam revenue, how many views per month do you need in order to buy a Mac pro?
Thanks!
I'm not sure where TH-camrs like Luke Miani have so much money to spare on this high end devices
Still a bomb and can be expanded with pcie. The power is incredible
The level of cope from people worshipping at the feet of apple who dont actually know much about hardware but come up with more hilarious justifications for why this closed down hamstrung arm platform is "so much better" is comical. Keep it coming guys 😂
Firmly vowed to never own or use an iOS product since forever, and as the walls of the Apple prison grow ever higher and the company's endless miserable design decisions mount, I'm so very glad to be vowing never MxMac as well.
.....OK.....just buy a PC....get off of the Mac. See, I fixed it for you.
What’s wrong with you lot !!! I love my Mac, and I have this brilliant Mac Pro…
2023 Mac Pro
Apple M2 Ultra with 24-core CPU, 60-core GPU, 32‑core Neural Engine
64GB unified memory
Main Mac Storage 8TB SSD
With Two Separate PCIe Storage 24TB SSD
Great that it’s working for you but wouldn’t you agree it’s kinda messed up my Mac Pro 2019 has more ram and a much more powerful GPU than the best 2023 Mac Pro configuration and I was able to do it after the fact?
Outside of people who need large amounts of internal fast storage, there’s not much of an audience for this new Mac Pro.
@@dmug it is what it is at the end of the day. I had a 2019 Mac Pro this I loved but it broke but Apple kindly replaced it with my new 2023 Mac Pro and I love it even more
@@KainsTormentWell, I wouldn‘t complain about a free replacement, since it surely will have better future software support, but as long as my Intel Mac Pro works I‘ll stick with it and the software it runs best. Like bootcamp, for some gaming.